@ 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

@ 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

@ 502ab02a:a2860397

เฮียไม่แน่ใจว่าโลกยุคนี้มันเปลี่ยนไป หรือแค่เล่ห์กลมันแนบเนียนขึ้น แต่ที่แน่ ๆ คือ “อาหารไม่ใช่อาหารอีกต่อไป” มันกลายเป็นสินค้าในพอร์ตการลงทุน มันกลายเป็นเครื่องมือสร้างภาพลักษณ์ และในบางมุมที่คนไม่อยากมอง...มันคือเครื่องมือควบคุมมวลชน

ทุกอย่างเริ่มจากแนวคิดที่ดูดี “เราต้องผลิตอาหารให้พอเลี้ยงคน 8,000 ล้านคน” จากนั้นบริษัทเทคโนโลยีเริ่มกระโดดเข้ามา แทนที่จะให้เกษตรกรปลูกผักเลี้ยงวัว เรากลับได้เห็นบริษัทวิเคราะห์ดีเอ็นเอของจุลินทรีย์ แล้วขายโปรตีนจากถังหมัก แทนที่จะสนับสนุนอาหารพื้นบ้าน กลับอัดเงินให้สตาร์ทอัพทำเบอร์เกอร์ที่ไม่มีเนื้อจริงแม้แต่เส้นใยเดียว

เบื้องหลังมันมี “ทุน” และทุนเหล่านี้ไม่ใช่แค่ผู้ผลิตอาหาร แต่พ่วงไปถึงบริษัทยา บริษัทวัคซีน บริษัทเทคโนโลยี บางเจ้ามีทั้งบริษัทยา + ธุรกิจฟาร์มแมลง + บริษัทลงทุนในบริษัทวิจัยพันธุกรรม แปลว่า...คนที่ขายยาให้เฮียเวลาเฮียป่วย อาจเป็นคนเดียวกับที่ขาย "อาหารที่ทำให้เฮียป่วย" ตั้งแต่แรก ตลกร้ายไหมหล่ะ หึหึหึ

เคยมีใครสังเกตไหม ว่าองค์การระดับโลกบางองค์กรที่ส่งเสริม "เนื้อทางเลือก" และ "อาหารยั่งยืน" ได้รับเงินบริจาคหรืออยู่ภายใต้บอร์ดของบริษัทผลิตอาหารอุตสาหกรรมเจ้าใหญ่ไหมนะ แล้วคำว่า “วิทยาศาสตร์รองรับ” ที่ติดบนฉลากสวย ๆ เฮียไม่รู้หรอกว่าใครเป็นคนตีความ แต่ที่รู้แน่ ๆ คือ บทวิจัยจำนวนไม่น้อย มาจากทุนวิจัยที่สนับสนุนโดยอุตสาหกรรมอาหารเอง ดั่งเช่นที่เราเรียนรู้กันมาจากประวัติศาสตร์แล้ว

มีคนเคยพูดไว้ว่า “เราควบคุมคนด้วยอาหารง่ายกว่าด้วยอาวุธ” และเฮียเริ่มเชื่อขึ้นเรื่อย ๆ เพราะถ้าบริษัทใดบริษัทหนึ่ง ควบคุมได้ทั้งอาหาร ยา ข้อมูลสุขภาพ และการวิจัย นั่นหมายความว่า เขาไม่ได้ขายของให้เฮีย แต่เขากำหนดว่าเฮียควร “อยากกินอะไร” และ “รู้สึกผิดกับอะไร”

เหมือนที่ให้ลองจินตนาการเล่น ๆ เมื่อวาน สมมติเฮียไปร้านข้าวมันไก่ปากซอยแบบดั้งเดิม สั่งไก่ต้มไม่เอาข้าวมากิน แล้วแอปสุขภาพขึ้นข้อความเตือนว่า “ไขมันสูง ส่งผลต่อคะแนนสุขภาพคุณ” แต่ถ้าเฮียสั่งข้าวกล่องสำเร็จรูปอัจฉริยะจากโปรตีนที่หมักจากจุลินทรีย์ GMO ระบบจะบอกว่า “คุณกำลังช่วยลดโลกร้อน” แล้วเพิ่มคะแนนสุขภาพให้เราไปเป็นส่วนลดครั้งต่อไป

ใครนิยามคำว่า “ดี” ให้เฮีย?

เบื้องหลังอาหารจึงไม่ใช่แค่โรงงาน แต่มันคือโครงข่ายที่พัวพันตั้งแต่ห้องแล็บ ห้องบอร์ด ไปจนถึงห้องครัวในบ้านเรา แล้วถ้าเราไม่ตั้งคำถาม เฮียกลัวว่าเราจะไม่ได้กินในสิ่งที่ร่างกายต้องการ แต่กินในสิ่งที่ “ระบบ” ต้องการให้เรากิน

ขอบคุณล่วงหน้าที่มองว่าสิ่งนี้คือการ แพนิคไปเอง ขอให้มีสุขสวัสดิ์

#pirateketo #กูต้องรู้มั๊ย #ม้วนหางสิลูก #siamstr

@ a39d19ec:3d88f61e

Die Debatte um Migration, Grenzsicherung und Abschiebungen wird in Deutschland meist emotional geführt. Wer fordert, dass illegale Einwanderer abgeschoben werden, sieht sich nicht selten dem Vorwurf des Rassismus ausgesetzt. Doch dieser Vorwurf ist nicht nur sachlich unbegründet, sondern verkehrt die Realität ins Gegenteil: Tatsächlich sind es gerade diejenigen, die hinter jeder Forderung nach Rechtssicherheit eine rassistische Motivation vermuten, die selbst in erster Linie nach Hautfarbe, Herkunft oder Nationalität urteilen.

Das Recht steht über Emotionen

Deutschland ist ein Rechtsstaat. Das bedeutet, dass Regeln nicht nach Bauchgefühl oder politischer Stimmungslage ausgelegt werden können, sondern auf klaren gesetzlichen Grundlagen beruhen müssen. Einer dieser Grundsätze ist in Artikel 16a des Grundgesetzes verankert. Dort heißt es:

„Auf Absatz 1 [Asylrecht] kann sich nicht berufen, wer aus einem Mitgliedstaat der Europäischen Gemeinschaften oder aus einem anderen Drittstaat einreist, in dem die Anwendung des Abkommens über die Rechtsstellung der Flüchtlinge und der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention sichergestellt ist.“

Das bedeutet, dass jeder, der über sichere Drittstaaten nach Deutschland einreist, keinen Anspruch auf Asyl hat. Wer dennoch bleibt, hält sich illegal im Land auf und unterliegt den geltenden Regelungen zur Rückführung. Die Forderung nach Abschiebungen ist daher nichts anderes als die Forderung nach der Einhaltung von Recht und Gesetz.

Die Umkehrung des Rassismusbegriffs

Wer einerseits behauptet, dass das deutsche Asyl- und Aufenthaltsrecht strikt durchgesetzt werden soll, und andererseits nicht nach Herkunft oder Hautfarbe unterscheidet, handelt wertneutral. Diejenigen jedoch, die in einer solchen Forderung nach Rechtsstaatlichkeit einen rassistischen Unterton sehen, projizieren ihre eigenen Denkmuster auf andere: Sie unterstellen, dass die Debatte ausschließlich entlang ethnischer, rassistischer oder nationaler Kriterien geführt wird – und genau das ist eine rassistische Denkweise.

Jemand, der illegale Einwanderung kritisiert, tut dies nicht, weil ihn die Herkunft der Menschen interessiert, sondern weil er den Rechtsstaat respektiert. Hingegen erkennt jemand, der hinter dieser Kritik Rassismus wittert, offenbar in erster Linie die „Rasse“ oder Herkunft der betreffenden Personen und reduziert sie darauf.

Finanzielle Belastung statt ideologischer Debatte

Neben der rechtlichen gibt es auch eine ökonomische Komponente. Der deutsche Wohlfahrtsstaat basiert auf einem Solidarprinzip: Die Bürger zahlen in das System ein, um sich gegenseitig in schwierigen Zeiten zu unterstützen. Dieser Wohlstand wurde über Generationen hinweg von denjenigen erarbeitet, die hier seit langem leben. Die Priorität liegt daher darauf, die vorhandenen Mittel zuerst unter denjenigen zu verteilen, die durch Steuern, Sozialabgaben und Arbeit zum Erhalt dieses Systems beitragen – nicht unter denen, die sich durch illegale Einreise und fehlende wirtschaftliche Eigenleistung in das System begeben.

Das ist keine ideologische Frage, sondern eine rein wirtschaftliche Abwägung. Ein Sozialsystem kann nur dann nachhaltig funktionieren, wenn es nicht unbegrenzt belastet wird. Würde Deutschland keine klaren Regeln zur Einwanderung und Abschiebung haben, würde dies unweigerlich zur Überlastung des Sozialstaates führen – mit negativen Konsequenzen für alle.

Sozialpatriotismus

Ein weiterer wichtiger Aspekt ist der Schutz der Arbeitsleistung jener Generationen, die Deutschland nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg mühsam wieder aufgebaut haben. Während oft betont wird, dass die Deutschen moralisch kein Erbe aus der Zeit vor 1945 beanspruchen dürfen – außer der Verantwortung für den Holocaust –, ist es umso bedeutsamer, das neue Erbe nach 1945 zu respektieren, das auf Fleiß, Disziplin und harter Arbeit beruht. Der Wiederaufbau war eine kollektive Leistung deutscher Menschen, deren Früchte nicht bedenkenlos verteilt werden dürfen, sondern vorrangig denjenigen zugutekommen sollten, die dieses Fundament mitgeschaffen oder es über Generationen mitgetragen haben.

Rechtstaatlichkeit ist nicht verhandelbar

Wer sich für eine konsequente Abschiebepraxis ausspricht, tut dies nicht aus rassistischen Motiven, sondern aus Respekt vor der Rechtsstaatlichkeit und den wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen des Landes. Der Vorwurf des Rassismus in diesem Kontext ist daher nicht nur falsch, sondern entlarvt eine selektive Wahrnehmung nach rassistischen Merkmalen bei denjenigen, die ihn erheben.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

"Misterija Satoši - Poreklo bitkoina" je francuski dokumentarno-animirani serijal koji dešifruje unutrašnje funkcionisanje bitkoin revolucije, dok istražuje identitet njenog tvorca.

Prvu decentralizovanu i pouzdanu kriptovalutu – bitkoin, osnovao je Satoši Nakamoto 3. januara 2009. godine. On je nestao 2011. i od tada ostaje anoniman, a njegov identitet je predmet svakakvih spekulacija. Tokom poslednjih 12 godina, vrednost bitkoina je porasla sa 0,001 na 69.000 dolara. Svi, od vlada do velikih korporacija, zainteresovali su se za Satošijev izum. Ko je Satoši Nakamoto? Kako je njegov izum postao toliko popularan? Šta nam bitkoin govori o svetu u kome živimo?

Ovaj serijal se prikazivao na Radio-televiziji Srbije (RTS 3) u sklopu novogodišnjeg muzičkog i filmskog programa 2022/2023. godine.

Naslov originala: "Le Mystère Satoshi"

Copyright: , ARTE.TV

@ 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

@ a39d19ec:3d88f61e

Nun da das deutsche Bundesregime den Ruin Deutschlands beschlossen hat, der sehr wahrscheinlich mit dem Werkzeug des Geld druckens "finanziert" wird, kamen mir so viele Gedanken zur Geldmengenausweitung, dass ich diese für einmal niedergeschrieben habe.

Die Ausweitung der Geldmenge führt aus klassischer wirtschaftlicher Sicht immer zu Preissteigerungen, weil mehr Geld im Umlauf auf eine begrenzte Menge an Gütern trifft. Dies lässt sich in mehreren Schritten analysieren:

1. Quantitätstheorie des Geldes

Die klassische Gleichung der Quantitätstheorie des Geldes lautet:

M • V = P • Y

wobei:
- M die Geldmenge ist,
- V die Umlaufgeschwindigkeit des Geldes,
- P das Preisniveau,
- Y die reale Wirtschaftsleistung (BIP).

Wenn M steigt und V sowie Y konstant bleiben, muss P steigen – also Inflation entstehen.

2. Gütermenge bleibt begrenzt

Die Menge an real produzierten Gütern und Dienstleistungen wächst meist nur langsam im Vergleich zur Ausweitung der Geldmenge. Wenn die Geldmenge schneller steigt als die Produktionsgütermenge, führt dies dazu, dass mehr Geld für die gleiche Menge an Waren zur Verfügung steht – die Preise steigen.

3. Erwartungseffekte und Spekulation

Wenn Unternehmen und Haushalte erwarten, dass mehr Geld im Umlauf ist, da eine zentrale Planung es so wollte, können sie steigende Preise antizipieren. Unternehmen erhöhen ihre Preise vorab, und Arbeitnehmer fordern höhere Löhne. Dies kann eine sich selbst verstärkende Spirale auslösen.

4. Internationale Perspektive

Eine erhöhte Geldmenge kann die Währung abwerten, wenn andere Länder ihre Geldpolitik stabil halten. Eine schwächere Währung macht Importe teurer, was wiederum Preissteigerungen antreibt.

5. Kritik an der reinen Geldmengen-Theorie

Der Vollständigkeit halber muss erwähnt werden, dass die meisten modernen Ökonomen im Staatsauftrag argumentieren, dass Inflation nicht nur von der Geldmenge abhängt, sondern auch von der Nachfrage nach Geld (z. B. in einer Wirtschaftskrise). Dennoch zeigt die historische Erfahrung, dass eine unkontrollierte Geldmengenausweitung langfristig immer zu Preissteigerungen führt, wie etwa in der Hyperinflation der Weimarer Republik oder in Simbabwe.

@ 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

@ 0d97beae:c5274a14

This article hopes to complement the article by Lyn Alden on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk_HWmmwiAs

The reason why we have broken money

Before the invention of key technologies such as the printing press and electronic communications, even such as those as early as morse code transmitters, gold had won the competition for best medium of money around the world.

In fact, it was not just gold by itself that became money, rulers and world leaders developed coins in order to help the economy grow. Gold nuggets were not as easy to transact with as coins with specific imprints and denominated sizes.

However, these modern technologies created massive efficiencies that allowed us to communicate and perform services more efficiently and much faster, yet the medium of money could not benefit from these advancements. Gold was heavy, slow and expensive to move globally, even though requesting and performing services globally did not have this limitation anymore.

Banks took initiative and created derivatives of gold: paper and electronic money; these new currencies allowed the economy to continue to grow and evolve, but it was not without its dark side. Today, no currency is denominated in gold at all, money is backed by nothing and its inherent value, the paper it is printed on, is worthless too.

Banks and governments eventually transitioned from a money derivative to a system of debt that could be co-opted and controlled for political and personal reasons. Our money today is broken and is the cause of more expensive, poorer quality goods in the economy, a larger and ever growing wealth gap, and many of the follow-on problems that have come with it.

Bitcoin overcomes the "transfer of hard money" problem

Just like gold coins were created by man, Bitcoin too is a technology created by man. Bitcoin, however is a much more profound invention, possibly more of a discovery than an invention in fact. Bitcoin has proven to be unbreakable, incorruptible and has upheld its ability to keep its units scarce, inalienable and counterfeit proof through the nature of its own design.

Since Bitcoin is a digital technology, it can be transferred across international borders almost as quickly as information itself. It therefore severely reduces the need for a derivative to be used to represent money to facilitate digital trade. This means that as the currency we use today continues to fare poorly for many people, bitcoin will continue to stand out as hard money, that just so happens to work as well, functionally, along side it.

Bitcoin will also always be available to anyone who wishes to earn it directly; even China is unable to restrict its citizens from accessing it. The dollar has traditionally become the currency for people who discover that their local currency is unsustainable. Even when the dollar has become illegal to use, it is simply used privately and unofficially. However, because bitcoin does not require you to trade it at a bank in order to use it across borders and across the web, Bitcoin will continue to be a viable escape hatch until we one day hit some critical mass where the world has simply adopted Bitcoin globally and everyone else must adopt it to survive.

Bitcoin has not yet proven that it can support the world at scale. However it can only be tested through real adoption, and just as gold coins were developed to help gold scale, tools will be developed to help overcome problems as they arise; ideally without the need for another derivative, but if necessary, hopefully with one that is more neutral and less corruptible than the derivatives used to represent gold.

Bitcoin blurs the line between commodity and technology

Bitcoin is a technology, it is a tool that requires human involvement to function, however it surprisingly does not allow for any concentration of power. Anyone can help to facilitate Bitcoin's operations, but no one can take control of its behaviour, its reach, or its prioritisation, as it operates autonomously based on a pre-determined, neutral set of rules.

At the same time, its built-in incentive mechanism ensures that people do not have to operate bitcoin out of the good of their heart. Even though the system cannot be co-opted holistically, It will not stop operating while there are people motivated to trade their time and resources to keep it running and earn from others' transaction fees. Although it requires humans to operate it, it remains both neutral and sustainable.

Never before have we developed or discovered a technology that could not be co-opted and used by one person or faction against another. Due to this nature, Bitcoin's units are often described as a commodity; they cannot be usurped or virtually cloned, and they cannot be affected by political biases.

The dangers of derivatives

A derivative is something created, designed or developed to represent another thing in order to solve a particular complication or problem. For example, paper and electronic money was once a derivative of gold.

In the case of Bitcoin, if you cannot link your units of bitcoin to an "address" that you personally hold a cryptographically secure key to, then you very likely have a derivative of bitcoin, not bitcoin itself. If you buy bitcoin on an online exchange and do not withdraw the bitcoin to a wallet that you control, then you legally own an electronic derivative of bitcoin.

Bitcoin is a new technology. It will have a learning curve and it will take time for humanity to learn how to comprehend, authenticate and take control of bitcoin collectively. Having said that, many people all over the world are already using and relying on Bitcoin natively. For many, it will require for people to find the need or a desire for a neutral money like bitcoin, and to have been burned by derivatives of it, before they start to understand the difference between the two. Eventually, it will become an essential part of what we regard as common sense.

Learn for yourself

If you wish to learn more about how to handle bitcoin and avoid derivatives, you can start by searching online for tutorials about "Bitcoin self custody".

There are many options available, some more practical for you, and some more practical for others. Don't spend too much time trying to find the perfect solution; practice and learn. You may make mistakes along the way, so be careful not to experiment with large amounts of your bitcoin as you explore new ideas and technologies along the way. This is similar to learning anything, like riding a bicycle; you are sure to fall a few times, scuff the frame, so don't buy a high performance racing bike while you're still learning to balance.

@ 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

@ 37fe9853:bcd1b039

yoyoaa

@ 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

@ 62033ff8:e4471203

收录的内容中 kind=1的部分，实话说 质量不高。 所以我增加了kind=30023 长文的article，但是更新的太少，多个relays 的服务器也没有多少长文。

所有搜索nostr如果需要产生价值，需要有高质量的文章和新闻。 而且现在有很多机器人的文章充满着浪费空间的作用，其他作用都用不上。

https://www.duozhutuan.com 目前放的是给搜索引擎提供搜索的原材料。没有做UI给人类浏览。所以看上去是粗糙的。 我并没有打算去做一个发microblog的 web客户端，那类的客户端太多了。

我觉得nostr社区需要解决的还是应用。如果仅仅是microblog 感觉有点够呛

幸运的是npub.pro 建站这样的，我觉得有点意思。

yakihonne 智能widget 也有意思

我做的TaskQ5 我自己在用了。分布式的任务系统，也挺好的。

@ 23b0e2f8:d8af76fc

Necessário

• Um Android que você não use mais (a câmera deve estar funcionando).
• Um cartão microSD (opcional, usado apenas uma vez).
• Um dispositivo para acompanhar seus fundos (provavelmente você já tem um).

Algumas coisas que você precisa saber

• O dispositivo servirá como um assinador. Qualquer movimentação só será efetuada após ser assinada por ele.
• O cartão microSD será usado para transferir o APK do Electrum e garantir que o aparelho não terá contato com outras fontes de dados externas após sua formatação. Contudo, é possível usar um cabo USB para o mesmo propósito.
• A ideia é deixar sua chave privada em um dispositivo offline, que ficará desligado em 99% do tempo. Você poderá acompanhar seus fundos em outro dispositivo conectado à internet, como seu celular ou computador pessoal.

---

O tutorial será dividido em dois módulos:

• Módulo 1 - Criando uma carteira fria/assinador.
• Módulo 2 - Configurando um dispositivo para visualizar seus fundos e assinando transações com o assinador.

---

No final, teremos:

• Uma carteira fria que também servirá como assinador.
• Um dispositivo para acompanhar os fundos da carteira.

---

Módulo 1 - Criando uma carteira fria/assinador

1. Baixe o APK do Electrum na aba de downloads em https://electrum.org/. Fique à vontade para verificar as assinaturas do software, garantindo sua autenticidade.

2. Formate o cartão microSD e coloque o APK do Electrum nele. Caso não tenha um cartão microSD, pule este passo.

1. Retire os chips e acessórios do aparelho que será usado como assinador, formate-o e aguarde a inicialização.

1. Durante a inicialização, pule a etapa de conexão ao Wi-Fi e rejeite todas as solicitações de conexão. Após isso, você pode desinstalar aplicativos desnecessários, pois precisará apenas do Electrum. Certifique-se de que Wi-Fi, Bluetooth e dados móveis estejam desligados. Você também pode ativar o modo avião.\ (Curiosidade: algumas pessoas optam por abrir o aparelho e danificar a antena do Wi-Fi/Bluetooth, impossibilitando essas funcionalidades.)

1. Insira o cartão microSD com o APK do Electrum no dispositivo e instale-o. Será necessário permitir instalações de fontes não oficiais.

1. No Electrum, crie uma carteira padrão e gere suas palavras-chave (seed). Anote-as em um local seguro. Caso algo aconteça com seu assinador, essas palavras permitirão o acesso aos seus fundos novamente. (Aqui entra seu método pessoal de backup.)

---

Módulo 2 - Configurando um dispositivo para visualizar seus fundos e assinando transações com o assinador.

1. Criar uma carteira somente leitura em outro dispositivo, como seu celular ou computador pessoal, é uma etapa bastante simples. Para este tutorial, usaremos outro smartphone Android com Electrum. Instale o Electrum a partir da aba de downloads em https://electrum.org/ ou da própria Play Store. (ATENÇÃO: O Electrum não existe oficialmente para iPhone. Desconfie se encontrar algum.)

2. Após instalar o Electrum, crie uma carteira padrão, mas desta vez escolha a opção Usar uma chave mestra.

1. Agora, no assinador que criamos no primeiro módulo, exporte sua chave pública: vá em Carteira > Detalhes da carteira > Compartilhar chave mestra pública.

1. Escaneie o QR gerado da chave pública com o dispositivo de consulta. Assim, ele poderá acompanhar seus fundos, mas sem permissão para movimentá-los.

2. Para receber fundos, envie Bitcoin para um dos endereços gerados pela sua carteira: Carteira > Addresses/Coins.

3. Para movimentar fundos, crie uma transação no dispositivo de consulta. Como ele não possui a chave privada, será necessário assiná-la com o dispositivo assinador.

1. No assinador, escaneie a transação não assinada, confirme os detalhes, assine e compartilhe. Será gerado outro QR, desta vez com a transação já assinada.

1. No dispositivo de consulta, escaneie o QR da transação assinada e transmita-a para a rede.

---

Conclusão

Pontos positivos do setup:

• Simplicidade: Basta um dispositivo Android antigo.
• Flexibilidade: Funciona como uma ótima carteira fria, ideal para holders.

Pontos negativos do setup:

• Padronização: Não utiliza seeds no padrão BIP-39, você sempre precisará usar o electrum.
• Interface: A aparência do Electrum pode parecer antiquada para alguns usuários.

Nesse ponto, temos uma carteira fria que também serve para assinar transações. O fluxo de assinar uma transação se torna: Gerar uma transação não assinada > Escanear o QR da transação não assinada > Conferir e assinar essa transação com o assinador > Gerar QR da transação assinada > Escanear a transação assinada com qualquer outro dispositivo que possa transmiti-la para a rede.

Como alguns devem saber, uma transação assinada de Bitcoin é praticamente impossível de ser fraudada. Em um cenário catastrófico, você pode mesmo que sem internet, repassar essa transação assinada para alguém que tenha acesso à rede por qualquer meio de comunicação. Mesmo que não queiramos que isso aconteça um dia, esse setup acaba por tornar essa prática possível.

---

@ 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! 🌸

@ 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

@ 207ad2a0:e7cca7b0

Quick context: I wanted to check out Nostr's longform posts and this blog post seemed like a good one to try and mirror. It's originally from my free to read/share attempt to write a novel, but this post here is completely standalone - just describing how I used AI image generation to make a small piece of the work.

Hold on, put your pitchforks down - outside of using Grammerly & Emacs for grammatical corrections - not a single character was generated or modified by computers; a non-insignificant portion of my first draft originating on pen & paper. No AI is ~~weird and crazy~~ imaginative enough to write like I do. The only successful AI contribution you'll find is a single image, the map, which I heavily edited. This post will go over how I generated and modified an image using AI, which I believe brought some value to the work, and cover a few quick thoughts about AI towards the end.

Let's be clear, I can't draw, but I wanted a map which I believed would improve the story I was working on. After getting abysmal results by prompting AI with text only I decided to use "Diffuse the Rest," a Stable Diffusion tool that allows you to provide a reference image + description to fine tune what you're looking for. I gave it this Microsoft Paint looking drawing:

and after a number of outputs, selected this one to work on:

The image is way better than the one I provided, but had I used it as is, I still feel it would have decreased the quality of my work instead of increasing it. After firing up Gimp I cropped out the top and bottom, expanded the ocean and separated the landmasses, then copied the top right corner of the large landmass to replace the bottom left that got cut off. Now we've got something that looks like concept art: not horrible, and gets the basic idea across, but it's still due for a lot more detail.

The next thing I did was add some texture to make it look more map like. I duplicated the layer in Gimp and applied the "Cartoon" filter to both for some texture. The top layer had a much lower effect strength to give it a more textured look, while the lower layer had a higher effect strength that looked a lot like mountains or other terrain features. Creating a layer mask allowed me to brush over spots to display the lower layer in certain areas, giving it some much needed features.

At this point I'd made it to where I felt it may improve the work instead of detracting from it - at least after labels and borders were added, but the colors seemed artificial and out of place. Luckily, however, this is when PhotoFunia could step in and apply a sketch effect to the image.

At this point I was pretty happy with how it was looking, it was close to what I envisioned and looked very visually appealing while still being a good way to portray information. All that was left was to make the white background transparent, add some minor details, and add the labels and borders. Below is the exact image I wound up using:

Overall, I'm very satisfied with how it turned out, and if you're working on a creative project, I'd recommend attempting something like this. It's not a central part of the work, but it improved the chapter a fair bit, and was doable despite lacking the talent and not intending to allocate a budget to my making of a free to read and share story.

The AI Generated Elephant in the Room

If you've read my non-fiction writing before, you'll know that I think AI will find its place around the skill floor as opposed to the skill ceiling. As you saw with my input, I have absolutely zero drawing talent, but with some elbow grease and an existing creative direction before and after generating an image I was able to get something well above what I could have otherwise accomplished. Outside of the lowest common denominators like stock photos for the sole purpose of a link preview being eye catching, however, I doubt AI will be wholesale replacing most creative works anytime soon. I can assure you that I tried numerous times to describe the map without providing a reference image, and if I used one of those outputs (or even just the unedited output after providing the reference image) it would have decreased the quality of my work instead of improving it.

I'm going to go out on a limb and expect that AI image, text, and video is all going to find its place in slop & generic content (such as AI generated slop replacing article spinners and stock photos respectively) and otherwise be used in a supporting role for various creative endeavors. For people working on projects like I'm working on (e.g. intended budget $0) it's helpful to have an AI capable of doing legwork - enabling projects to exist or be improved in ways they otherwise wouldn't have. I'm also guessing it'll find its way into more professional settings for grunt work - think a picture frame or fake TV show that would exist in the background of an animated project - likely a detail most people probably wouldn't notice, but that would save the creators time and money and/or allow them to focus more on the essential aspects of said work. Beyond that, as I've predicted before: I expect plenty of emails will be generated from a short list of bullet points, only to be summarized by the recipient's AI back into bullet points.

I will also make a prediction counter to what seems mainstream: AI is about to peak for a while. The start of AI image generation was with Google's DeepDream in 2015 - image recognition software that could be run in reverse to "recognize" patterns where there were none, effectively generating an image from digital noise or an unrelated image. While I'm not an expert by any means, I don't think we're too far off from that a decade later, just using very fine tuned tools that develop more coherent images. I guess that we're close to maxing out how efficiently we're able to generate images and video in that manner, and the hard caps on how much creative direction we can have when using AI - as well as the limits to how long we can keep it coherent (e.g. long videos or a chronologically consistent set of images) - will prevent AI from progressing too far beyond what it is currently unless/until another breakthrough occurs.

@ e6817453:b0ac3c39

The Rise of Graph RAGs and the Quest for Data Quality

As we enter a new year, it’s impossible to ignore the boom of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems, particularly those leveraging graph-based approaches. The previous year saw a surge in advancements and discussions about Graph RAGs, driven by their potential to enhance large language models (LLMs), reduce hallucinations, and deliver more reliable outputs. Let’s dive into the trends, challenges, and strategies for making the most of Graph RAGs in artificial intelligence.

Booming Interest in Graph RAGs

Graph RAGs have dominated the conversation in AI circles. With new research papers and innovations emerging weekly, it’s clear that this approach is reshaping the landscape. These systems, especially those developed by tech giants like Microsoft, demonstrate how graphs can:

• Enhance LLM Outputs: By grounding responses in structured knowledge, graphs significantly reduce hallucinations.
• Support Complex Queries: Graphs excel at managing linked and connected data, making them ideal for intricate problem-solving.

Conferences on linked and connected data have increasingly focused on Graph RAGs, underscoring their central role in modern AI systems. However, the excitement around this technology has brought critical questions to the forefront: How do we ensure the quality of the graphs we’re building, and are they genuinely aligned with our needs?

Data Quality: The Foundation of Effective Graphs

A high-quality graph is the backbone of any successful RAG system. Constructing these graphs from unstructured data requires attention to detail and rigorous processes. Here’s why:

• Richness of Entities: Effective retrieval depends on graphs populated with rich, detailed entities.
• Freedom from Hallucinations: Poorly constructed graphs amplify inaccuracies rather than mitigating them.

Without robust data quality, even the most sophisticated Graph RAGs become ineffective. As a result, the focus must shift to refining the graph construction process. Improving data strategy and ensuring meticulous data preparation is essential to unlock the full potential of Graph RAGs.

Hybrid Graph RAGs and Variations

While standard Graph RAGs are already transformative, hybrid models offer additional flexibility and power. Hybrid RAGs combine structured graph data with other retrieval mechanisms, creating systems that:

• Handle diverse data sources with ease.
• Offer improved adaptability to complex queries.

Exploring these variations can open new avenues for AI systems, particularly in domains requiring structured and unstructured data processing.

Ontology: The Key to Graph Construction Quality

Ontology — defining how concepts relate within a knowledge domain — is critical for building effective graphs. While this might sound abstract, it’s a well-established field blending philosophy, engineering, and art. Ontology engineering provides the framework for:

• Defining Relationships: Clarifying how concepts connect within a domain.
• Validating Graph Structures: Ensuring constructed graphs are logically sound and align with domain-specific realities.

Traditionally, ontologists — experts in this discipline — have been integral to large enterprises and research teams. However, not every team has access to dedicated ontologists, leading to a significant challenge: How can teams without such expertise ensure the quality of their graphs?

How to Build Ontology Expertise in a Startup Team

For startups and smaller teams, developing ontology expertise may seem daunting, but it is achievable with the right approach:

1. Assign a Knowledge Champion: Identify a team member with a strong analytical mindset and give them time and resources to learn ontology engineering.
2. Provide Training: Invest in courses, workshops, or certifications in knowledge graph and ontology creation.
3. Leverage Partnerships: Collaborate with academic institutions, domain experts, or consultants to build initial frameworks.
4. Utilize Tools: Introduce ontology development tools like Protégé, OWL, or SHACL to simplify the creation and validation process.
5. Iterate with Feedback: Continuously refine ontologies through collaboration with domain experts and iterative testing.

So, it is not always affordable for a startup to have a dedicated oncologist or knowledge engineer in a team, but you could involve consulters or build barefoot experts.

You could read about barefoot experts in my article :

Even startups can achieve robust and domain-specific ontology frameworks by fostering in-house expertise.

How to Find or Create Ontologies

For teams venturing into Graph RAGs, several strategies can help address the ontology gap:

1. Leverage Existing Ontologies: Many industries and domains already have open ontologies. For instance:

2. Public Knowledge Graphs: Resources like Wikipedia’s graph offer a wealth of structured knowledge.

3. Industry Standards: Enterprises such as Siemens have invested in creating and sharing ontologies specific to their fields.

4. Business Framework Ontology (BFO): A valuable resource for enterprises looking to define business processes and structures.

5. Build In-House Expertise: If budgets allow, consider hiring knowledge engineers or providing team members with the resources and time to develop expertise in ontology creation.

6. Utilize LLMs for Ontology Construction: Interestingly, LLMs themselves can act as a starting point for ontology development:

7. Prompt-Based Extraction: LLMs can generate draft ontologies by leveraging their extensive training on graph data.

8. Domain Expert Refinement: Combine LLM-generated structures with insights from domain experts to create tailored ontologies.

Parallel Ontology and Graph Extraction

An emerging approach involves extracting ontologies and graphs in parallel. While this can streamline the process, it presents challenges such as:

• Detecting Hallucinations: Differentiating between genuine insights and AI-generated inaccuracies.
• Ensuring Completeness: Ensuring no critical concepts are overlooked during extraction.

Teams must carefully validate outputs to ensure reliability and accuracy when employing this parallel method.

LLMs as Ontologists

While traditionally dependent on human expertise, ontology creation is increasingly supported by LLMs. These models, trained on vast amounts of data, possess inherent knowledge of many open ontologies and taxonomies. Teams can use LLMs to:

• Generate Skeleton Ontologies: Prompt LLMs with domain-specific information to draft initial ontology structures.
• Validate and Refine Ontologies: Collaborate with domain experts to refine these drafts, ensuring accuracy and relevance.

However, for validation and graph construction, formal tools such as OWL, SHACL, and RDF should be prioritized over LLMs to minimize hallucinations and ensure robust outcomes.

Final Thoughts: Unlocking the Power of Graph RAGs

The rise of Graph RAGs underscores a simple but crucial correlation: improving graph construction and data quality directly enhances retrieval systems. To truly harness this power, teams must invest in understanding ontologies, building quality graphs, and leveraging both human expertise and advanced AI tools.

As we move forward, the interplay between Graph RAGs and ontology engineering will continue to shape the future of AI. Whether through adopting existing frameworks or exploring innovative uses of LLMs, the path to success lies in a deep commitment to data quality and domain understanding.

Have you explored these technologies in your work? Share your experiences and insights — and stay tuned for more discussions on ontology extraction and its role in AI advancements. Cheers to a year of innovation!

@ a4a6b584:1e05b95b

The Four-Layer Framework

Layer 1: Zoom Out

Start by looking at the big picture. What’s the subject about, and why does it matter? Focus on the overarching ideas and how they fit together. Think of this as the 30,000-foot view—it’s about understanding the "why" and "how" before diving into the "what."

Example: If you’re learning programming, start by understanding that it’s about giving logical instructions to computers to solve problems.

• Tip: Keep it simple. Summarize the subject in one or two sentences and avoid getting bogged down in specifics at this stage.

Once you have the big picture in mind, it’s time to start breaking it down.

---

Layer 2: Categorize and Connect

Now it’s time to break the subject into categories—like creating branches on a tree. This helps your brain organize information logically and see connections between ideas.

Example: Studying biology? Group concepts into categories like cells, genetics, and ecosystems.

• Tip: Use headings or labels to group similar ideas. Jot these down in a list or simple diagram to keep track.

With your categories in place, you’re ready to dive into the details that bring them to life.

---

Layer 3: Master the Details

Once you’ve mapped out the main categories, you’re ready to dive deeper. This is where you learn the nuts and bolts—like formulas, specific techniques, or key terminology. These details make the subject practical and actionable.

Example: In programming, this might mean learning the syntax for loops, conditionals, or functions in your chosen language.

• Tip: Focus on details that clarify the categories from Layer 2. Skip anything that doesn’t add to your understanding.

Now that you’ve mastered the essentials, you can expand your knowledge to include extra material.

---

Layer 4: Expand Your Horizons

Finally, move on to the extra material—less critical facts, trivia, or edge cases. While these aren’t essential to mastering the subject, they can be useful in specialized discussions or exams.

Example: Learn about rare programming quirks or historical trivia about a language’s development.

• Tip: Spend minimal time here unless it’s necessary for your goals. It’s okay to skim if you’re short on time.

---

Pro Tips for Better Learning

1. Use Active Recall and Spaced Repetition

Test yourself without looking at notes. Review what you’ve learned at increasing intervals—like after a day, a week, and a month. This strengthens memory by forcing your brain to actively retrieve information.

2. Map It Out

Create visual aids like diagrams or concept maps to clarify relationships between ideas. These are particularly helpful for organizing categories in Layer 2.

3. Teach What You Learn

Explain the subject to someone else as if they’re hearing it for the first time. Teaching exposes any gaps in your understanding and helps reinforce the material.

4. Engage with LLMs and Discuss Concepts

Take advantage of tools like ChatGPT or similar large language models to explore your topic in greater depth. Use these tools to:
- Ask specific questions to clarify confusing points.
- Engage in discussions to simulate real-world applications of the subject.
- Generate examples or analogies that deepen your understanding.

Tip: Use LLMs as a study partner, but don’t rely solely on them. Combine these insights with your own critical thinking to develop a well-rounded perspective.

---

Get Started

Ready to try the Four-Layer Method? Take 15 minutes today to map out the big picture of a topic you’re curious about—what’s it all about, and why does it matter? By building your understanding step by step, you’ll master the subject with less stress and more confidence.

@ fe32298e:20516265

Today I learned how to install NVapi to monitor my GPUs in Home Assistant.

NVApi is a lightweight API designed for monitoring NVIDIA GPU utilization and enabling automated power management. It provides real-time GPU metrics, supports integration with tools like Home Assistant, and offers flexible power management and PCIe link speed management based on workload and thermal conditions.

• GPU Utilization Monitoring: Utilization, memory usage, temperature, fan speed, and power consumption.
• Automated Power Limiting: Adjusts power limits dynamically based on temperature thresholds and total power caps, configurable per GPU or globally.
• Cross-GPU Coordination: Total power budget applies across multiple GPUs in the same system.
• PCIe Link Speed Management: Controls minimum and maximum PCIe link speeds with idle thresholds for power optimization.
• Home Assistant Integration: Uses the built-in RESTful platform and template sensors.

Getting the Data

sudo apt install golang-go git clone https://github.com/sammcj/NVApi.git cd NVapi go run main.go -port 9999 -rate 1 curl http://localhost:9999/gpu

Response for a single GPU: [ { "index": 0, "name": "NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090", "gpu_utilisation": 0, "memory_utilisation": 0, "power_watts": 16, "power_limit_watts": 450, "memory_total_gb": 23.99, "memory_used_gb": 0.46, "memory_free_gb": 23.52, "memory_usage_percent": 2, "temperature": 38, "processes": [], "pcie_link_state": "not managed" } ]

Response for multiple GPUs: [ { "index": 0, "name": "NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090", "gpu_utilisation": 0, "memory_utilisation": 0, "power_watts": 14, "power_limit_watts": 350, "memory_total_gb": 24, "memory_used_gb": 0.43, "memory_free_gb": 23.57, "memory_usage_percent": 2, "temperature": 36, "processes": [], "pcie_link_state": "not managed" }, { "index": 1, "name": "NVIDIA RTX A4000", "gpu_utilisation": 0, "memory_utilisation": 0, "power_watts": 10, "power_limit_watts": 140, "memory_total_gb": 15.99, "memory_used_gb": 0.56, "memory_free_gb": 15.43, "memory_usage_percent": 3, "temperature": 41, "processes": [], "pcie_link_state": "not managed" } ]

Start at Boot

Create /etc/systemd/system/nvapi.service:

``` [Unit] Description=Run NVapi After=network.target

[Service] Type=simple Environment="GOPATH=/home/ansible/go" WorkingDirectory=/home/ansible/NVapi ExecStart=/usr/bin/go run main.go -port 9999 -rate 1 Restart=always User=ansible

Environment="GPU_TEMP_CHECK_INTERVAL=5"

Environment="GPU_TOTAL_POWER_CAP=400"

Environment="GPU_0_LOW_TEMP=40"

Environment="GPU_0_MEDIUM_TEMP=70"

Environment="GPU_0_LOW_TEMP_LIMIT=135"

Environment="GPU_0_MEDIUM_TEMP_LIMIT=120"

Environment="GPU_0_HIGH_TEMP_LIMIT=100"

Environment="GPU_1_LOW_TEMP=45"

Environment="GPU_1_MEDIUM_TEMP=75"

Environment="GPU_1_LOW_TEMP_LIMIT=140"

Environment="GPU_1_MEDIUM_TEMP_LIMIT=125"

Environment="GPU_1_HIGH_TEMP_LIMIT=110"

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

Home Assistant

Add to Home Assistant configuration.yaml and restart HA (completely).

For a single GPU, this works: ``` sensor: - platform: rest name: MYPC GPU Information resource: http://mypc:9999 method: GET headers: Content-Type: application/json value_template: "{{ value_json[0].index }}" json_attributes: - name - gpu_utilisation - memory_utilisation - power_watts - power_limit_watts - memory_total_gb - memory_used_gb - memory_free_gb - memory_usage_percent - temperature scan_interval: 1 # seconds

• platform: template sensors: mypc_gpu_0_gpu: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} GPU" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'gpu_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_0_memory: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} Memory" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'memory_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_0_power: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} Power" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'power_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_0_power_limit: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} Power Limit" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'power_limit_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_0_temperature: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} Temperature" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'temperature') }}" unit_of_measurement: "°C" ```

For multiple GPUs: ``` rest: scan_interval: 1 resource: http://mypc:9999 sensor: - name: "MYPC GPU0 Information" value_template: "{{ value_json[0].index }}" json_attributes_path: "$.0" json_attributes: - name - gpu_utilisation - memory_utilisation - power_watts - power_limit_watts - memory_total_gb - memory_used_gb - memory_free_gb - memory_usage_percent - temperature - name: "MYPC GPU1 Information" value_template: "{{ value_json[1].index }}" json_attributes_path: "$.1" json_attributes: - name - gpu_utilisation - memory_utilisation - power_watts - power_limit_watts - memory_total_gb - memory_used_gb - memory_free_gb - memory_usage_percent - temperature

• platform: template sensors: mypc_gpu_0_gpu: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 GPU" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'gpu_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_0_memory: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 Memory" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'memory_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_0_power: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 Power" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'power_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_0_power_limit: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 Power Limit" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'power_limit_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_0_temperature: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 Temperature" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'temperature') }}" unit_of_measurement: "C"

• platform: template sensors: mypc_gpu_1_gpu: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 GPU" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'gpu_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_1_memory: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 Memory" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'memory_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_1_power: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 Power" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'power_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_1_power_limit: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 Power Limit" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'power_limit_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_1_temperature: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 Temperature" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'temperature') }}" unit_of_measurement: "C"

```

Basic entity card: type: entities entities: - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_gpu secondary_info: last-updated - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_memory secondary_info: last-updated - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_power secondary_info: last-updated - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_power_limit secondary_info: last-updated - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_temperature secondary_info: last-updated

Ansible Role

```

• name: install go become: true package: name: golang-go state: present

• name: git clone git: repo: "https://github.com/sammcj/NVApi.git" dest: "/home/ansible/NVapi" update: yes force: true

go run main.go -port 9999 -rate 1

• name: install systemd service become: true copy: src: nvapi.service dest: /etc/systemd/system/nvapi.service

• name: Reload systemd daemons, enable, and restart nvapi become: true systemd: name: nvapi daemon_reload: yes enabled: yes state: restarted ```

@ 6f6b50bb:a848e5a1

Che cosa significherebbe trattare l'IA come uno strumento invece che come una persona?

Dall’avvio di ChatGPT, le esplorazioni in due direzioni hanno preso velocità.

La prima direzione riguarda le capacità tecniche. Quanto grande possiamo addestrare un modello? Quanto bene può rispondere alle domande del SAT? Con quanta efficienza possiamo distribuirlo?

La seconda direzione riguarda il design dell’interazione. Come comunichiamo con un modello? Come possiamo usarlo per un lavoro utile? Quale metafora usiamo per ragionare su di esso?

La prima direzione è ampiamente seguita e enormemente finanziata, e per una buona ragione: i progressi nelle capacità tecniche sono alla base di ogni possibile applicazione. Ma la seconda è altrettanto cruciale per il campo e ha enormi incognite. Siamo solo a pochi anni dall’inizio dell’era dei grandi modelli. Quali sono le probabilità che abbiamo già capito i modi migliori per usarli?

Propongo una nuova modalità di interazione, in cui i modelli svolgano il ruolo di applicazioni informatiche (ad esempio app per telefoni): fornendo un’interfaccia grafica, interpretando gli input degli utenti e aggiornando il loro stato. In questa modalità, invece di essere un “agente” che utilizza un computer per conto dell’essere umano, l’IA può fornire un ambiente informatico più ricco e potente che possiamo utilizzare.

Metafore per l’interazione

Al centro di un’interazione c’è una metafora che guida le aspettative di un utente su un sistema. I primi giorni dell’informatica hanno preso metafore come “scrivanie”, “macchine da scrivere”, “fogli di calcolo” e “lettere” e le hanno trasformate in equivalenti digitali, permettendo all’utente di ragionare sul loro comportamento. Puoi lasciare qualcosa sulla tua scrivania e tornare a prenderlo; hai bisogno di un indirizzo per inviare una lettera. Man mano che abbiamo sviluppato una conoscenza culturale di questi dispositivi, la necessità di queste particolari metafore è scomparsa, e con esse i design di interfaccia skeumorfici che le rafforzavano. Come un cestino o una matita, un computer è ora una metafora di se stesso.

La metafora dominante per i grandi modelli oggi è modello-come-persona. Questa è una metafora efficace perché le persone hanno capacità estese che conosciamo intuitivamente. Implica che possiamo avere una conversazione con un modello e porgli domande; che il modello possa collaborare con noi su un documento o un pezzo di codice; che possiamo assegnargli un compito da svolgere da solo e che tornerà quando sarà finito.

Tuttavia, trattare un modello come una persona limita profondamente il nostro modo di pensare all’interazione con esso. Le interazioni umane sono intrinsecamente lente e lineari, limitate dalla larghezza di banda e dalla natura a turni della comunicazione verbale. Come abbiamo tutti sperimentato, comunicare idee complesse in una conversazione è difficile e dispersivo. Quando vogliamo precisione, ci rivolgiamo invece a strumenti, utilizzando manipolazioni dirette e interfacce visive ad alta larghezza di banda per creare diagrammi, scrivere codice e progettare modelli CAD. Poiché concepiamo i modelli come persone, li utilizziamo attraverso conversazioni lente, anche se sono perfettamente in grado di accettare input diretti e rapidi e di produrre risultati visivi. Le metafore che utilizziamo limitano le esperienze che costruiamo, e la metafora modello-come-persona ci impedisce di esplorare il pieno potenziale dei grandi modelli.

Per molti casi d’uso, e specialmente per il lavoro produttivo, credo che il futuro risieda in un’altra metafora: modello-come-computer.

Usare un’IA come un computer

Sotto la metafora modello-come-computer, interagiremo con i grandi modelli seguendo le intuizioni che abbiamo sulle applicazioni informatiche (sia su desktop, tablet o telefono). Nota che ciò non significa che il modello sarà un’app tradizionale più di quanto il desktop di Windows fosse una scrivania letterale. “Applicazione informatica” sarà un modo per un modello di rappresentarsi a noi. Invece di agire come una persona, il modello agirà come un computer.

Agire come un computer significa produrre un’interfaccia grafica. Al posto del flusso lineare di testo in stile telescrivente fornito da ChatGPT, un sistema modello-come-computer genererà qualcosa che somiglia all’interfaccia di un’applicazione moderna: pulsanti, cursori, schede, immagini, grafici e tutto il resto. Questo affronta limitazioni chiave dell’interfaccia di chat standard modello-come-persona:

• Scoperta. Un buon strumento suggerisce i suoi usi. Quando l’unica interfaccia è una casella di testo vuota, spetta all’utente capire cosa fare e comprendere i limiti del sistema. La barra laterale Modifica in Lightroom è un ottimo modo per imparare l’editing fotografico perché non si limita a dirti cosa può fare questa applicazione con una foto, ma cosa potresti voler fare. Allo stesso modo, un’interfaccia modello-come-computer per DALL-E potrebbe mostrare nuove possibilità per le tue generazioni di immagini.

• Efficienza. La manipolazione diretta è più rapida che scrivere una richiesta a parole. Per continuare l’esempio di Lightroom, sarebbe impensabile modificare una foto dicendo a una persona quali cursori spostare e di quanto. Ci vorrebbe un giorno intero per chiedere un’esposizione leggermente più bassa e una vibranza leggermente più alta, solo per vedere come apparirebbe. Nella metafora modello-come-computer, il modello può creare strumenti che ti permettono di comunicare ciò che vuoi più efficientemente e quindi di fare le cose più rapidamente.

A differenza di un’app tradizionale, questa interfaccia grafica è generata dal modello su richiesta. Questo significa che ogni parte dell’interfaccia che vedi è rilevante per ciò che stai facendo in quel momento, inclusi i contenuti specifici del tuo lavoro. Significa anche che, se desideri un’interfaccia più ampia o diversa, puoi semplicemente richiederla. Potresti chiedere a DALL-E di produrre alcuni preset modificabili per le sue impostazioni ispirati da famosi artisti di schizzi. Quando clicchi sul preset Leonardo da Vinci, imposta i cursori per disegni prospettici altamente dettagliati in inchiostro nero. Se clicchi su Charles Schulz, seleziona fumetti tecnicolor 2D a basso dettaglio.

Una bicicletta della mente proteiforme

La metafora modello-come-persona ha una curiosa tendenza a creare distanza tra l’utente e il modello, rispecchiando il divario di comunicazione tra due persone che può essere ridotto ma mai completamente colmato. A causa della difficoltà e del costo di comunicare a parole, le persone tendono a suddividere i compiti tra loro in blocchi grandi e il più indipendenti possibile. Le interfacce modello-come-persona seguono questo schema: non vale la pena dire a un modello di aggiungere un return statement alla tua funzione quando è più veloce scriverlo da solo. Con il sovraccarico della comunicazione, i sistemi modello-come-persona sono più utili quando possono fare un intero blocco di lavoro da soli. Fanno le cose per te.

Questo contrasta con il modo in cui interagiamo con i computer o altri strumenti. Gli strumenti producono feedback visivi in tempo reale e sono controllati attraverso manipolazioni dirette. Hanno un overhead comunicativo così basso che non è necessario specificare un blocco di lavoro indipendente. Ha più senso mantenere l’umano nel loop e dirigere lo strumento momento per momento. Come stivali delle sette leghe, gli strumenti ti permettono di andare più lontano a ogni passo, ma sei ancora tu a fare il lavoro. Ti permettono di fare le cose più velocemente.

Considera il compito di costruire un sito web usando un grande modello. Con le interfacce di oggi, potresti trattare il modello come un appaltatore o un collaboratore. Cercheresti di scrivere a parole il più possibile su come vuoi che il sito appaia, cosa vuoi che dica e quali funzionalità vuoi che abbia. Il modello genererebbe una prima bozza, tu la eseguirai e poi fornirai un feedback. “Fai il logo un po’ più grande”, diresti, e “centra quella prima immagine principale”, e “deve esserci un pulsante di login nell’intestazione”. Per ottenere esattamente ciò che vuoi, invierai una lista molto lunga di richieste sempre più minuziose.

Un’interazione alternativa modello-come-computer sarebbe diversa: invece di costruire il sito web, il modello genererebbe un’interfaccia per te per costruirlo, dove ogni input dell’utente a quell’interfaccia interroga il grande modello sotto il cofano. Forse quando descrivi le tue necessità creerebbe un’interfaccia con una barra laterale e una finestra di anteprima. All’inizio la barra laterale contiene solo alcuni schizzi di layout che puoi scegliere come punto di partenza. Puoi cliccare su ciascuno di essi, e il modello scrive l’HTML per una pagina web usando quel layout e lo visualizza nella finestra di anteprima. Ora che hai una pagina su cui lavorare, la barra laterale guadagna opzioni aggiuntive che influenzano la pagina globalmente, come accoppiamenti di font e schemi di colore. L’anteprima funge da editor WYSIWYG, permettendoti di afferrare elementi e spostarli, modificarne i contenuti, ecc. A supportare tutto ciò è il modello, che vede queste azioni dell’utente e riscrive la pagina per corrispondere ai cambiamenti effettuati. Poiché il modello può generare un’interfaccia per aiutare te e lui a comunicare più efficientemente, puoi esercitare più controllo sul prodotto finale in meno tempo.

La metafora modello-come-computer ci incoraggia a pensare al modello come a uno strumento con cui interagire in tempo reale piuttosto che a un collaboratore a cui assegnare compiti. Invece di sostituire un tirocinante o un tutor, può essere una sorta di bicicletta proteiforme per la mente, una che è sempre costruita su misura esattamente per te e il terreno che intendi attraversare.

Un nuovo paradigma per l’informatica?

I modelli che possono generare interfacce su richiesta sono una frontiera completamente nuova nell’informatica. Potrebbero essere un paradigma del tutto nuovo, con il modo in cui cortocircuitano il modello di applicazione esistente. Dare agli utenti finali il potere di creare e modificare app al volo cambia fondamentalmente il modo in cui interagiamo con i computer. Al posto di una singola applicazione statica costruita da uno sviluppatore, un modello genererà un’applicazione su misura per l’utente e le sue esigenze immediate. Al posto della logica aziendale implementata nel codice, il modello interpreterà gli input dell’utente e aggiornerà l’interfaccia utente. È persino possibile che questo tipo di interfaccia generativa sostituisca completamente il sistema operativo, generando e gestendo interfacce e finestre al volo secondo necessità.

All’inizio, l’interfaccia generativa sarà un giocattolo, utile solo per l’esplorazione creativa e poche altre applicazioni di nicchia. Dopotutto, nessuno vorrebbe un’app di posta elettronica che occasionalmente invia email al tuo ex e mente sulla tua casella di posta. Ma gradualmente i modelli miglioreranno. Anche mentre si spingeranno ulteriormente nello spazio di esperienze completamente nuove, diventeranno lentamente abbastanza affidabili da essere utilizzati per un lavoro reale.

Piccoli pezzi di questo futuro esistono già. Anni fa Jonas Degrave ha dimostrato che ChatGPT poteva fare una buona simulazione di una riga di comando Linux. Allo stesso modo, websim.ai utilizza un LLM per generare siti web su richiesta mentre li navighi. Oasis, GameNGen e DIAMOND addestrano modelli video condizionati sull’azione su singoli videogiochi, permettendoti di giocare ad esempio a Doom dentro un grande modello. E Genie 2 genera videogiochi giocabili da prompt testuali. L’interfaccia generativa potrebbe ancora sembrare un’idea folle, ma non è così folle.

Ci sono enormi domande aperte su come apparirà tutto questo. Dove sarà inizialmente utile l’interfaccia generativa? Come condivideremo e distribuiremo le esperienze che creiamo collaborando con il modello, se esistono solo come contesto di un grande modello? Vorremmo davvero farlo? Quali nuovi tipi di esperienze saranno possibili? Come funzionerà tutto questo in pratica? I modelli genereranno interfacce come codice o produrranno direttamente pixel grezzi?

Non conosco ancora queste risposte. Dovremo sperimentare e scoprirlo!Che cosa significherebbe trattare l'IA come uno strumento invece che come una persona?

Dall’avvio di ChatGPT, le esplorazioni in due direzioni hanno preso velocità.

La prima direzione riguarda le capacità tecniche. Quanto grande possiamo addestrare un modello? Quanto bene può rispondere alle domande del SAT? Con quanta efficienza possiamo distribuirlo?

La seconda direzione riguarda il design dell’interazione. Come comunichiamo con un modello? Come possiamo usarlo per un lavoro utile? Quale metafora usiamo per ragionare su di esso?

La prima direzione è ampiamente seguita e enormemente finanziata, e per una buona ragione: i progressi nelle capacità tecniche sono alla base di ogni possibile applicazione. Ma la seconda è altrettanto cruciale per il campo e ha enormi incognite. Siamo solo a pochi anni dall’inizio dell’era dei grandi modelli. Quali sono le probabilità che abbiamo già capito i modi migliori per usarli?

Propongo una nuova modalità di interazione, in cui i modelli svolgano il ruolo di applicazioni informatiche (ad esempio app per telefoni): fornendo un’interfaccia grafica, interpretando gli input degli utenti e aggiornando il loro stato. In questa modalità, invece di essere un “agente” che utilizza un computer per conto dell’essere umano, l’IA può fornire un ambiente informatico più ricco e potente che possiamo utilizzare.

Metafore per l’interazione

Al centro di un’interazione c’è una metafora che guida le aspettative di un utente su un sistema. I primi giorni dell’informatica hanno preso metafore come “scrivanie”, “macchine da scrivere”, “fogli di calcolo” e “lettere” e le hanno trasformate in equivalenti digitali, permettendo all’utente di ragionare sul loro comportamento. Puoi lasciare qualcosa sulla tua scrivania e tornare a prenderlo; hai bisogno di un indirizzo per inviare una lettera. Man mano che abbiamo sviluppato una conoscenza culturale di questi dispositivi, la necessità di queste particolari metafore è scomparsa, e con esse i design di interfaccia skeumorfici che le rafforzavano. Come un cestino o una matita, un computer è ora una metafora di se stesso.

La metafora dominante per i grandi modelli oggi è modello-come-persona. Questa è una metafora efficace perché le persone hanno capacità estese che conosciamo intuitivamente. Implica che possiamo avere una conversazione con un modello e porgli domande; che il modello possa collaborare con noi su un documento o un pezzo di codice; che possiamo assegnargli un compito da svolgere da solo e che tornerà quando sarà finito.

Tuttavia, trattare un modello come una persona limita profondamente il nostro modo di pensare all’interazione con esso. Le interazioni umane sono intrinsecamente lente e lineari, limitate dalla larghezza di banda e dalla natura a turni della comunicazione verbale. Come abbiamo tutti sperimentato, comunicare idee complesse in una conversazione è difficile e dispersivo. Quando vogliamo precisione, ci rivolgiamo invece a strumenti, utilizzando manipolazioni dirette e interfacce visive ad alta larghezza di banda per creare diagrammi, scrivere codice e progettare modelli CAD. Poiché concepiamo i modelli come persone, li utilizziamo attraverso conversazioni lente, anche se sono perfettamente in grado di accettare input diretti e rapidi e di produrre risultati visivi. Le metafore che utilizziamo limitano le esperienze che costruiamo, e la metafora modello-come-persona ci impedisce di esplorare il pieno potenziale dei grandi modelli.

Per molti casi d’uso, e specialmente per il lavoro produttivo, credo che il futuro risieda in un’altra metafora: modello-come-computer.

Usare un’IA come un computer

Sotto la metafora modello-come-computer, interagiremo con i grandi modelli seguendo le intuizioni che abbiamo sulle applicazioni informatiche (sia su desktop, tablet o telefono). Nota che ciò non significa che il modello sarà un’app tradizionale più di quanto il desktop di Windows fosse una scrivania letterale. “Applicazione informatica” sarà un modo per un modello di rappresentarsi a noi. Invece di agire come una persona, il modello agirà come un computer.

Agire come un computer significa produrre un’interfaccia grafica. Al posto del flusso lineare di testo in stile telescrivente fornito da ChatGPT, un sistema modello-come-computer genererà qualcosa che somiglia all’interfaccia di un’applicazione moderna: pulsanti, cursori, schede, immagini, grafici e tutto il resto. Questo affronta limitazioni chiave dell’interfaccia di chat standard modello-come-persona:

Scoperta. Un buon strumento suggerisce i suoi usi. Quando l’unica interfaccia è una casella di testo vuota, spetta all’utente capire cosa fare e comprendere i limiti del sistema. La barra laterale Modifica in Lightroom è un ottimo modo per imparare l’editing fotografico perché non si limita a dirti cosa può fare questa applicazione con una foto, ma cosa potresti voler fare. Allo stesso modo, un’interfaccia modello-come-computer per DALL-E potrebbe mostrare nuove possibilità per le tue generazioni di immagini.

Efficienza. La manipolazione diretta è più rapida che scrivere una richiesta a parole. Per continuare l’esempio di Lightroom, sarebbe impensabile modificare una foto dicendo a una persona quali cursori spostare e di quanto. Ci vorrebbe un giorno intero per chiedere un’esposizione leggermente più bassa e una vibranza leggermente più alta, solo per vedere come apparirebbe. Nella metafora modello-come-computer, il modello può creare strumenti che ti permettono di comunicare ciò che vuoi più efficientemente e quindi di fare le cose più rapidamente.

A differenza di un’app tradizionale, questa interfaccia grafica è generata dal modello su richiesta. Questo significa che ogni parte dell’interfaccia che vedi è rilevante per ciò che stai facendo in quel momento, inclusi i contenuti specifici del tuo lavoro. Significa anche che, se desideri un’interfaccia più ampia o diversa, puoi semplicemente richiederla. Potresti chiedere a DALL-E di produrre alcuni preset modificabili per le sue impostazioni ispirati da famosi artisti di schizzi. Quando clicchi sul preset Leonardo da Vinci, imposta i cursori per disegni prospettici altamente dettagliati in inchiostro nero. Se clicchi su Charles Schulz, seleziona fumetti tecnicolor 2D a basso dettaglio.

Una bicicletta della mente proteiforme

La metafora modello-come-persona ha una curiosa tendenza a creare distanza tra l’utente e il modello, rispecchiando il divario di comunicazione tra due persone che può essere ridotto ma mai completamente colmato. A causa della difficoltà e del costo di comunicare a parole, le persone tendono a suddividere i compiti tra loro in blocchi grandi e il più indipendenti possibile. Le interfacce modello-come-persona seguono questo schema: non vale la pena dire a un modello di aggiungere un return statement alla tua funzione quando è più veloce scriverlo da solo. Con il sovraccarico della comunicazione, i sistemi modello-come-persona sono più utili quando possono fare un intero blocco di lavoro da soli. Fanno le cose per te.

Questo contrasta con il modo in cui interagiamo con i computer o altri strumenti. Gli strumenti producono feedback visivi in tempo reale e sono controllati attraverso manipolazioni dirette. Hanno un overhead comunicativo così basso che non è necessario specificare un blocco di lavoro indipendente. Ha più senso mantenere l’umano nel loop e dirigere lo strumento momento per momento. Come stivali delle sette leghe, gli strumenti ti permettono di andare più lontano a ogni passo, ma sei ancora tu a fare il lavoro. Ti permettono di fare le cose più velocemente.

Considera il compito di costruire un sito web usando un grande modello. Con le interfacce di oggi, potresti trattare il modello come un appaltatore o un collaboratore. Cercheresti di scrivere a parole il più possibile su come vuoi che il sito appaia, cosa vuoi che dica e quali funzionalità vuoi che abbia. Il modello genererebbe una prima bozza, tu la eseguirai e poi fornirai un feedback. “Fai il logo un po’ più grande”, diresti, e “centra quella prima immagine principale”, e “deve esserci un pulsante di login nell’intestazione”. Per ottenere esattamente ciò che vuoi, invierai una lista molto lunga di richieste sempre più minuziose.

Un’interazione alternativa modello-come-computer sarebbe diversa: invece di costruire il sito web, il modello genererebbe un’interfaccia per te per costruirlo, dove ogni input dell’utente a quell’interfaccia interroga il grande modello sotto il cofano. Forse quando descrivi le tue necessità creerebbe un’interfaccia con una barra laterale e una finestra di anteprima. All’inizio la barra laterale contiene solo alcuni schizzi di layout che puoi scegliere come punto di partenza. Puoi cliccare su ciascuno di essi, e il modello scrive l’HTML per una pagina web usando quel layout e lo visualizza nella finestra di anteprima. Ora che hai una pagina su cui lavorare, la barra laterale guadagna opzioni aggiuntive che influenzano la pagina globalmente, come accoppiamenti di font e schemi di colore. L’anteprima funge da editor WYSIWYG, permettendoti di afferrare elementi e spostarli, modificarne i contenuti, ecc. A supportare tutto ciò è il modello, che vede queste azioni dell’utente e riscrive la pagina per corrispondere ai cambiamenti effettuati. Poiché il modello può generare un’interfaccia per aiutare te e lui a comunicare più efficientemente, puoi esercitare più controllo sul prodotto finale in meno tempo.

La metafora modello-come-computer ci incoraggia a pensare al modello come a uno strumento con cui interagire in tempo reale piuttosto che a un collaboratore a cui assegnare compiti. Invece di sostituire un tirocinante o un tutor, può essere una sorta di bicicletta proteiforme per la mente, una che è sempre costruita su misura esattamente per te e il terreno che intendi attraversare.

Un nuovo paradigma per l’informatica?

I modelli che possono generare interfacce su richiesta sono una frontiera completamente nuova nell’informatica. Potrebbero essere un paradigma del tutto nuovo, con il modo in cui cortocircuitano il modello di applicazione esistente. Dare agli utenti finali il potere di creare e modificare app al volo cambia fondamentalmente il modo in cui interagiamo con i computer. Al posto di una singola applicazione statica costruita da uno sviluppatore, un modello genererà un’applicazione su misura per l’utente e le sue esigenze immediate. Al posto della logica aziendale implementata nel codice, il modello interpreterà gli input dell’utente e aggiornerà l’interfaccia utente. È persino possibile che questo tipo di interfaccia generativa sostituisca completamente il sistema operativo, generando e gestendo interfacce e finestre al volo secondo necessità.

All’inizio, l’interfaccia generativa sarà un giocattolo, utile solo per l’esplorazione creativa e poche altre applicazioni di nicchia. Dopotutto, nessuno vorrebbe un’app di posta elettronica che occasionalmente invia email al tuo ex e mente sulla tua casella di posta. Ma gradualmente i modelli miglioreranno. Anche mentre si spingeranno ulteriormente nello spazio di esperienze completamente nuove, diventeranno lentamente abbastanza affidabili da essere utilizzati per un lavoro reale.

Piccoli pezzi di questo futuro esistono già. Anni fa Jonas Degrave ha dimostrato che ChatGPT poteva fare una buona simulazione di una riga di comando Linux. Allo stesso modo, websim.ai utilizza un LLM per generare siti web su richiesta mentre li navighi. Oasis, GameNGen e DIAMOND addestrano modelli video condizionati sull’azione su singoli videogiochi, permettendoti di giocare ad esempio a Doom dentro un grande modello. E Genie 2 genera videogiochi giocabili da prompt testuali. L’interfaccia generativa potrebbe ancora sembrare un’idea folle, ma non è così folle.

Ci sono enormi domande aperte su come apparirà tutto questo. Dove sarà inizialmente utile l’interfaccia generativa? Come condivideremo e distribuiremo le esperienze che creiamo collaborando con il modello, se esistono solo come contesto di un grande modello? Vorremmo davvero farlo? Quali nuovi tipi di esperienze saranno possibili? Come funzionerà tutto questo in pratica? I modelli genereranno interfacce come codice o produrranno direttamente pixel grezzi?

Non conosco ancora queste risposte. Dovremo sperimentare e scoprirlo!

Tradotto da:\ https://willwhitney.com/computing-inside-ai.htmlhttps://willwhitney.com/computing-inside-ai.html

@ 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

@ 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.

@ e6817453:b0ac3c39

I started a long series of articles about how to model different types of knowledge graphs in the relational model, which makes on-device memory models for AI agents possible.

We model-directed graphs

Also, graphs of entities

We even model hypergraphs

Last time, we discussed why classical triple and simple knowledge graphs are insufficient for AI agents and complex memory, especially in the domain of time-aware or multi-model knowledge.

So why do we need metagraphs, and what kind of challenge could they help us to solve?

• complex and nested event and temporal context and temporal relations as edges
• multi-mode and multilingual knowledge
• human-like memory for AI agents that has multiple contexts and relations between knowledge in neuron-like networks

MetaGraphs

A meta graph is a concept that extends the idea of a graph by allowing edges to become graphs. Meta Edges connect a set of nodes, which could also be subgraphs. So, at some level, node and edge are pretty similar in properties but act in different roles in a different context.
Also, in some cases, edges could be referenced as nodes.
This approach enables the representation of more complex relationships and hierarchies than a traditional graph structure allows. Let’s break down each term to understand better metagraphs and how they differ from hypergraphs and graphs.

Graph Basics

• A standard graph has a set of nodes (or vertices) and edges (connections between nodes).
• Edges are generally simple and typically represent a binary relationship between two nodes.
• For instance, an edge in a social network graph might indicate a “friend” relationship between two people (nodes).

Hypergraph

• A hypergraph extends the concept of an edge by allowing it to connect any number of nodes, not just two.
• Each connection, called a hyperedge, can link multiple nodes.
• This feature allows hypergraphs to model more complex relationships involving multiple entities simultaneously. For example, a hyperedge in a hypergraph could represent a project team, connecting all team members in a single relation.
• Despite its flexibility, a hypergraph doesn’t capture hierarchical or nested structures; it only generalizes the number of connections in an edge.

Metagraph

• A metagraph allows the edges to be graphs themselves. This means each edge can contain its own nodes and edges, creating nested, hierarchical structures.
• In a meta graph, an edge could represent a relationship defined by a graph. For instance, a meta graph could represent a network of organizations where each organization’s structure (departments and connections) is represented by its own internal graph and treated as an edge in the larger meta graph.
• This recursive structure allows metagraphs to model complex data with multiple layers of abstraction. They can capture multi-node relationships (as in hypergraphs) and detailed, structured information about each relationship.

Named Graphs and Graph of Graphs

As you can notice, the structure of a metagraph is quite complex and could be complex to model in relational and classical RDF setups. It could create a challenge of luck of tools and software solutions for your problem.
If you need to model nested graphs, you could use a much simpler model of Named graphs, which could take you quite far.

The concept of the named graph came from the RDF community, which needed to group some sets of triples. In this way, you form subgraphs inside an existing graph. You could refer to the subgraph as a regular node. This setup simplifies complex graphs, introduces hierarchies, and even adds features and properties of hypergraphs while keeping a directed nature.

It looks complex, but it is not so hard to model it with a slight modification of a directed graph.
So, the node could host graphs inside. Let's reflect this fact with a location for a node. If a node belongs to a main graph, we could set the location to null or introduce a main node . it is up to you

Nodes could have edges to nodes in different subgraphs. This structure allows any kind of nesting graphs. Edges stay location-free

Meta Graphs in Relational Model

Let’s try to make several attempts to model different meta-graphs with some constraints.

Directed Metagraph where edges are not used as nodes and could not contain subgraphs

In this case, the edge always points to two sets of nodes. This introduces an overhead of creating a node set for a single node. In this model, we can model empty node sets that could require application-level constraints to prevent such cases.

Directed Metagraph where edges are not used as nodes and could contain subgraphs

Adding a node set that could model a subgraph located in an edge is easy but could be separate from in-vertex or out-vert.
I also do not see a direct need to include subgraphs to a node, as we could just use a node set interchangeably, but it still could be a case.

Directed Metagraph where edges are used as nodes and could contain subgraphs

As you can notice, we operate all the time with node sets. We could simply allow the extension node set to elements set that include node and edge IDs, but in this case, we need to use uuid or any other strategy to differentiate node IDs from edge IDs. In this case, we have a collision of ephemeral edges or ephemeral nodes when we want to change the role and purpose of the node as an edge or vice versa.

A full-scale metagraph model is way too complex for a relational database.
So we need a better model.

Now, we have more flexibility but loose structural constraints. We cannot show that the element should have one vertex, one vertex, or both. This type of constraint has been moved to the application level. Also, the crucial question is about query and retrieval needs.
Any meta-graph model should be more focused on domain and needs and should be used in raw form. We did it for a pure theoretical purpose.

@ e6817453:b0ac3c39

Hey folks! Today, let’s dive into the intriguing world of neurosymbolic approaches, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and personal knowledge graphs (PKGs). Together, these concepts hold much potential for bringing true reasoning capabilities to large language models (LLMs). So, let’s break down how symbolic logic, knowledge graphs, and modern AI can come together to empower future AI systems to reason like humans.

The Neurosymbolic Approach: What It Means ?

Neurosymbolic AI combines two historically separate streams of artificial intelligence: symbolic reasoning and neural networks. Symbolic AI uses formal logic to process knowledge, similar to how we might solve problems or deduce information. On the other hand, neural networks, like those underlying GPT-4, focus on learning patterns from vast amounts of data — they are probabilistic statistical models that excel in generating human-like language and recognizing patterns but often lack deep, explicit reasoning.

While GPT-4 can produce impressive text, it’s still not very effective at reasoning in a truly logical way. Its foundation, transformers, allows it to excel in pattern recognition, but the models struggle with reasoning because, at their core, they rely on statistical probabilities rather than true symbolic logic. This is where neurosymbolic methods and knowledge graphs come in.

Symbolic Calculations and the Early Vision of AI

If we take a step back to the 1950s, the vision for artificial intelligence was very different. Early AI research was all about symbolic reasoning — where computers could perform logical calculations to derive new knowledge from a given set of rules and facts. Languages like Lisp emerged to support this vision, enabling programs to represent data and code as interchangeable symbols. Lisp was designed to be homoiconic, meaning it treated code as manipulatable data, making it capable of self-modification — a huge leap towards AI systems that could, in theory, understand and modify their own operations.

Lisp: The Earlier AI-Language

Lisp, short for “LISt Processor,” was developed by John McCarthy in 1958, and it became the cornerstone of early AI research. Lisp’s power lay in its flexibility and its use of symbolic expressions, which allowed developers to create programs that could manipulate symbols in ways that were very close to human reasoning. One of the most groundbreaking features of Lisp was its ability to treat code as data, known as homoiconicity, which meant that Lisp programs could introspect and transform themselves dynamically. This ability to adapt and modify its own structure gave Lisp an edge in tasks that required a form of self-awareness, which was key in the early days of AI when researchers were exploring what it meant for machines to “think.”

Lisp was not just a programming language—it represented the vision for artificial intelligence, where machines could evolve their understanding and rewrite their own programming. This idea formed the conceptual basis for many of the self-modifying and adaptive algorithms that are still explored today in AI research. Despite its decline in mainstream programming, Lisp’s influence can still be seen in the concepts used in modern machine learning and symbolic AI approaches.

Prolog: Formal Logic and Deductive Reasoning

In the 1970s, Prolog was developed—a language focused on formal logic and deductive reasoning. Unlike Lisp, based on lambda calculus, Prolog operates on formal logic rules, allowing it to perform deductive reasoning and solve logical puzzles. This made Prolog an ideal candidate for expert systems that needed to follow a sequence of logical steps, such as medical diagnostics or strategic planning.

Prolog, like Lisp, allowed symbols to be represented, understood, and used in calculations, creating another homoiconic language that allows reasoning. Prolog’s strength lies in its rule-based structure, which is well-suited for tasks that require logical inference and backtracking. These features made it a powerful tool for expert systems and AI research in the 1970s and 1980s.

The language is declarative in nature, meaning that you define the problem, and Prolog figures out how to solve it. By using formal logic and setting constraints, Prolog systems can derive conclusions from known facts, making it highly effective in fields requiring explicit logical frameworks, such as legal reasoning, diagnostics, and natural language understanding. These symbolic approaches were later overshadowed during the AI winter — but the ideas never really disappeared. They just evolved.

Solvers and Their Role in Complementing LLMs

One of the most powerful features of Prolog and similar logic-based systems is their use of solvers. Solvers are mechanisms that can take a set of rules and constraints and automatically find solutions that satisfy these conditions. This capability is incredibly useful when combined with LLMs, which excel at generating human-like language but need help with logical consistency and structured reasoning.

For instance, imagine a scenario where an LLM needs to answer a question involving multiple logical steps or a complex query that requires deducing facts from various pieces of information. In this case, a solver can derive valid conclusions based on a given set of logical rules, providing structured answers that the LLM can then articulate in natural language. This allows the LLM to retrieve information and ensure the logical integrity of its responses, leading to much more robust answers.

Solvers are also ideal for handling constraint satisfaction problems — situations where multiple conditions must be met simultaneously. In practical applications, this could include scheduling tasks, generating optimal recommendations, or even diagnosing issues where a set of symptoms must match possible diagnoses. Prolog’s solver capabilities and LLM’s natural language processing power can make these systems highly effective at providing intelligent, rule-compliant responses that traditional LLMs would struggle to produce alone.

By integrating neurosymbolic methods that utilize solvers, we can provide LLMs with a form of deductive reasoning that is missing from pure deep-learning approaches. This combination has the potential to significantly improve the quality of outputs for use-cases that require explicit, structured problem-solving, from legal queries to scientific research and beyond. Solvers give LLMs the backbone they need to not just generate answers but to do so in a way that respects logical rigor and complex constraints.

Graph of Rules for Enhanced Reasoning

Another powerful concept that complements LLMs is using a graph of rules. A graph of rules is essentially a structured collection of logical rules that interconnect in a network-like structure, defining how various entities and their relationships interact. This structured network allows for complex reasoning and information retrieval, as well as the ability to model intricate relationships between different pieces of knowledge.

In a graph of rules, each node represents a rule, and the edges define relationships between those rules — such as dependencies or causal links. This structure can be used to enhance LLM capabilities by providing them with a formal set of rules and relationships to follow, which improves logical consistency and reasoning depth. When an LLM encounters a problem or a question that requires multiple logical steps, it can traverse this graph of rules to generate an answer that is not only linguistically fluent but also logically robust.

For example, in a healthcare application, a graph of rules might include nodes for medical symptoms, possible diagnoses, and recommended treatments. When an LLM receives a query regarding a patient’s symptoms, it can use the graph to traverse from symptoms to potential diagnoses and then to treatment options, ensuring that the response is coherent and medically sound. The graph of rules guides reasoning, enabling LLMs to handle complex, multi-step questions that involve chains of reasoning, rather than merely generating surface-level responses.

Graphs of rules also enable modular reasoning, where different sets of rules can be activated based on the context or the type of question being asked. This modularity is crucial for creating adaptive AI systems that can apply specific sets of logical frameworks to distinct problem domains, thereby greatly enhancing their versatility. The combination of neural fluency with rule-based structure gives LLMs the ability to conduct more advanced reasoning, ultimately making them more reliable and effective in domains where accuracy and logical consistency are critical.

By implementing a graph of rules, LLMs are empowered to perform deductive reasoning alongside their generative capabilities, creating responses that are not only compelling but also logically aligned with the structured knowledge available in the system. This further enhances their potential applications in fields such as law, engineering, finance, and scientific research — domains where logical consistency is as important as linguistic coherence.

Enhancing LLMs with Symbolic Reasoning

Now, with LLMs like GPT-4 being mainstream, there is an emerging need to add real reasoning capabilities to them. This is where neurosymbolic approaches shine. Instead of pitting neural networks against symbolic reasoning, these methods combine the best of both worlds. The neural aspect provides language fluency and recognition of complex patterns, while the symbolic side offers real reasoning power through formal logic and rule-based frameworks.

Personal Knowledge Graphs (PKGs) come into play here as well. Knowledge graphs are data structures that encode entities and their relationships — they’re essentially semantic networks that allow for structured information retrieval. When integrated with neurosymbolic approaches, LLMs can use these graphs to answer questions in a far more contextual and precise way. By retrieving relevant information from a knowledge graph, they can ground their responses in well-defined relationships, thus improving both the relevance and the logical consistency of their answers.

Imagine combining an LLM with a graph of rules that allow it to reason through the relationships encoded in a personal knowledge graph. This could involve using deductive databases to form a sophisticated way to represent and reason with symbolic data — essentially constructing a powerful hybrid system that uses LLM capabilities for language fluency and rule-based logic for structured problem-solving.

My Research on Deductive Databases and Knowledge Graphs

I recently did some research on modeling knowledge graphs using deductive databases, such as DataLog — which can be thought of as a limited, data-oriented version of Prolog. What I’ve found is that it’s possible to use formal logic to model knowledge graphs, ontologies, and complex relationships elegantly as rules in a deductive system. Unlike classical RDF or traditional ontology-based models, which sometimes struggle with complex or evolving relationships, a deductive approach is more flexible and can easily support dynamic rules and reasoning.

Prolog and similar logic-driven frameworks can complement LLMs by handling the parts of reasoning where explicit rule-following is required. LLMs can benefit from these rule-based systems for tasks like entity recognition, logical inferences, and constructing or traversing knowledge graphs. We can even create a graph of rules that governs how relationships are formed or how logical deductions can be performed.

The future is really about creating an AI that is capable of both deep contextual understanding (using the powerful generative capacity of LLMs) and true reasoning (through symbolic systems and knowledge graphs). With the neurosymbolic approach, these AIs could be equipped not just to generate information but to explain their reasoning, form logical conclusions, and even improve their own understanding over time — getting us a step closer to true artificial general intelligence.

Why It Matters for LLM Employment

Using neurosymbolic RAG (retrieval-augmented generation) in conjunction with personal knowledge graphs could revolutionize how LLMs work in real-world applications. Imagine an LLM that understands not just language but also the relationships between different concepts — one that can navigate, reason, and explain complex knowledge domains by actively engaging with a personalized set of facts and rules.

This could lead to practical applications in areas like healthcare, finance, legal reasoning, or even personal productivity — where LLMs can help users solve complex problems logically, providing relevant information and well-justified reasoning paths. The combination of neural fluency with symbolic accuracy and deductive power is precisely the bridge we need to move beyond purely predictive AI to truly intelligent systems.

Let's explore these ideas further if you’re as fascinated by this as I am. Feel free to reach out, follow my YouTube channel, or check out some articles I’ll link below. And if you’re working on anything in this field, I’d love to collaborate!

Until next time, folks. Stay curious, and keep pushing the boundaries of AI!

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ e6817453:b0ac3c39

Introduction: Personal Knowledge Graphs and Linked Data

We will explore the world of personal knowledge graphs and discuss how they can be used to model complex information structures. Personal knowledge graphs aren’t just abstract collections of nodes and edges—they encode meaningful relationships, contextualizing data in ways that enrich our understanding of it. While the core structure might be a directed graph, we layer semantic meaning on top, enabling nuanced connections between data points.

The origin of knowledge graphs is deeply tied to concepts from linked data and the semantic web, ideas that emerged to better link scattered pieces of information across the web. This approach created an infrastructure where data islands could connect — facilitating everything from more insightful AI to improved personal data management.

In this article, we will explore how these ideas have evolved into tools for modeling AI’s semantic memory and look at how knowledge graphs can serve as a flexible foundation for encoding rich data contexts. We’ll specifically discuss three major paradigms: RDF (Resource Description Framework), property graphs, and a third way of modeling entities as graphs of graphs. Let’s get started.

Intro to RDF

The Resource Description Framework (RDF) has been one of the fundamental standards for linked data and knowledge graphs. RDF allows data to be modeled as triples: subject, predicate, and object. Essentially, you can think of it as a structured way to describe relationships: “X has a Y called Z.” For instance, “Berlin has a population of 3.5 million.” This modeling approach is quite flexible because RDF uses unique identifiers — usually URIs — to point to data entities, making linking straightforward and coherent.

RDFS, or RDF Schema, extends RDF to provide a basic vocabulary to structure the data even more. This lets us describe not only individual nodes but also relationships among types of data entities, like defining a class hierarchy or setting properties. For example, you could say that “Berlin” is an instance of a “City” and that cities are types of “Geographical Entities.” This kind of organization helps establish semantic meaning within the graph.

RDF and Advanced Topics

Lists and Sets in RDF

RDF also provides tools to model more complex data structures such as lists and sets, enabling the grouping of nodes. This extension makes it easier to model more natural, human-like knowledge, for example, describing attributes of an entity that may have multiple values. By adding RDF Schema and OWL (Web Ontology Language), you gain even more expressive power — being able to define logical rules or even derive new relationships from existing data.

Graph of Graphs

A significant feature of RDF is the ability to form complex nested structures, often referred to as graphs of graphs. This allows you to create “named graphs,” essentially subgraphs that can be independently referenced. For example, you could create a named graph for a particular dataset describing Berlin and another for a different geographical area. Then, you could connect them, allowing for more modular and reusable knowledge modeling.

Property Graphs

While RDF provides a robust framework, it’s not always the easiest to work with due to its heavy reliance on linking everything explicitly. This is where property graphs come into play. Property graphs are less focused on linking everything through triples and allow more expressive properties directly within nodes and edges.

For example, instead of using triples to represent each detail, a property graph might let you store all properties about an entity (e.g., “Berlin”) directly in a single node. This makes property graphs more intuitive for many developers and engineers because they more closely resemble object-oriented structures: you have entities (nodes) that possess attributes (properties) and are connected to other entities through relationships (edges).

The significant benefit here is a condensed representation, which speeds up traversal and queries in some scenarios. However, this also introduces a trade-off: while property graphs are more straightforward to query and maintain, they lack some complex relationship modeling features RDF offers, particularly when connecting properties to each other.

Graph of Graphs and Subgraphs for Entity Modeling

A third approach — which takes elements from RDF and property graphs — involves modeling entities using subgraphs or nested graphs. In this model, each entity can be represented as a graph. This allows for a detailed and flexible description of attributes without exploding every detail into individual triples or lump them all together into properties.

For instance, consider a person entity with a complex employment history. Instead of representing every employment detail in one node (as in a property graph), or as several linked nodes (as in RDF), you can treat the employment history as a subgraph. This subgraph could then contain nodes for different jobs, each linked with specific properties and connections. This approach keeps the complexity where it belongs and provides better flexibility when new attributes or entities need to be added.

Hypergraphs and Metagraphs

When discussing more advanced forms of graphs, we encounter hypergraphs and metagraphs. These take the idea of relationships to a new level. A hypergraph allows an edge to connect more than two nodes, which is extremely useful when modeling scenarios where relationships aren’t just pairwise. For example, a “Project” could connect multiple “People,” “Resources,” and “Outcomes,” all in a single edge. This way, hypergraphs help in reducing the complexity of modeling high-order relationships.

Metagraphs, on the other hand, enable nodes and edges to themselves be represented as graphs. This is an extremely powerful feature when we consider the needs of artificial intelligence, as it allows for the modeling of relationships between relationships, an essential aspect for any system that needs to capture not just facts, but their interdependencies and contexts.

Balancing Structure and Properties

One of the recurring challenges when modeling knowledge is finding the balance between structure and properties. With RDF, you get high flexibility and standardization, but complexity can quickly escalate as you decompose everything into triples. Property graphs simplify the representation by using attributes but lose out on the depth of connection modeling. Meanwhile, the graph-of-graphs approach and hypergraphs offer advanced modeling capabilities at the cost of increased computational complexity.

So, how do you decide which model to use? It comes down to your use case. RDF and nested graphs are strong contenders if you need deep linkage and are working with highly variable data. For more straightforward, engineer-friendly modeling, property graphs shine. And when dealing with very complex multi-way relationships or meta-level knowledge, hypergraphs and metagraphs provide the necessary tools.

The key takeaway is that only some approaches are perfect. Instead, it’s all about the modeling goals: how do you want to query the graph, what relationships are meaningful, and how much complexity are you willing to manage?

Conclusion

Modeling AI semantic memory using knowledge graphs is a challenging but rewarding process. The different approaches — RDF, property graphs, and advanced graph modeling techniques like nested graphs and hypergraphs — each offer unique strengths and weaknesses. Whether you are building a personal knowledge graph or scaling up to AI that integrates multiple streams of linked data, it’s essential to understand the trade-offs each approach brings.

In the end, the choice of representation comes down to the nature of your data and your specific needs for querying and maintaining semantic relationships. The world of knowledge graphs is vast, with many tools and frameworks to explore. Stay connected and keep experimenting to find the balance that works for your projects.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Vorlage Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ e6817453:b0ac3c39

The temporal semantics and temporal and time-aware knowledge graphs. We have different memory models for artificial intelligence agents. We all try to mimic somehow how the brain works, or at least how the declarative memory of the brain works. We have the split of episodic memory and semantic memory. And we also have a lot of theories, right?

Declarative Memory of the Human Brain

How is the semantic memory formed? We all know that our brain stores semantic memory quite close to the concept we have with the personal knowledge graphs, that it’s connected entities. They form a connection with each other and all those things. So far, so good. And actually, then we have a lot of concepts, how the episodic memory and our experiences gets transmitted to the semantic:

• hippocampus indexing and retrieval
• sanitization of episodic memories
• episodic-semantic shift theory

They all give a different perspective on how different parts of declarative memory cooperate.

We know that episodic memories get semanticized over time. You have semantic knowledge without the notion of time, and probably, your episodic memory is just decayed.

But, you know, it’s still an open question:

do we want to mimic an AI agent’s memory as a human brain memory, or do we want to create something different?

It’s an open question to which we have no good answer. And if you go to the theory of neuroscience and check how episodic and semantic memory interfere, you will still find a lot of theories, yeah?

Some of them say that you have the hippocampus that keeps the indexes of the memory. Some others will say that you semantic the episodic memory. Some others say that you have some separate process that digests the episodic and experience to the semantics. But all of them agree on the plan that it’s operationally two separate areas of memories and even two separate regions of brain, and the semantic, it’s more, let’s say, protected.

So it’s harder to forget the semantical facts than the episodes and everything. And what I’m thinking about for a long time, it’s this, you know, the semantic memory.

Temporal Semantics

It’s memory about the facts, but you somehow mix the time information with the semantics. I already described a lot of things, including how we could combine time with knowledge graphs and how people do it.

There are multiple ways we could persist such information, but we all hit the wall because the complexity of time and the semantics of time are highly complex concepts.

Time in a Semantic context is not a timestamp.

What I mean is that when you have a fact, and you just mentioned that I was there at this particular moment, like, I don’t know, 15:40 on Monday, it’s already awake because we don’t know which Monday, right? So you need to give the exact date, but usually, you do not have experiences like that.

You do not record your memories like that, except you do the journaling and all of the things. So, usually, you have no direct time references. What I mean is that you could say that I was there and it was some event, blah, blah, blah.

Somehow, we form a chain of events that connect with each other and maybe will be connected to some period of time if we are lucky enough. This means that we could not easily represent temporal-aware information as just a timestamp or validity and all of the things.

For sure, the validity of the knowledge graphs (simple quintuple with start and end dates)is a big topic, and it could solve a lot of things. It could solve a lot of the time cases. It’s super simple because you give the end and start dates, and you are done, but it does not answer facts that have a relative time or time information in facts . It could solve many use cases but struggle with facts in an indirect temporal context. I like the simplicity of this idea. But the problem of this approach that in most cases, we simply don’t have these timestamps. We don’t have the timestamp where this information starts and ends. And it’s not modeling many events in our life, especially if you have the processes or ongoing activities or recurrent events.

I’m more about thinking about the time of semantics, where you have a time model as a hybrid clock or some global clock that does the partial ordering of the events. It’s mean that you have the chain of the experiences and you have the chain of the facts that have the different time contexts.

We could deduct the time from this chain of the events. But it’s a big, big topic for the research. But what I want to achieve, actually, it’s not separation on episodic and semantic memory. It’s having something in between.

Blockchain of connected events and facts

I call it temporal-aware semantics or time-aware knowledge graphs, where we could encode the semantic fact together with the time component.I doubt that time should be the simple timestamp or the region of the two timestamps. For me, it is more a chain for facts that have a partial order and form a blockchain like a database or a partially ordered Acyclic graph of facts that are temporally connected. We could have some notion of time that is understandable to the agent and a model that allows us to order the events and focus on what the agent knows and how to order this time knowledge and create the chains of the events.

Time anchors

We may have a particular time in the chain that allows us to arrange a more concrete time for the rest of the events. But it’s still an open topic for research. The temporal semantics gets split into a couple of domains. One domain is how to add time to the knowledge graphs. We already have many different solutions. I described them in my previous articles.

Another domain is the agent's memory and how the memory of the artificial intelligence treats the time. This one, it’s much more complex. Because here, we could not operate with the simple timestamps. We need to have the representation of time that are understandable by model and understandable by the agent that will work with this model. And this one, it’s way bigger topic for the research.”

@ 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.

@ a39d19ec:3d88f61e

A state-controlled money supply can influence the development of socialist policies and practices in various ways. Although the relationship is not deterministic, state control over the money supply can contribute to a larger role of the state in the economy and facilitate the implementation of socialist ideals.

Fiscal Policy Capabilities

When the state manages the money supply, it gains the ability to implement fiscal policies that can lead to an expansion of social programs and welfare initiatives. Funding these programs by creating money can enhance the state's influence over the economy and move it closer to a socialist model. The Soviet Union, for instance, had a centralized banking system that enabled the state to fund massive industrialization and social programs, significantly expanding the state's role in the economy.

Wealth Redistribution

Controlling the money supply can also allow the state to influence economic inequality through monetary policies, effectively redistributing wealth and reducing income disparities. By implementing low-interest loans or providing financial assistance to disadvantaged groups, the state can narrow the wealth gap and promote social equality, as seen in many European welfare states.

Central Planning

A state-controlled money supply can contribute to increased central planning, as the state gains more influence over the economy. Central banks, which are state-owned or heavily influenced by the state, play a crucial role in managing the money supply and facilitating central planning. This aligns with socialist principles that advocate for a planned economy where resources are allocated according to social needs rather than market forces.

Incentives for Staff

Staff members working in state institutions responsible for managing the money supply have various incentives to keep the system going. These incentives include job security, professional expertise and reputation, political alignment, regulatory capture, institutional inertia, and legal and administrative barriers. While these factors can differ among individuals, they can collectively contribute to the persistence of a state-controlled money supply system.

In conclusion, a state-controlled money supply can facilitate the development of socialist policies and practices by enabling fiscal policies, wealth redistribution, and central planning. The staff responsible for managing the money supply have diverse incentives to maintain the system, further ensuring its continuation. However, it is essential to note that many factors influence the trajectory of an economic system, and the relationship between state control over the money supply and socialism is not inevitable.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ a39d19ec:3d88f61e

This week's functional 3d print is the "Dino Clip".

Dino Clip

I printed it some years ago for my son, so he would have his own clip for cereal bags.

Now it is used to hold a bag of dog food close.

The design by "Sneaks" is a so called "print in place". This means that the whole clip with moving parts is printed in one part, without the need for assembly after the print. The clip is very strong, and I would print it again if I need a "heavy duty" clip for more rigid or big bags. Link to the file at Printables

@ a367f9eb:0633efea

Last week, an investigation by Reuters revealed that Chinese researchers have been using open-source AI tools to build nefarious-sounding models that may have some military application.

The reporting purports that adversaries in the Chinese Communist Party and its military wing are taking advantage of the liberal software licensing of American innovations in the AI space, which could someday have capabilities to presumably harm the United States.

In a June paper reviewed by Reuters, six Chinese researchers from three institutions, including two under the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) leading research body, the Academy of Military Science (AMS), detailed how they had used an early version of Meta’s Llama as a base for what it calls “ChatBIT”.

The researchers used an earlier Llama 13B large language model (LLM) from Meta, incorporating their own parameters to construct a military-focused AI tool to gather and process intelligence, and offer accurate and reliable information for operational decision-making.

While I’m doubtful that today’s existing chatbot-like tools will be the ultimate battlefield for a new geopolitical war (queue up the computer-simulated war from the Star Trek episode “A Taste of Armageddon“), this recent exposé requires us to revisit why large language models are released as open-source code in the first place.

Added to that, should it matter that an adversary is having a poke around and may ultimately use them for some purpose we may not like, whether that be China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran?

The number of open-source AI LLMs continues to grow each day, with projects like Vicuna, LLaMA, BLOOMB, Falcon, and Mistral available for download. In fact, there are over one million open-source LLMs available as of writing this post. With some decent hardware, every global citizen can download these codebases and run them on their computer.

With regard to this specific story, we could assume it to be a selective leak by a competitor of Meta which created the LLaMA model, intended to harm its reputation among those with cybersecurity and national security credentials. There are potentially trillions of dollars on the line.

Or it could be the revelation of something more sinister happening in the military-sponsored labs of Chinese hackers who have already been caught attacking American infrastructure, data, and yes, your credit history?

As consumer advocates who believe in the necessity of liberal democracies to safeguard our liberties against authoritarianism, we should absolutely remain skeptical when it comes to the communist regime in Beijing. We’ve written as much many times.

At the same time, however, we should not subrogate our own critical thinking and principles because it suits a convenient narrative.

Consumers of all stripes deserve technological freedom, and innovators should be free to provide that to us. And open-source software has provided the very foundations for all of this.

Open-source matters When we discuss open-source software and code, what we’re really talking about is the ability for people other than the creators to use it.

The various licensing schemes – ranging from GNU General Public License (GPL) to the MIT License and various public domain classifications – determine whether other people can use the code, edit it to their liking, and run it on their machine. Some licenses even allow you to monetize the modifications you’ve made.

While many different types of software will be fully licensed and made proprietary, restricting or even penalizing those who attempt to use it on their own, many developers have created software intended to be released to the public. This allows multiple contributors to add to the codebase and to make changes to improve it for public benefit.

Open-source software matters because anyone, anywhere can download and run the code on their own. They can also modify it, edit it, and tailor it to their specific need. The code is intended to be shared and built upon not because of some altruistic belief, but rather to make it accessible for everyone and create a broad base. This is how we create standards for technologies that provide the ground floor for further tinkering to deliver value to consumers.

Open-source libraries create the building blocks that decrease the hassle and cost of building a new web platform, smartphone, or even a computer language. They distribute common code that can be built upon, assuring interoperability and setting standards for all of our devices and technologies to talk to each other.

I am myself a proponent of open-source software. The server I run in my home has dozens of dockerized applications sourced directly from open-source contributors on GitHub and DockerHub. When there are versions or adaptations that I don’t like, I can pick and choose which I prefer. I can even make comments or add edits if I’ve found a better way for them to run.

Whether you know it or not, many of you run the Linux operating system as the base for your Macbook or any other computer and use all kinds of web tools that have active repositories forked or modified by open-source contributors online. This code is auditable by everyone and can be scrutinized or reviewed by whoever wants to (even AI bots).

This is the same software that runs your airlines, powers the farms that deliver your food, and supports the entire global monetary system. The code of the first decentralized cryptocurrency Bitcoin is also open-source, which has allowed thousands of copycat protocols that have revolutionized how we view money.

You know what else is open-source and available for everyone to use, modify, and build upon?

PHP, Mozilla Firefox, LibreOffice, MySQL, Python, Git, Docker, and WordPress. All protocols and languages that power the web. Friend or foe alike, anyone can download these pieces of software and run them how they see fit.

Open-source code is speech, and it is knowledge.

We build upon it to make information and technology accessible. Attempts to curb open-source, therefore, amount to restricting speech and knowledge.

Open-source is for your friends, and enemies In the context of Artificial Intelligence, many different developers and companies have chosen to take their large language models and make them available via an open-source license.

At this very moment, you can click on over to Hugging Face, download an AI model, and build a chatbot or scripting machine suited to your needs. All for free (as long as you have the power and bandwidth).

Thousands of companies in the AI sector are doing this at this very moment, discovering ways of building on top of open-source models to develop new apps, tools, and services to offer to companies and individuals. It’s how many different applications are coming to life and thousands more jobs are being created.

We know this can be useful to friends, but what about enemies?

As the AI wars heat up between liberal democracies like the US, the UK, and (sluggishly) the European Union, we know that authoritarian adversaries like the CCP and Russia are building their own applications.

The fear that China will use open-source US models to create some kind of military application is a clear and present danger for many political and national security researchers, as well as politicians.

A bipartisan group of US House lawmakers want to put export controls on AI models, as well as block foreign access to US cloud servers that may be hosting AI software.

If this seems familiar, we should also remember that the US government once classified cryptography and encryption as “munitions” that could not be exported to other countries (see The Crypto Wars). Many of the arguments we hear today were invoked by some of the same people as back then.

Now, encryption protocols are the gold standard for many different banking and web services, messaging, and all kinds of electronic communication. We expect our friends to use it, and our foes as well. Because code is knowledge and speech, we know how to evaluate it and respond if we need to.

Regardless of who uses open-source AI, this is how we should view it today. These are merely tools that people will use for good or ill. It’s up to governments to determine how best to stop illiberal or nefarious uses that harm us, rather than try to outlaw or restrict building of free and open software in the first place.

Limiting open-source threatens our own advancement If we set out to restrict and limit our ability to create and share open-source code, no matter who uses it, that would be tantamount to imposing censorship. There must be another way.

If there is a “Hundred Year Marathon” between the United States and liberal democracies on one side and autocracies like the Chinese Communist Party on the other, this is not something that will be won or lost based on software licenses. We need as much competition as possible.

The Chinese military has been building up its capabilities with trillions of dollars’ worth of investments that span far beyond AI chatbots and skip logic protocols.

The theft of intellectual property at factories in Shenzhen, or in US courts by third-party litigation funding coming from China, is very real and will have serious economic consequences. It may even change the balance of power if our economies and countries turn to war footing.

But these are separate issues from the ability of free people to create and share open-source code which we can all benefit from. In fact, if we want to continue our way our life and continue to add to global productivity and growth, it’s demanded that we defend open-source.

If liberal democracies want to compete with our global adversaries, it will not be done by reducing the freedoms of citizens in our own countries.

Last week, an investigation by Reuters revealed that Chinese researchers have been using open-source AI tools to build nefarious-sounding models that may have some military application.

The reporting purports that adversaries in the Chinese Communist Party and its military wing are taking advantage of the liberal software licensing of American innovations in the AI space, which could someday have capabilities to presumably harm the United States.

In a June paper reviewed by Reuters, six Chinese researchers from three institutions, including two under the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) leading research body, the Academy of Military Science (AMS), detailed how they had used an early version of Meta’s Llama as a base for what it calls “ChatBIT”.

The researchers used an earlier Llama 13B large language model (LLM) from Meta, incorporating their own parameters to construct a military-focused AI tool to gather and process intelligence, and offer accurate and reliable information for operational decision-making.

While I’m doubtful that today’s existing chatbot-like tools will be the ultimate battlefield for a new geopolitical war (queue up the computer-simulated war from the Star Trek episode “A Taste of Armageddon“), this recent exposé requires us to revisit why large language models are released as open-source code in the first place.

Added to that, should it matter that an adversary is having a poke around and may ultimately use them for some purpose we may not like, whether that be China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran?

The number of open-source AI LLMs continues to grow each day, with projects like Vicuna, LLaMA, BLOOMB, Falcon, and Mistral available for download. In fact, there are over one million open-source LLMs available as of writing this post. With some decent hardware, every global citizen can download these codebases and run them on their computer.

With regard to this specific story, we could assume it to be a selective leak by a competitor of Meta which created the LLaMA model, intended to harm its reputation among those with cybersecurity and national security credentials. There are potentially trillions of dollars on the line.

Or it could be the revelation of something more sinister happening in the military-sponsored labs of Chinese hackers who have already been caught attacking American infrastructure, data, and yes, your credit history?

As consumer advocates who believe in the necessity of liberal democracies to safeguard our liberties against authoritarianism, we should absolutely remain skeptical when it comes to the communist regime in Beijing. We’ve written as much many times.

At the same time, however, we should not subrogate our own critical thinking and principles because it suits a convenient narrative.

Consumers of all stripes deserve technological freedom, and innovators should be free to provide that to us. And open-source software has provided the very foundations for all of this.

Open-source matters

When we discuss open-source software and code, what we’re really talking about is the ability for people other than the creators to use it.

The various licensing schemes – ranging from GNU General Public License (GPL) to the MIT License and various public domain classifications – determine whether other people can use the code, edit it to their liking, and run it on their machine. Some licenses even allow you to monetize the modifications you’ve made.

While many different types of software will be fully licensed and made proprietary, restricting or even penalizing those who attempt to use it on their own, many developers have created software intended to be released to the public. This allows multiple contributors to add to the codebase and to make changes to improve it for public benefit.

Open-source software matters because anyone, anywhere can download and run the code on their own. They can also modify it, edit it, and tailor it to their specific need. The code is intended to be shared and built upon not because of some altruistic belief, but rather to make it accessible for everyone and create a broad base. This is how we create standards for technologies that provide the ground floor for further tinkering to deliver value to consumers.

Open-source libraries create the building blocks that decrease the hassle and cost of building a new web platform, smartphone, or even a computer language. They distribute common code that can be built upon, assuring interoperability and setting standards for all of our devices and technologies to talk to each other.

I am myself a proponent of open-source software. The server I run in my home has dozens of dockerized applications sourced directly from open-source contributors on GitHub and DockerHub. When there are versions or adaptations that I don’t like, I can pick and choose which I prefer. I can even make comments or add edits if I’ve found a better way for them to run.

Whether you know it or not, many of you run the Linux operating system as the base for your Macbook or any other computer and use all kinds of web tools that have active repositories forked or modified by open-source contributors online. This code is auditable by everyone and can be scrutinized or reviewed by whoever wants to (even AI bots).

This is the same software that runs your airlines, powers the farms that deliver your food, and supports the entire global monetary system. The code of the first decentralized cryptocurrency Bitcoin is also open-source, which has allowed thousands of copycat protocols that have revolutionized how we view money.

You know what else is open-source and available for everyone to use, modify, and build upon?

PHP, Mozilla Firefox, LibreOffice, MySQL, Python, Git, Docker, and WordPress. All protocols and languages that power the web. Friend or foe alike, anyone can download these pieces of software and run them how they see fit.

Open-source code is speech, and it is knowledge.

We build upon it to make information and technology accessible. Attempts to curb open-source, therefore, amount to restricting speech and knowledge.

Open-source is for your friends, and enemies

In the context of Artificial Intelligence, many different developers and companies have chosen to take their large language models and make them available via an open-source license.

At this very moment, you can click on over to Hugging Face, download an AI model, and build a chatbot or scripting machine suited to your needs. All for free (as long as you have the power and bandwidth).

Thousands of companies in the AI sector are doing this at this very moment, discovering ways of building on top of open-source models to develop new apps, tools, and services to offer to companies and individuals. It’s how many different applications are coming to life and thousands more jobs are being created.

We know this can be useful to friends, but what about enemies?

As the AI wars heat up between liberal democracies like the US, the UK, and (sluggishly) the European Union, we know that authoritarian adversaries like the CCP and Russia are building their own applications.

The fear that China will use open-source US models to create some kind of military application is a clear and present danger for many political and national security researchers, as well as politicians.

A bipartisan group of US House lawmakers want to put export controls on AI models, as well as block foreign access to US cloud servers that may be hosting AI software.

If this seems familiar, we should also remember that the US government once classified cryptography and encryption as “munitions” that could not be exported to other countries (see The Crypto Wars). Many of the arguments we hear today were invoked by some of the same people as back then.

Now, encryption protocols are the gold standard for many different banking and web services, messaging, and all kinds of electronic communication. We expect our friends to use it, and our foes as well. Because code is knowledge and speech, we know how to evaluate it and respond if we need to.

Regardless of who uses open-source AI, this is how we should view it today. These are merely tools that people will use for good or ill. It’s up to governments to determine how best to stop illiberal or nefarious uses that harm us, rather than try to outlaw or restrict building of free and open software in the first place.

Limiting open-source threatens our own advancement

If we set out to restrict and limit our ability to create and share open-source code, no matter who uses it, that would be tantamount to imposing censorship. There must be another way.

If there is a “Hundred Year Marathon” between the United States and liberal democracies on one side and autocracies like the Chinese Communist Party on the other, this is not something that will be won or lost based on software licenses. We need as much competition as possible.

The Chinese military has been building up its capabilities with trillions of dollars’ worth of investments that span far beyond AI chatbots and skip logic protocols.

The theft of intellectual property at factories in Shenzhen, or in US courts by third-party litigation funding coming from China, is very real and will have serious economic consequences. It may even change the balance of power if our economies and countries turn to war footing.

But these are separate issues from the ability of free people to create and share open-source code which we can all benefit from. In fact, if we want to continue our way our life and continue to add to global productivity and growth, it’s demanded that we defend open-source.

If liberal democracies want to compete with our global adversaries, it will not be done by reducing the freedoms of citizens in our own countries.

Originally published on the website of the Consumer Choice Center.

@ 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. 🚀

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 09fbf8f3:fa3d60f0

> ### 第三方API合集：

免责申明:

在此推荐的 OpenAI API Key 由第三方代理商提供，所以我们不对 API Key 的 有效性 和 安全性 负责，请你自行承担购买和使用 API Key 的风险。

| 服务商 | 特性说明 | Proxy 代理地址 | 链接 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | AiHubMix | 使用 OpenAI 企业接口，全站模型价格为官方 86 折（含 GPT-4 ）| https://aihubmix.com/v1 | 官网 | | OpenAI-HK | OpenAI的API官方计费模式为，按每次API请求内容和返回内容tokens长度来定价。每个模型具有不同的计价方式，以每1,000个tokens消耗为单位定价。其中1,000个tokens约为750个英文单词（约400汉字）| https://api.openai-hk.com/ | 官网 | | CloseAI | CloseAI是国内规模最大的商用级OpenAI代理平台，也是国内第一家专业OpenAI中转服务，定位于企业级商用需求，面向企业客户的线上服务提供高质量稳定的官方OpenAI API 中转代理，是百余家企业和多家科研机构的专用合作平台。 | https://api.openai-proxy.org | 官网 | | OpenAI-SB | 需要配合Telegram 获取api key | https://api.openai-sb.com | 官网 |

持续更新。。。

---

推广：

访问不了openai，去低调云购买VPN。

官网：https://didiaocloud.xyz

邀请码：w9AjVJit

价格低至1元。

@ 4c48cf05:07f52b80

I believe that five years from now, access to artificial intelligence will be akin to what access to the Internet represents today. It will be the greatest differentiator between the haves and have nots. Unequal access to artificial intelligence will exacerbate societal inequalities and limit opportunities for those without access to it.

Back in April, the AI Index Steering Committee at the Institute for Human-Centered AI from Stanford University released The AI Index 2024 Annual Report.

Out of the extensive report (502 pages), I chose to focus on the chapter dedicated to Public Opinion. People involved with AI live in a bubble. We all know and understand AI and therefore assume that everyone else does. But, is that really the case once you step out of your regular circles in Seattle or Silicon Valley and hit Main Street?

Two thirds of global respondents have a good understanding of what AI is

The exact number is 67%. My gut feeling is that this number is way too high to be realistic. At the same time, 63% of respondents are aware of ChatGPT so maybe people are confounding AI with ChatGPT?

If so, there is so much more that they won't see coming.

This number is important because you need to see every other questions and response of the survey through the lens of a respondent who believes to have a good understanding of what AI is.

A majority are nervous about AI products and services

52% of global respondents are nervous about products and services that use AI. Leading the pack are Australians at 69% and the least worried are Japanise at 23%. U.S.A. is up there at the top at 63%.

Japan is truly an outlier, with most countries moving between 40% and 60%.

Personal data is the clear victim

Exaclty half of the respondents believe that AI companies will protect their personal data. And the other half believes they won't.

Expected benefits

Again a majority of people (57%) think that it will change how they do their jobs. As for impact on your life, top hitters are getting things done faster (54%) and more entertainment options (51%).

The last one is a head scratcher for me. Are people looking forward to AI generated movies?

Concerns

Remember the 57% that thought that AI will change how they do their jobs? Well, it looks like 37% of them expect to lose it. Whether or not this is what will happen, that is a very high number of people who have a direct incentive to oppose AI.

Other key concerns include:

• Misuse for nefarious purposes: 49%
• Violation of citizens' privacy: 45%

Conclusion

This is the first time I come across this report and I wil make sure to follow future annual reports to see how these trends evolve.

Overall, people are worried about AI. There are many things that could go wrong and people perceive that both jobs and privacy are on the line.

---

Full citation: Nestor Maslej, Loredana Fattorini, Raymond Perrault, Vanessa Parli, Anka Reuel, Erik Brynjolfsson, John Etchemendy, Katrina Ligett, Terah Lyons, James Manyika, Juan Carlos Niebles, Yoav Shoham, Russell Wald, and Jack Clark, “The AI Index 2024 Annual Report,” AI Index Steering Committee, Institute for Human-Centered AI, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, April 2024.

The AI Index 2024 Annual Report by Stanford University is licensed under Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International.

@ 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.

@ dc4cd086:cee77c06

Have you ever wanted to learn from lengthy educational videos but found it challenging to navigate through hours of content? Our new tool addresses this problem by transforming long-form video lectures into easily digestible, searchable content.

Key Features:

Video Processing:

• Automatically downloads YouTube videos, transcripts, and chapter information
• Splits transcripts into sections based on video chapters

Content Summarization:

• Utilizes language models to transform spoken content into clear, readable text
• Formats output in AsciiDoc for improved readability and navigation
• Highlights key terms and concepts with [[term]] notation for potential cross-referencing

Diagram Extraction:

• Analyzes video entropy to identify static diagram/slide sections
• Provides a user-friendly GUI for manual selection of relevant time ranges
• Allows users to pick representative frames from selected ranges

Going Forward:

Currently undergoing a rewrite to improve organization and functionality, but you are welcome to try the current version, though it might not work on every machine. Will support multiple open and closed language models for user choice Free and open-source, allowing for personal customization and integration with various knowledge bases. Just because we might not have it on our official Alexandria knowledge base, you are still welcome to use it on you own personal or community knowledge bases! We want to help find connections between ideas that exist across relays, allowing individuals and groups to mix and match knowledge bases between each other, allowing for any degree of openness you care.

While designed with #Alexandria users in mind, it's available for anyone to use and adapt to their own learning needs.

Screenshots

Frame Selection

This is a screenshot of the frame selection interface. You'll see a signal that represents frame entropy over time. The vertical lines indicate the start and end of a chapter. Within these chapters you can select the frames by clicking and dragging the mouse over the desired range where you think diagram is in that chapter. At the bottom is an option that tells the program to select a specific number of frames from that selection.

Diagram Extraction

This is a screenshot of the diagram extraction interface. For every selection you've made, there will be a set of frames that you can choose from. You can select and deselect as many frames as you'd like to save.

Links

• repo: https://github.com/limina1/video_article_converter
• Nostr Apps 101: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Flxa_jkErqE

Output

And now, we have a demonstration of the final result of this tool, with some quick cleaning up. The video we will be using this tool on is titled Nostr Apps 101 by nostr:npub1nxy4qpqnld6kmpphjykvx2lqwvxmuxluddwjamm4nc29ds3elyzsm5avr7 during Nostrasia. The following thread is an analog to the modular articles we are constructing for Alexandria, and I hope it conveys the functionality we want to create in the knowledge space. Note, this tool is the first step! You could use a different prompt that is most appropriate for the specific context of the transcript you are working with, but you can also manually clean up any discrepancies that don't portray the video accurately.

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzp5r5hd579v2sszvvzfel677c8dxgxm3skl773sujlsuft64c44ncqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctcpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0wd68ytnsw43z7qghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxummnw3ezucnpdejz7qgewaehxw309aex2mrp0yh8xmn0wf6zuum0vd5kzmp0qqsxunmjy20mvlq37vnrcshkf6sdrtkfjtjz3anuetmcuv8jswhezgc7hglpn

Or view on Coracle nostr:nevent1qqsxunmjy20mvlq37vnrcshkf6sdrtkfjtjz3anuetmcuv8jswhezgcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgsdqa9md83tz5yqnrqjw07hhkpmfjpkuv9hlh5v8yhu8z274w9dv7qnnq0s3

@ 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.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na dvadesetjedan.com

Autor: Vijay Boyapati / Prevod na hrvatski: Matija

---

Sa zadnjim cijenama koje je bitcoin dosegao 2017., optimističan scenarij za ulagače se možda čini toliko očitim da ga nije potrebno niti spominjati. Alternativno, možda se nekome čini glupo ulagati u digitalnu vrijednost koja ne počiva na nijednom fizičkom dobru ili vladi i čiji porast cijene su neki usporedili sa manijom tulipana ili dot-com balonom. Nijedno nije točno; optimističan scenarij za Bitcoin je uvjerljiv, ali ne i očit. Postoje značajni rizici kod ulaganja u Bitcoin, no, kao što planiram pokazati, postoji i ogromna prilika.

Geneza

Nikad u povijesti svijeta nije bilo moguće napraviti transfer vrijednosti među fizički udaljenim ljudima bez posrednika, poput banke ili vlade. 2008. godine, anonimni Satoshi Nakamoto je objavio 8 stranica rješenja na dugo nerješivi računalski problem poznat kao “Problem Bizantskog Generala.” Njegovo rješenje i sustav koji je izgradio - Bitcoin - dozvolio je, prvi put ikad, da se vrijednost prenosi brzo i daleko, bez ikakvih posrednika ili povjerenja. Implikacije kreacije Bitcoina su toliko duboke, ekonomski i računalski, da bi Nakamoto trebao biti prva osoba nominirana za Nobelovu nagradu za ekonomiju i Turingovu nagradu.

Za ulagače, važna činjenica izuma Bitcoina (mreže i protokola) je stvaranje novog oskudnog digitalnog dobra - bitcoina (monetarne jedinice). Bitcoini su prenosivi digitalni “novčići” (tokeni), proizvedeni na Bitcoin mreži kroz proces nazvan “rudarenje” (mining). Rudarenje Bitcoina je ugrubo usporedivo sa rudarenjem zlata, uz bitnu razliku da proizvodnja bitcoina prati unaprijed osmišljeni i predvidivi raspored. Samo 21 milijun bitcoina će ikad postojati, i većina (2017., kada je ovaj tekst napisan) su već izrudareni. Svake četiri godine, količina rudarenih bitcoina se prepolovi. Produkcija novih bitcoina će potpuno prestati 2140. godine.

Stopa inflacije —— Monetarna baza

Bitcoine ne podržava nikakva roba ili dobra, niti ih garantira ikakva vlada ili firma, što postavlja očito pitanje za svakog novog bitcoin ulagača: zašto imaju uopće ikakvu vrijednost? Za razliku od dionica, obveznica, nekretnina ili robe poput nafte i žita, bitcoine nije moguće vrednovati koristeći standardne ekonomske analize ili korisnost u proizvodnji drugih dobara. Bitcoini pripadaju sasvim drugoj kategoriji dobara - monetarnih dobara, čija se vrijednost definira kroz tzv. teoriju igara; svaki sudionik na tržištu vrednuje neko dobro, onoliko koliko procjenjuje da će ga drugi sudionici vrednovati. Kako bismo bolje razumjeli ovo svojstvo monetarnih dobara, trebamo istražiti podrijetlo novca.

Podrijetlo novca

U prvim ljudskim društvima, trgovina među grupama se vršila kroz robnu razmjenu. Velika neefikasnost prisutna u robnoj razmjeni je drastično ograničavala količinu i geografski prostor na kojem je bila moguća. Jedan od najvećih problema sa robnom razmjenom je problem dvostruke podudarnosti potražnje. Uzgajivač jabuka možda želi trgovati sa ribarom, ali ako ribar ne želi jabuke u istom trenutku, razmjena se neće dogoditi. Kroz vrijeme, ljudi su razvili želju za čuvanjem određenih predmeta zbog njihove rijetkosti i simbolične vrijednosti (npr. školjke, životinjski zube, kremen). Zaista, kako i Nick Szabo govori u svojem izvrsnom eseju o podrijetlu novca, ljudska želja za sakupljanjem predmeta pružila je izraženu evolucijsku prednost ranom čovjeku nad njegovim najbližim biološkim rivalom, neandertalcem - Homo neanderthalensis.

"Primarna i najbitnija evolucijska funkcija sakupljanja bila je osigurati medij za čuvanje i prenošenje vrijednosti".

Predmeti koje su ljudi sakupljali služili su kao svojevrsni “proto-novac,” tako što su omogućavale trgovinu među antagonističkim plemenima i dozvoljavale bogatsvu da se prenosi na sljedeću generaciju. Trgovina i transfer takvih predmeta bile su rijetke u paleolitskim društvima, te su oni služili više kao “spremište vrijednosti” (store of value) nego kao “medij razmjene” (medium of exchange), što je uloga koju danas igra moderni novac. Szabo objašnjava:

"U usporedbi sa modernim novcem, primitivan novac je imao jako malo “brzinu” - mogao je promijeniti ruke samo nekoliko puta u životu prosječnog čovjeka. Svejedno, trajni i čvrsti sakupljački predmet, što bismo danas nazvali “nasljeđe,” mogao je opstati mnogo generacija, dodajući znatnu vrijednost pri svakom transferu - i zapravo omogućiti transfer uopće".

Rani čovjek suočio se sa bitnom dilemom u teoriji igara, kada je odlučivao koje predmete sakupljati: koje od njih će drugi ljudi željeti? Onaj koji bi to točno predvidio imao bi ogromnu prednost u mogućnosti trgovine i akvizicije bogatsva. Neka američka indijanska plemena, npr. Naraganseti, specijalizirala su se u proizvodnji sakupljačkih dobara koja nisu imala drugu svrhu osim trgovine. Valja spomenuti da što je ranije predviđanje da će neko dobro imati takvu vrijednost, veća je prednost koju će imati onaj koji je posjeduje, zato što ju je moguće nabaviti jeftinije, prije nego postane vrlo tražena roba i njezona vrijednost naraste zajedno sa populacijom. Nadalje, nabava nekog dobra u nadi da će u budućnosti biti korišteno kao spremište vrijednosti, ubrzava upravo tu primjenu. Ova cirkularnost je zapravo povratna veza (feedback loop) koja potiče društva da se rapidno slože oko jednog spremišta vrijednosti. U terminima teorije igara, ovo je znano kao “Nashov ekvilibrij.” Postizanje Nashovog ekvilibrija za neko spremište vrijednosti je veliko postignuće za društvo, pošto ono znatno olakšava trgovinu i podjelu rada, i time omogućava napredak civilizacije.

Tisućljećima, kako su ljudska društva rasla i otvarala trgovinske puteve, različite aplikacije spremišta vrijednosti u individualnim društvima počele su se natjecati međusobno. Trgovci su imali izbor: čuvati svoju zaradu u spremištu vrijednosti vlastite kulture, ili one kulture sa kojom su trgovali, ili mješavini oboje. Benefit štednje u stranom spremištu vrijednosti bila je uvećana sposobnost trgovanja u povezanom stranom društvu. Trgovci koji su štedili u stranom spremištu vrijednosti su također imali dobrih razloga da potiču svoje društvo da ga prihvati, jer bi tako uvećali vrijednost vlastite ušteđevine. Prednosti “uvezene” tehnologije spremanja vrijednosti bile su prisutne ne samo za trgovce, nego i za sama društva. Kada bi se dvije grupe konvergirale u jedinstvenom spremištu vrijednosti, to bi značajno smanjilo cijenu troškova trgovine jednog s drugim, i samim time povećanje bogatstva kroz trgovinu. I zaista, 19. stoljeće bilo je prvi put da je najveći dio svijeta prihvatio jedinstveno spremište vrijednosti - zlato - i u tom periodu vidio najveću eksploziju trgovine u povijesti svijeta. O ovom mirnom periodu, pisao je John Maynard Keynes:

"Kakva nevjerojatna epizoda u ekonomskom napretku čovjeka… za svakog čovjeka iole iznadprosječnog, iz srednje ili više klase, život je nudio obilje, ugodu i mogućnosti, po niskoj cijeni i bez puno problema, više nego monarsima iz prethodnih perioda. Stanovnik Londona mogao je, ispijajući jutarnji čaj iz kreveta, telefonski naručiti razne proizvode iz cijele Zemlje, u količinama koje je želio, i sa dobrim razlogom očekivati njihovu dostavu na svoj kućni prag."

Svojstva dobrog spremišta vrijednosti

Kada se spremišta vrijednosti natječu jedno s drugim, specifična svojstva rade razliku koja daje jednom prednost nad drugim. Premda su mnoga dobra u prošlosti korištena kao spremišta vrijednosti ili kao “proto-novac,” određena svojstva su se pokazala kao posebno važna, i omogućila dobrima sa njima da pobijede. Idealno spremište vrijednosti biti će:

• Trajno: dobro ne smije biti kvarljivo ili lako uništeno. Tako naprimjer, žito nije idealno spremište vrijednosti.
• Prenosivo: dobro mora biti lako transportirati i čuvati, što omogućuje osiguranje protiv gubitka ili krađe i dopušta trgovinu na velike udaljenosti. Tako, krava je lošije spremište vrijednosti od zlatne narukvice.
• Zamjenjivo: jedna jedinica dobra treba biti zamjenjiva sa drugom. Bez zamjenjivosti, problem podudarnosti želja ostaje nerješiv. Time, zlato je bolje od dijamanata, jer su oni nepravilni u obliku i kvaliteti.
• Provjerljivo: dobro mora biti lako i brzo identificirano i testirano za autentičnost. Laka provjera povećava povjerenje u trgovini i vjerojatnost da će razmjena biti dovršena.
• Djeljivo: dobro mora biti lako djeljivo na manje dijelove. Premda je ovo svojstvo bilo manje važno u ranim društvima gdje je trgovina bila rijetka, postalo je važnije sa procvatom trgovine. Količine koje su se mijenjale postale su manje i preciznije.
• Oskudno: Monetarno dobro mora imati “cijenu nemoguću za lažirati,” kao što je rekao Nick Szabo. Drugim riječima, dobro ne smije biti obilno ili lako dostupno kroz proizvodnju. Oskudnost je možda i najvažnije svojstvo spremišta vrijednosti, pošto se izravno vezuje na ljudsku želju da sakupljamo ono što je rijetko. Ona je izvor vrijednosti u spremištu vrijednosti.
• Duge povijesti: što je dulje neko dobro vrijedno za društvo, veća je vjerojatnost da će biti prihvaćeno kao spremište vrijednosti. Dugo postojeće spremište vrijednosti biti će jako teško uklonjeno od strane došljaka, osim u slučaju sile (ratno osvajanje) ili ako je nova tehnologija znatno bolja u ostalim svojstvima.
• Otporno na cenzuru: novije svojstvo, sve više važno u modernom digitalnom svijetu sa sveprisutnim nadzorom, je otpornost na cenzuru. Drugim riječima, koliko je teško da vanjski agent, kao korporacija ili država, spriječi vlasnika dobra da ga čuva i koristi. Dobra koja su otporna na cenzuru su idealna za ljude koji žive u režimima koji prisilno nadziru kapital ili čine neke oblike mirne trgovine protuzakonitima.

Ova tablica ocjenjuje Bitcoin, zlato (gold) i fiat novac (kao što je euro ili dolar) po svojstvima izlistanim gore. Objašnjenje svake ocjene slijedi nakon tablice.

Trajnost:

Zlato je neosporeni kralj trajnosti. Velika većina zlata pronađenog kroz povijest, uključujući ono egipatskih faraona, opstaje i danas i vjerojatno će postojati i za tisuću godina. Zlatnici korišteni u antičko doba imaju značajnu vrijednost i danas. Fiat valute i bitcoini su digitalni zapisi koji ponekad imaju fizički oblik (npr. novčanice). Dakle, njihovu trajnost ne određuju njihova fizička svojstva (moguće je zamijeniti staru i oštećenu novčanicu za novu), nego institucije koje stoje iza njih. U slučaju fiat valuta, mnoge države su nastale i nestale kroz stoljeća, i valute su nestale s njima. Marke iz Weimarske republike danas nemaju vrijednost zato što institucija koja ih je izdavala više ne postoji. Ako je povijest ikakav pokazatelj, ne bi bilo mudro smatrati fiat valute trajnima dugoročno; američki dolar i britanska funta su relativne anomalije u ovom pogledu. Bitcoini, zato što nemaju instituciju koja ih održava, mogu se smatrati trajnima dok god mreža koja ih osigurava postoji. Obzirom da je Bitcoin još uvijek mlada valuta, prerano je za čvrste zaključke o njegovoj trajnosti. No, postoje ohrabrujući znakovi - prominente države su ga pokušavale regulirati, hakeri ga napadali - usprkos tome, mreža nastavlja funkcionirati, pokazujući visok stupanj antifragilnosti.

Prenosivost:

Bitcoini su najprenosivije spremište vrijednosti ikad. Privatni ključevi koji predstavljaju stotine milijuna dolara mogu se spremiti na USB drive i lako ponijeti bilo gdje. Nadalje, jednako velike sume mogu se poslati na drugi kraj svijeta skoro instantno. Fiat valute, zbog svojeg temeljno digitalnog oblika, su također lako prenosive. Ali, regulacije i kontrola kapitala od strane države mogu ugroziti velike prijenose vrijednosti, ili ih usporiti danima. Gotovina se može koristiti kako bi se izbjegle kontrole kapitala, ali onda rastu rizik čuvanja i cijena transporta. Zlato, zbog svojeg fizičkog oblika i velike gustoće, je najmanje prenosivo. Nije čudo da većina zlatnika i poluga nikad ne napuste sefove. Kada se radi prijenos zlata između prodavača i kupca, uglavnom se prenosi samo ugovor o vlasništvu, ne samo fizičko zlato. Prijenos fizičkog zlata na velike udaljenosti je skupo, riskantno i sporo.

Zamjenjivost:

Zlato nam daje standard za zamjenjivost. Kada je rastopljeno, gram zlata je praktički nemoguće razlikovati od bilo kojeg drugog grama, i zlato je oduvijek bilo takvo. S druge strane, fiat valute, su zamjenjive samo onoliko koliko njihova institucija želi da budu. Iako je uglavnom slučaj da je novčanica zamjenjiva za drugu istog iznosa, postoje situacije u kojima su velike novčanice tretirane drukčije od malih. Naprimjer, vlada Indije je, u pokušaju da uništi neoporezivo sivo tržište, potpuno oduzela vrijednost novčanicama od 500 i 1000 rupija. To je uzrokovalo da ljudi manje vrednuju te novčanice u trgovini, što je značilo da više nisu bile zaista zamjenjive za manje novčanice. Bitcoini su zamjenjivi na razini mreže; svaki bitcoin je pri prijenosu tretiran kao svaki drugi. No, zato što je moguće pratiti individualne bitcoine na blockchainu, određeni bitcoin može, u teoriji, postati “prljav” zbog korštenja u ilegalnoj trgovini, te ga trgovci ili mjenjačnice možda neće htjeti prihvatiti. Bez dodatnih poboljšanja oko privatnosti i anonimnosti na razini mrežnog protokola, bitcoine ne možemo smatrati jednako zamjenjivim kao zlato.

Mogućnost provjere:

Praktično gledajući, autentičnost fiat valuta i zlata je prilično lako provjeriti. Svejedno, i usprkos pokušajima da spriječe krivotvorenje novčanica, i dalje postoji potencijal prevare za vlade i njihove građane. Zlato također nije imuno na krivotvorenje. Sofisticirani kriminalci su koristili pozlaćeni tungsten kako bi prevarili kupce zlata. Bitcoine je moguće provjeriti sa matematičkom sigurnošću. Korištenjem kriptografskih potpisa, vlasnik bitcoina može javno demonstrirati da posjeduje bitcoine koje tvrdi da posjeduje.

Djeljivost:

Bitcoine je moguće podijeliti u stotinu milijuna manjih jedinica (zvanih satoshi), i prenositi takve (no, valja uzeti u obzir ekonomičnost prijenosa malih iznosa, zbog cijene osiguravanja mreže - “network fee”). Fiat valute su tipično dovoljno djeljive na jedinice sa vrlo niskom kupovnom moći. Zlato, iako fizički i teoretski djeljivo, postaje teško za korištenje kada se podijeli na dovoljno male količine da bi se moglo koristiti u svakodnevnoj trgovini.

Oskudnost:

Svojstvo koje najjasnije razlikuje Bitcoin od fiat valuta i zlata je njegova unaprijed definirana oskudnost. Od početka, konačna količina bitcoina nikad neće biti veća od 21 milijun. To daje vlasnicima bitcoina jasan i znan uvid u postotak ukupnog vlasništva. Naprimjer, vlasnik 10 bitcoina bi znao da najviše 2,1 milijuna ljudi (manje od 0.03% populacije) može ikad imati isto bitcoina kao i on. Premda je kroz povijest uvijek bilo oskudno, zlato nije imuno na povećanje ukupne količine. Ako se ikad izumi nova, ekonomičnija metoda rudarenja ili proizvodnje zlata, ukupna količina zlata bi se mogla dramatično povećati (npr. rudarenje morskog dna ili asteroida). Na kraju, fiat valute, relativno nov izum u povijesti, pokazale su se sklonima konstantnim povećanjima u količini. Države su pokazale stalnu sklonost inflaciji monetarne kvantitete kako bi rješavale kratkoročne političke probleme. Inflacijske tendencije vlada diljem svijeta čine fiat valute gotovo sigurnim da će gubiti vrijednost kroz vrijeme.

Etablirana povijest:

Nijedno monetarno dobro nema povijest kao zlato, koje je imalo vrijednost za cijelog trajanja ljudske civilizacije. Kovanice izrađene u antičko doba i danas imaju značajnu vrijednost. Ne može se isto reći za fiat valute, koje su same relativno nova povijesna anomalija. Od njihovog početka, fiat valute su imale gotovo univerzalni smjer prema bezvrijednosti. Korištenje inflacije kao podmuklog načina za nevidljivo oporezivanje građana je vječita kušnja kojoj se skoro nijedna država u povijesti nije mogla oduprijeti. Ako je 20. stoljeće, u kojem je fiat novac dominirao globalni monetarni poredak, demonstriralo neku ekonomsku istinu, to je onda bila ta da ne možemo računati na fiat novac da održi vrijednost u dužem ili srednjem vremenskom periodu. Bitcoin, usprkos svojoj novosti, je preživio dovoljno testova tržišta da postoji velika vjerojatnost da neće nestati kao vrijedno dobro. Nadalje, Lindy efekt govori da što duže Bitcoin bude korišten, to će veća biti vjera u njega i njegovu sposobnost da nastavi postojati dugo u budućnost. Drugim riječima, društvena vjera u monetarno dobro je asimptotička, kao u grafu ispod:

Ako Bitcoin preživi prvih 20 godina, imat će gotovo sveopće povjerenje da će trajati zauvijek, kao što ljudi vjeruju da je internet trajna stvar u modernom svijetu.

Otpor na cenzuru

Jedan od najbitnijih izvora za ranu potražnju bitcoina bila je njegova upotreba u ilegalnoj kupovini i prodaji droge. Mnogi su zato pogrešno zaključili da je primarna potražnja za bitcoinima utemeljena u njihovoj prividnoj anonimnosti. Međutim, Bitcoin nije anonimna valuta; svaka transakcija na mreži je zauvijek zapisana na javnom blockchainu. Povijesni zapis transakcija dozvoljava forenzičkoj analizi da identificira izvore i tijek sredstava. Takva analiza dovela je do uhićenja počinitelja zloglasne MtGox pljačke. Premda je istina da dovoljno oprezna i pedantna osoba može sakriti svoj identitet koristeći Bitcoin, to nije razlog zašto je Bitcoin bio toliko popularan u trgovini drogom.

Ključno svojstvo koje čini Bitcoin najboljim za takve aktivnosti je njegova agnostičnost i nepotrebnost za dozvolom (“premissionlessness”) na mrežnoj razini. Kada se bitcoini prenose na Bitcoin mreži, ne postoji nitko tko dopušta transakcije. Bitcoin je distribuirana peer-to-peer (korisnik-korisniku) mreža, i samim time dizajnirana da bude otporna na cenzuru. Ovo je u velikom kontrastu sa fiat bankarskim sustavom, u kojem države reguliraju banke i ostale institucije prijenosa novca, kako bi one prijavljivale i sprječavale protuzakonito korištenje monetarnih dobara. Klasičan primjer regulacije novca su kontrole kapitala. Npr., bogati milijunaš će vrlo teško prenijeti svoje bogatstvo u novu zemlju, kada bježi iz opresivnog režima. Premda zlato nije izdano i proizvedeno od države, njegova fizička priroda ga čini teško prenosivim kroz prostor, i samim time ga je daleko lakše regulirati nego Bitcoin. Indijski Akt kontrole zlata je primjer takve regulacije.

Bitcoin je odličan u većini gore navedenih svojstava, što mu omogućava da bude marginalno bolji od modernih i drevnih monetarnih dobara, te da pruži poticaje za svoje rastuće društveno usvajanje. Specifično, moćna kombinacija otpornosti na cenzuru i apsolutne oskudnosti bila je velika motivacija za bogate ulagače koji su uložili dio svojeg bogatstva u Bitcoin.

Evolucija novca

U modernoj monetarnoj ekonomiji postoji opsesija sa ulogom novca kao medija razmjene. U 20. stoljeću, države su monopolizirale izdavanje i kontrolu novca i kontinuirano potkopavale njegovo svojstvo spremišta vrijednosti, stvarajući lažno uvjerenje da je primarna svrha novca biti medij razmjene. Mnogi su kritizirali Bitcoin, govoreći da je neprikladan da bude novac zato što mu je cijena bila previše volatilna za medij razmjene. No, novac je uvijek evoluirao kroz etape; uloga spremišta vrijednosti je dolazila prije medija razmjene. Jedan od očeva marginalističke ekonomije, William Stanley Jevons, objašnjava:

"Povijesno govoreći… čini se da je zlato prvo služilo kao luksuzni metal za ukras; drugo, kao sačuvana vrijednost; treće, kao medij razmjene; i konačno, kao mjerilo vrijednosti."

U modernoj terminologiji, novac uvijek evoluira kroz četiri stadija:

1. Kolekcionarstvo: U prvoj fazi svoje evolucije, novac je tražen samo zbog svojih posebnih svojstava, uglavnom zbog želja onog koji ga posjeduje. Školjke, perlice i zlato su bili sakupljani prije nego su poprimili poznatije uloge novca.
2. Spremište vrijednosti: Jednom kada je novac tražen od dovoljnog broja ljudi, biti će prepoznat kao način za čuvanje i spremanje vrijednosti kroz vrijeme. Kada neko dobro postane široko korišteno kao spremište vrijednosti, njegova kupovna moć raste sa povećanom potražnjom za tu svrhu. Kupovna moć spremišta vrijednosti će u jednom trenutku doći do vrhunca, kada je dovolno rašireno i broj novih ljudi koji ga potražuju splasne.
3. Sredstvo razmjene: Kada je novac potpuno etabliran kao spremište vrijednosti, njegova kupovna moć se stabilizira. Nakon toga, postane prikladno sredstvo razmjene zbog stabilnosti svoje cijene. U najranijim danima Bitcoina, mnogi ljudi nisu shvaćali koju buduću cijenu plaćaju koristeći bitcoine kao sredstvo razmjene, umjesto kao novonastalo spremište vrijednosti. Poznata priča o čovjeku koji je za 10,000 bitcoina (vrijednih oko 94 milijuna dolara kada je ovaj članak napisan) za dvije pizze ilustrira ovaj problem.
4. Jedinica računanja vrijednosti: Jednom kada je novac široko korišten kao sredstvo razmjene, dobra će biti vrednovana u njemu, tj. većina cijena će biti izražena u njemu. Uobičajena zabluda je da je većinu dobara moguće zamijeniti za bitcoine danas. Npr., premda je možda moguće kupiti šalicu kave za bitcoine, izlistana cijena nije prava bitcoin cijena; zapravo se radi o cijeni u državnoj valuti koju želi trgovac, preračunatu u bitcoin po trenutnoj tržišnoj cijeni. Kad bi cijena bitcoina pala u odnosu na valutu, vrijednost šalice izražena u bitcoinima bi se povećala. Od trenutka kada trgovci budu voljni prihvaćani bitcoine kao platežno sredstvo, bez obraćanja pažnje na vrijednost bitcoina u državnoj fiat valuti, moći ćemo reći da je Bitcoin zaista postao jedinica računanja vrijednosti.

Monetarna dobra koja još nisu jedinice računanja vrijednosti možemo smatrati “djelomično monetiziranima.” Danas zlato ima takvu ulogu, jer je spremište vrijednosti, ali su mu uloge sredstva razmjene i računanja vrijednosti oduzete intervencijama država. Moguće je također da se jedno dobro koristi kao sredstvo razmjene, dok druga ispunjavaju ostale uloge. To je tipično u zemljama gdje je država disfunkcionalna, npr. Argentina ili Zimbabwe. U svojoj knjizi, Digitalno zlato, Nathaniel Popper piše:

"U Americi, dolar služi trima funkcijama novca: nudi sredstvo razmjene, jedinicu za mjerenje vrijednosti dobara, i mjesto gdje se može čuvati vrijednosti. S druge strane, argentinski peso je korišten kao sredstvo razmjene (za svakodnevne potrebe), ali ga nitko nije koristio kao spremište vrijednosti. Štednja u pesosima bila je ekvivalent bacanja novca. Zato su ljudi svu svoju štednju imali u dolarima, jer je dolar bolje čuvao vrijednost. Zbog volatilnosti pesosa, ljudi su računali cijene u dolarima, što im je pružalo pouzdaniju jedinicu mjerenja kroz vrijeme."

Bitcoin je trenutno u fazi tranzicije iz prvog stadija monetizacije u drugi. Vjerojatno će proći nekoliko godina prije nego Bitcoin pređe iz začetaka spremišta vrijednosti u istinski medij razmjene, i put do tog trenutka je još uvijek pun rizika i nesigurnosti. Važno je napomenuti da je ista tranzicija trajala mnogo stoljeća za zlato. Nitko danas živ nije doživio monetizaciju dobra u realnom vremenu (kroz koju Bitcoin prolazi), tako da nemamo puno iskustva govoriti o putu i načinu na koji će se monetizacija dogoditi.

Put monetizacije

Kroz proces monetizacije, monetarno dobro će naglo porasti u kupovnoj moći. Mnogi su tako komentirali da je uvećanje kupovne moći Bitcoina izgledalo kao “balon” (bubble). Premda je ovaj termin često korišten kako bi ukazao na pretjeranu vrijednosti Bitcoina, sasvim slučajno je prikladan. Svojstvo koje je uobičajeno za sva monetarna dobra jest da je njihova kupovna moć viša nego što se može opravdati samo kroz njihovu uporabnu vrijednost. Zaista, mnogi povijesni novci nisu imali uporabnu vrijednost. Razliku između kupovne moći i vrijednosti razmjene koju bi novac mogao imati za svoju inherentnu korisnost, možemo razmatrati kao “monetarnu premiju.” Kako monetarno dobro prolazi kroz stadije monetizacije (navedene gore), monetarna premija raste. No, ta premija ne raste u ravnoj i predvidivoj liniji. Dobro X, koje je bilo u procesu monetizacije, može izgubiti u usporedbi sa dobrom Y koje ima više svojstava novca, te monetarna premija dobra X drastično padne ili potpuno nestane. Monetarna premija srebra je skoro potpuno nestala u kasnom 19. stoljeću, kada su ga vlade diljem svijeta zamijenile zlatom kao novcem.

Čak i u odsustvu vanjskih faktora, kao što su intervencije vlade ili druga monetarna dobra, monetarna premija novog novca neće ići predvidivim putem. Ekonomist Larry White primijetio je:

"problem sa pričom “balona,” naravno, je da je ona konzistentna sa svakim putem cijene, i time ne daje ikakvo objašnjenje za specifičan put cijene"

Proces monetizacije opisuje teorija igara; svaki akter na tržištu pokušava predvidjeti agregiranu potražnju ostalih aktera, i time buduću monetarnu premiju. Zato što je monetarna premija nevezana za inherentnu korisnost, tržišni akteri se uglavnom vode za prošlim cijenama da bi odredili je li neko dobro jeftino ili skupo, i žele li ga kupiti ili prodati. Veza trenutne potražnje sa prošlim cijenama naziva se “ovisnost o putu” (path dependence); ona je možda najveći izvor konfuzije u shvaćanju kretanja cijena monetarnih dobara.

Kada kupovna moć monetarnog dobra naraste zbog većeg i šireg korištenja, očekivanja tržišta o definicijama “jeftinog” i “skupog” se mijenjaju u skladu s time. Slično tome, kada cijena monetarnog dobra padne, očekivanja tržišta mogu se promijeniti u opće vjerovanje da su prethodne cijene bile “iracionalne” ili prenapuhane. Ovisnost o putu novca ilustrirana je riječima poznatog upravitelja fondova s Wall Streeta, Josha Browna:

"Kupio sam bitcoine kada su koštali $2300, i to mi se udvostručilo gotovo odmah. Onda sam počeo govoriti kako “ne mogu kupiti još” dok im je cijena rasla, premda sam znao da je to razmišljanje bazirano samo na cijenu po kojoj sam ih kupio. Kasnije, kada je cijena pala zbog kineske regulacije mjenjačnica, počeo sam si govoriti, “Odlično, nadam se da će još pasti da mogu kupiti još.”"

Istina leži u tome da su ideje “jeftinog” i “skupog” zapravo besmislene kada govorimo o monetarnim dobrima. Cijena monetarnog dobra ne reflektira njegovu stopu rasprostanjenosti ili korisnosti, nego mjeru koliko je ono široko prihvaćeno da ispuni razne uloge novca.

Dodatna komplikacija u ovom aspektu novca je činjenica da tržišni akteri ne djeluju samo kao nepristrani promatrači koji pokušavaju kupiti i prodati u iščekivanju budućih kretanja monetarne premije, nego i kao aktivni proponenti. Pošto ne postoji objektivno “točna” monetarna premija, širiti dobar glas o superiornijim svojstvima nekog monetarnog dobra je efektivnije nego za obična dobra, čija vrijednost je u konačnici vezana na njegovu osnovnu korisnost. Religiozni zanos sudionika na Bitcoin tržištu vidljiv je na raznim internetskim forumima, gdje Bitcoineri aktivno promoviraju benefine Bitcoina i bogatstvo koje je moguće ostvariti investiranjem u njega. Promatrajući Bitcoin tržište, Leigh Drogen komentira:

"To je prepoznatljivo svima kao religija - priča koju si pričamo i oko koje se slažemo. Religija je krivulja na grafu prihvaćanja o kojoj trebamo razmišljati. Sustav je gotovo savršen - onog trenutka kada netko pristupi krugu Bitcoinera, to će reći svima i nastaviti širiti riječ. Onda njihovi prijatelji pristupe i nastave širiti riječ."

Premda usporedba sa religijom može staviti Bitcoin u iracionalno svjetlo, potpuno je racionalno za individualnog vlasnika da širi dobru vijest o superiornom monetarnom dobru, i za šire društvo da se standardizira oko njega. Novac djeluje kao temelj za svu trgovinu i štednju; tako da prihvaćanje superiornog oblika novca ima ogromne multiplicirajuće benefite za stvaranje bogatstva za sve članove društva.

Oblik monetizacije

U članku o Spekulativnom prihvaćanju Bitcoina / teorije cijene, Michael Casey postulira da rastući Gartner hype ciklusi predstavljaju faze standardne S-krivulje prihvaćanja novih tehnologija, koje su bile prisutne kod mnogih transformacijskih tehnologija dok su postajale uobičajene u društvu.

Svaki Gartner hype ciklus počinje sa eksplozijom entuzijazma za novom tehnologijom, a cijenu podižu oni sudionici na tržištvu koji su “dostupni” u toj fazi. Najraniji kupci u Gartner hype ciklusu obično imaju jaku vjeru o transformacijskoj prirodi tehnologije u koju ulažu. S vremenom, tržište dosegne vrhunac entuzijazma kako se količina novih kupaca iscrpljuje, te kupovinom počnu dominirati spekulatori koji su više zainteresirani u brze profite nego u samu tehnologiju.

Nakon vrha hype ciklusa, cijene rapidno padaju dok spekulativno ludilo ustupa mjesto očajavanju, javnoj poruzi i osjećaju da tehnologija nije uopće bila transformacijska. S vremenom, cijena dosegne dno i formira plato na kojem se originalnim ulagačima, koji su imali snažno uvjerenje, pridružuju nove grupe ljudi koji su izdržali bol kraha cijena i koji cijene važnost same tehnologije.

Plato traje neko vrijeme i formira, kako Casey kaže, “stabilnu, dosadnu dolinu.” Za ovo vrijeme, javni interes za tehnologiju opada, no nastaviti će se razvijati i snažna zajednica uvjerenja će polako rasti. Tada, postavlja se nova baza za sljedeću iteraciju hype ciklusa, dok vanjski promatrači prepoznaju da tehnologija i dalje postoji i da ulaganje u nju možda nije onoliko rizično kao što se činilo za vrijeme pada cijene. Sljedeća iteracija hype ciklusa donosi mnogo veći broj novih ljudi, pa je i ciklus daleko veći u svojoj magnitudi.

Jako mali broj ljudi koji sudjeluju u Gartner hype ciklusu će točno predvidjeti koliko će visoko cijena porasti za vrijeme ciklusa. Cijene često dosegnu razine koje bi se činile apsurdnima većini ulagača u raniji stadijima ciklusa. Kada ciklus završi, mediji tipično atribuiraju pad cijene nekoj od aktualnih drušvenih tema. Premda takva tema može biti okidač pada, ona nikad nije temeljni razlog zašto ciklus završava. Gartner hype ciklusi završavaju kada je količina dostupnih novih sudionika na tržištu iscrpljena.

Zanimljivo je da je i zlato nacrtalo klasičan graf Gartner hype ciklusa od kasnih 1970-ih do ranih 2000-ih. Moguće je spekulirati da je hype ciklus osnovna socijalna dinamika oko procesa monetizacije.

Gartner kohorte

Od početka trgovanja Bitcoina na mjenjačnicama 2010. godine, Bitcoin tržište je svjedočilo četirima velikim Gartner hype ciklusima. U retrospektivi, možemo vrlo precizno identificirati grupe cijena prethodnih hype ciklusa Bitcoin tržišta. Također, možemo kvalitativno odrediti kohorte ulagača koje su povezane sa svakom iteracijom prethodnih ciklusa.

$0–$1 (2009. – 3. mjesec 2011.): Prvi hype ciklus u Bitcoin tržištu dominirali su kriptografi, računalni znanstvenici i cypherpunkovi koji su od početka bili spremni razumijeti važnost nevjerojatnog izuma Satoshija Nakamotoa, i koji su bili pioniri u potvrđivanju da Bitcoin protokol nema tehničkih mana.

$1–$30 (3. mjesec 2011. – 7. mjesec. 2011.): Drugi ciklus privukao je rane entuzijaste oko novih tehnologija kao i stabilan pritok ideološki motiviranih ulagača koji su bili oduševljeni idejom novca odvojenog od države. Libertarijanci poput Rogera Vera došli su u Bitcoin zbog aktivnog anti-institucionalnog stava, i mogućnosti koju je nova tehnologija obećavala. Wences Casares, briljantni i dobro povezani serijski poduzetnik, bio je također dio drugog Bitcoin hype ciklusa te je širio riječ o Bitcoinu među najprominentnijim tehnolozima i ulagačima u Silicijskoj Dolini.

$250–$1100 (4. mjesec 2013. – 12. mjesec 2013.): Treći hype ciklus doživio je ulazak ranih generalnih i institucionalnih ulagača koji su bili voljni uložiti trud i riskirati kroz užasno komplicirane kanale likvidnosti kako bi kupili bitcoine. Primaran izvor likvidnosti na tržištu za vrijeme ovog perioda bio je MtGox, mjenjačnica bazirana u Japanu, koju je vodio notorno nesposobni i beskrupulozni Mark Karpeles, koji je kasnije završio i u zatvoru zbog svoje uloge u kolapsu MtGoxa.

Valja primijetiti da je rast Bitcoinove cijene za vrijeme spomenuti hype ciklusa većinom povezano sa povećanjem likvidnosti i lakoćom sa kojom su ulagači mogli kupiti bitcoine. Za vrijeme prvog hype ciklusa, nisu postojale mjenjačnice; akvizicija bitcoina se odvijala primarno kroz rudarenje (mining) ili kroz izravnu razmjenu sa onima koju su već izrudarili bitcoine. Za vrijeme drugog hype ciklusa, pojavile su se rudimentarne mjenjačnice, no nabavljanje i osiguravanje bitcoina na ovim mjenjačnicama bilo je previše kompleksno za sve osim tehnološki najsposobnijih ulagača. Čak i za vrijeme trećeg hype ciklusa, ulagači koju su slali novac na MtGox kako bi kupili bitcoine su morali raditi kroz značajne prepreke. Banke nisu bile voljne imati posla sa mjenjačnicom, a oni posrednici koji su nudili usluge transfera bili su često nesposobni, kriminalni, ili oboje. Nadalje, mnogi koji su uspjeli poslati novac MtGoxu, u konačnici su morali prihvatiti gubitak svojih sredstava kada je mjenjačnica hakirana i kasnije zatvorena.

Tek nakon kolapsa MtGox mjenjačnice i dvogodišnje pauze u tržišnoj cijeni Bitcoina, razvili su se zreli i duboki izvori likvidnosti; primjeri poput reguliranih mjenjačnica kao što su GDAX i OTC brokeri kao Cumberland mining. Dok je četvrti hype ciklus započeo 2016. godine, bilo je relativno lako običnim ulagačima kupiti i osigurati bitcoine.

$1100–$19600? (2014. –?):

U trenutku pisanja ovog teksta, tržište Bitcoina je prolazilo svoj četvrti veliki hype ciklus. Sudjelovanje u ovom hype ciklusu dominirala je ona skupina koju je Michael Casey opisao kao “rana većina” običnih i institucionalnih ulagača.

Kako su se izvori likvidnosti produbljivali i sazrijevali, veliki institucionalni ulagači sada imaju priliku sudjelovati kroz regulirana “futures” tržišta. Dostupnosti takvih tržišta stvara put ka kreaciji Bitcoin ETF-a (exchange traded fund) (fond na slobodnom tržištu), koji će onda pokrenuti “kasnu većinu” i “najsporije” u sljedećim hype ciklusima.

Premda je nemoguće predvidjeti točan efekt budućih hype ciklusa, razumno je očekivati da će najviša točka biti između $20,000 i $50,000 (2021. zenit je bio preko $69,000). Znatno više od ovog raspona, i Bitcoin bi imao znatan postotak ukupne vijednosti zlata (zlato i Bitcoin bi imali jednaku tržišnu kapitalizaciju kada bi bitcoini vrijedili oko $380,000 u trenutku pisanja ovog teksta). Značajan postotak vrijednosti zlata dolazi od potražnje centralnih banaka, te je malo vjerojatno da će centralne banke ili suverene države sudjelovati u trenutnom hype ciklusu.

Ulazak suverenih država u Bitcoin

Bitcoinov zadnji Gartner hype ciklus će započeti kada ga suverene države počnu akumulirati kao dio svojih rezervi stranih valuta. Tržišna kapitalizacija Bitcoina je trenutno premala da bismo ga smatrali značajnim dodatkom rezervama većini zemalja. No, kako se interes u privatnom sektoru povećava i kapitalizacija Bitcoina se približi trilijunu dolara, postat će dovoljno likvidan za većinu država. Prva država koja službeno doda bitcoine u svoje rezerve će vjerojatno potaknuti stampedo ostalih da učine isto. Države koje su među prvima u usvajanju Bitcoina imat će najviše benefita u svojim knjigama ako Bitcoin u konačnici postane globalna valuta (global reserve currency). Nažalost, vjerojatno će države sa najjačom izvršnom vlasti - diktature poput Sjeverne Koreje - biti najbrže u akumulaciji bitcoina. Neodobravanje prema takvim državama i slaba izvršna tijela zapadnjačkih demokracija uzrokovat će sporost i kašnjenje u akumulaciji bitcoina za njihove vlastite rezerve.

Velika je ironija u tome što je SAD trenutno jedna od regulatorno najotvorenijih nacija prema Bitcoinu, dok su Kina i Rusija najzatvorenije. SAD riskira najviše, geopolitički, ako bi Bitcoin zamijenio dolar kao svjetska rezervna valuta. U 1960-ima, Charles de Gaulle je kritizirao “pretjeranu privilegiju” (“exorbitant privilege”) koju su SAD imale u međunarodnom monetarnom poretku, postavljenom kroz Bretton Woods dogovor 1944. godine. Ruska i kineska vlada još ne shvaćaju geo-strateške benefite Bitcoina kao rezervne valute, te se trenutno brinu o efektima koje bi mogao imati na njihova unutarnja tržišta. Kao de Gaulle u 1960-ima, koji je prijetio SAD-u povratkom na klasični standard zlata, Kinezi i Rusi će s vremenom uvidjeti korist u velikoj poziciji u Bitcoinu - spremištu vrijednosti bez pokrića ijedne vlade. Sa najvećom koncentracijom rudara Bitcoina u Kini (2017.), kineska vlada već ima znatnu potencijalnu prednost u stavljanju bitcoina u svoje rezerve.

SAD se ponosi svojim statusom nacije inovatora, sa Silicijskom dolinom kao krunom svoje ekonomije. Dosad, Silicijska dolina je dominirala konverzacijom usmjerenom prema regulaciji, i poziciji koju bi ona treba zauzeti prema Bitcoinu. No, bankovna industrija i federalna rezerva SAD-a (US Federal Reserve, Fed) napokon počinju uviđati egzistencijalnu prijetnju koju Bitcoin predstavlja za američku monetarnu politiku, postankom globalne rezervne valute. Wall Street Journal, jedan od medijskih glasova federalne reserve, izdao je komentar o Bitcoinu kao prijetnji monetarnoj politici SAD-a:

"Postoji još jedna opasnost, možda i ozbiljnija iz perspektive centralnih banaka i regulatora: bitcoin možda ne propadne. Ako je spekulativni žar u kriptovalutu samo prvi pokazatelj njezinog šireg korištenja kao alternative dolaru, Bitcoin će svakako ugroziti monopol centralnih banaka nad novcem."

U narednim godinama, možemo očekivati veliku borbu između poduzetnika i inovatora u Silicijskoj dolini, koji će pokušavati čuvati Bitcoin od državne kontrole s jedne strane, i bankovne industrije i centralnih banaka koje će učiniti sve što mogu da bi regulirale Bitcoin kako bi spriječile znatne promjene u svojoj industriji i moći izdavanja novca, s druge.

Prijelaz na medij razmjene

Monetarno dobro ne može postati opće prihvaćen medij razmjene (standardna ekonomska definicija za “novac”) prije nego je vrednovano od širokog spektra ljudi; jednostavno, dobro koje nije vrednovano neće biti prihvaćeno u razmjeni. Kroz proces generalnog rasta vrijednosti, i time postanka spremišta vrijednosti, monetarno dobro će brzo narasti u kupovnoj moći, i time stvoriti cijenu za korištenje u razmjeni. Samo kada ta cijena rizika mijenjanja spremišta vrijednosti padne dovoljno nisko, može dobro postati opće prihvaćen medij razmjene.

Preciznije, monetarno dobro će biti prikladno kao medij razmjene samo kada je suma cijene rizika i transakcijske cijene u razmjeni manja nego u trgovini bez tog dobra.

U društvu koje vrši robnu razmjenu, prijelaz spremišta vrijednosti u medij razmjene može se dogoditi čak i onda kada monetarno dobro raste u kupovnoj moći, zato što su transakcijski troškovi robne razmjene iznimno visoki. U razvijenoj ekonomiji, u kojoj su troškovi razmjene niski, moguće je za mladu i rapidno rastućnu tehnologiju spremišta vrijednosti, poput Bitcoina, da se koristi kao medij razmjene, doduše na ograničen način. Jedan primjer je ilegalno tržište droge, gdje su kupci voljni žrtvovati oportunu cijenu čuvanja bitcoina kako bi umanjili znatan rizik kupovine droge koristeći fiat novac.

Postoje međutim velike institucionalne barijere da novonastalo spremište vrijednosti postane sveopće prihvaćen medij razmjene u razvijenom društvu. Države koriste oporezivanje kao moćnu metodu zaštite svojeg suverenog novca protiv rivalskih monetarnih dobara. Ne samo da suvereni novac ima prednost konstantnog izvora potražnje, zato što je porez moguće platiti jedino u njemu, nego su i rivalska monetarna dobra oporezana pri svakoj razmjeni za vrijeme rastuće cijene. Ova metoda oporezivanja stvara znatan otpor korištenju spremišta vrijednosti kao medija razmjene.

Ovakvo sabotiranje tržišnih monetarnih dobara nije nepremostiva barijera za njihovo prihvaćanje kao općeg medija razmjene. Ako ljudi izgube vjeru u suvereni novac, njegova vrijednost može rapidno propasti kroz proces zvan hiperinflacija. Kada suvereni novac prolazi kroz hiperinflaciju, njegova vrijednost propadne prvo u usporedbi sa najlikvidnijim dobrima u društvu, kao što je zlato ili stabilna strana valuta (američki dolar npr.), ako su ona dostupna. Kada nema likvidnih dobara ili ih ima premalo, novac u hiperinflaciji kolabira u usporedbi sa stvarnim dobrima, kao što su nekretnine ili upotrebljiva roba. Arhetipska slika hiperinflacije je trgovina sa praznim policama - potrošači brzo bježe iz propadajuće vrijednosti novca svoje nacije.

Nakon dovoljno vremena, kada je vjera potpuno uništena za vrijeme hiperinflacije, suvereni novac više nitko ne prihvaća, te se društvo može vratiti na robnu razmjenu, ili će doživjeti potpunu zamjenu monetarne jedinice za sredstvo razmjene. Primjer ovog procesa bila je zamjena zimbabveanskog dolara za američki dolar. Takva promjena suverenog novca za stranu valutu je dodatno otežana relativnom oskudnošću strane valute i odsustvom stranih bankarskih institucija koje pružaju likvidnost tržištu.

Sposobnost lakog prenošenja bitcoina preko granica i odsustvo potrebe za bankarskim sustavom čine Bitcoin idealnim monetarnim dobrom za one ljude koji pate pod hiperinflacijom. U nadolazećim godinama, kako fiat valute nastave svoj povijesni trend ka bezvrijednosti, Bitcoin će postati sve popularniji izbor za ušteđevine ljudi diljem svijeta. Kada je novac nacije napušten i zamijenjen Bitcoinom, Bitcoin će napraviti tranziciju iz spremišta vrijednosti u tom društvu u opće prihvaćeno sredstvo razmjene. Daniel Krawicz stvorio je termin “hiperbitcoinizacija” da bi opisao ovaj proces.

Učestala pogrešna shvaćanja

Većina ovog članka usredotočila se na monetarnu prirodu Bitcoina. Sa tim temeljima možemo adresirati neke od najčešćih nerazumijevanja u Bitcoinu.

Bitcoin je balon (bubble)

Bitcoin, kao sva tržišna monetarna dobra, posjeduje monetarnu premiju. Ona često rezultira uobičajenom kritikom da je Bitcoin samo “balon.” No, sva monetarna dobra imaju monetarnu premiju. Naprotiv, ta monetarna premija (cijena viša od one koju diktira potražnja za dobrom kao korisnim) je upravo karakteristična za sve oblike novca. Drugim riječima, novac je uvijek i svuda balon. Paradoksalno, monetarno dobro je istovremeno balon i ispod vrijednosti ukoliko je u ranijim stadijima općeg prihvaćanja kao novac.

Bitcoin je previše volatilan

Volatilnost cijene Bitcoina je funkcija njegovog nedavnog nastanka. U prvih nekoliko godina svojeg postojanja, Bitcoin se ponašao kao mala dionica, i svaki veliki kupac - kao npr. braća Winklevoss - mogao je uzrokovati veliki skok u njegovoj cijeni. No, kako su se prihvaćenost i likvidnost povećavali kroz godine, volatilnost Bitcoina je srazmjerno smanjila. Kada Bitcoin postigne tržišnu kapitalizaciju (vrijednost) zlata, imat će sličnu volatilnost kao i zlato. Kako Bitcoin nastavi rasti, njegova volatilnost će se smanjiti do razine koja ga čini prikladnim za široko korištenje kao medij razmjene. Kao što je prethodno rečeno, monetizacija Bitcoina se odvija u seriji Gartner hype ciklusa. Volatilnost je najniža za vrijeme vrhunaca i dolina unutar ciklusa. Svaki hype ciklus ima nižu volatilnost od prethodnih, zato što je likvidnost tržišta veća.

Cijene transakcija su previsoke

Novija kritika Bitcoin mreže je ta da ju je povećanje cijena prijenosa bitcoina učinilo neprikladnom za sustav plaćanja. No, rast u cijenama transakcija je zdrav i očekivan. One su nužne za plaćanje bitcoin minera (rudara), koji osiguravaju mrežu validacijom transakcija. Rudare se plaća kroz cijene transakcija ili kroz blok-nagrade, koje su inflacijska subvencija od trane trenutnih vlasnika bitcoina.

S obzirom na Bitcoinovu fiksnu proizvodnju (monetarna politika koja ga čini idealnim za spremanje vrijednosti), blok-nagrade će s vremenom nestati i mrežu će se u konačnici morati osiguravati kroz cijene transakcija. Mreža sa “niskim” cijenama transakcija je mreža sa slabom sigurnosti i osjetljiva na vanjsku intervenciju i cenzuru. Oni koji hvale niske cijene Bitcoinovih alternative zapravo niti ne znajući opisuju slabosti tih takozvanih “alt-coina.”

Površan temelj kritika Bitcoinovih “visokih” cijena transakcija je uvjerenje da bi Bitcoin trebao biti prvo sustav plaćanja, i drugo spremište vrijednosti. Kao što smo vidjeli kroz povijest novca, ovo uvjerenje je naopako. Samo onda kada Bitcoin postane duboko ukorijenjeno spremište novca može biti prikladan kao sredstvo razmjene. Nadalje, kada oportunitetni trošak razmjene bitcoina dođe na razinu koja ga čini prikladnim sredstvom razmjene, većina trgovine neće se odvijati na samoj Bitcoin mreži, nego na mrežama “drugog sloja” (second layer) koje će imati niže cijene transakcija. Takve mreže, poput Lightning mreže, služe kao moderna verzija zadužnica koje su korištene za prijenos vlasničkih papira zlata u 19. stoljeću. Banke su koristile zadužnice zato što je prijenos samog metala bio daleko skuplji. Za razliku od takvih zadužnica, Lightning mreža će omogućavati nisku cijenu prijenosa bitcoina bez potrebe za povjerenjem prema trećoj strani, poput banaka. Razvoj Lightning mreže je tehnološka inovacija od izuzetne važnosti u povijesti Bitcoina, i njezina vrijednost će postati očita u narednim godinama, kako je sve više ljudi bude razvijalo i koristilo.

Konkurencija

Pošto je Bitcoin softverski protokol otvorenog tipa (open-source), oduvijek je bilo moguće kopirati softver i imitirati mrežu. Kroz godine nastajali su mnogi imitatori, od identičnih kopija, kao Litecoin, do kompleksnijih varijanti kao što je Ethereum, koje obećavaju arbitrarno kompleksne ugovorne mehanizme koristeći decentralizirani računalni sustav. Česta kritika Bitcoinu od strane ulagača je ta da on ne može zadržati svoju vrijednost kada je vrlo lako stvoriti konkurente koji mogu lako i brzo u sebi imati najnovije inovacije i softverske funkcionalnosti.

Greška u ovom argumentu leži u manju takozvanog “mrežnog efekta” (network effect), koji postoji u prvoj i dominantnoj tehnologiji u nekom području. Mrežni efekt - velika vrijednost korištenja Bitcoina samo zato što je već dominantan - je važno svojstvo samo po sebi. Za svaku tehnologiju koja posjeduje mrežni efekt, to je daleko najvažnije svojstvo koje može imati.

Za Bitcoin, mrežni efekt uključuje likvidnost njegovog tržišta, broj ljudi koji ga posjeduju, i zajednicu programera koji održavaju i unaprjeđuju njegov softver i svjesnost u javnosti. Veliki ulagači, uključujući države, će uvijek prvo tražiti najlikvidnije tržište, kako bi mogli ući i izaći iz tržišta brzo, i bez utjecanja na cijenu. Programeri će se pridružiti dominantnoj programerskoj zajednici sa najboljim talentom, i time pojačati samu zajednicu. Svjesnost o brendu sama sebe pojačava, pošto se nadobudni konkurenti Bitcoina uvijek spominju u kontekstu Bitcoina kao takvog.

Raskrižje na putu (fork)

Trend koji je postao popularan 2017. godine nije bio samo imitacija Bitcoinovog softvera, nego kopiranje potpune povijesti njegovih prošlih transakcija (cijeli blockchain). Kopiranjem Bitcoinovog blockchaina do određene točke/bloka i odvajanjem sljedećih blokova ka novoj mreži, u procesu znanom kao “forking” (odvajanje), Bitcoinovi konkurenti su uspjeli riješiti problem distribuiranja svojeg tokena velikom broju korisnika.

Najznačajniji takav fork dogodio se 1. 8. 2017. godine, kada je nova mreža nazvana Bitcoin Cash (Bcash) stvorena. Vlasnik N količine bitcoina prije 1.8.2017. bi onda posjedovao N bitcoina i N BCash tokena. Mala, ali vrlo glasna zajednica Bcash proponenata je neumorno pokušavala prisvojiti Bitcoinov brend i ime, imenujući svoju novu mrežu Bitcoin Cast i pokušavajući uvjeriti nove pridošlice u Bitcoin da je Bcash “pravi” Bitcoin. Ti pokušaji su većinom propali, i taj neuspjeh se vidi u tržišnim kapitalizacijama dviju mreža. No, za nove ulagače, i dalje postoji rizik da bi konkurent mogao kopirati Bitcoin i njegov blockchain i tako uspjeti u preuzimanju tržišne kapitalizacije, te postati de facto Bitcoin.

Moguće je uočiti važno pravilo gledajući velike forkove u prošlosti Bitcoin i Ethereum mreža. Većina tržišne kapitalizacije odvijat će se na mreži koja zadrži najviši stupanj talenta i aktivnosti u zajednici programera. Premda se na Bitcoin može gledati kao na nov i mlad novac, on je također računalna mreža koja počiva na softveru, kojeg se pak treba održavati i poboljšavati. Kupovina tokena na mreži koja ima malo neiskusnih programera bilo bi kao kupovati kopiju Microsoft Windowsa na kojoj rade lošiji programeri. Jasno je vidljivo iz povijesti forkova koji su se odvili 2017. godine da su najbolji računalni i kriptografski stručnjaci posvećeni razvoju originalnog Bitcoina, a ne nekoj od rastućeg broja imitacija koje su se izrodile iz njega.

Stvarni rizici

Premda su uobičajene kritike upućene Bitconu od strane medija i ekonomske profesije krive i bazirane na netočnom shvaćanju novca, postoje pravi i značajni rizici kod ulaganja u Bitcoin. Bilo bi mudro za novog Bitcoin ulagača da shvati ove rizike prije potencijalnog ulaganja.

Rizik protokola

Bitcoin protokol i kriptografski sastavni dijelovi na kojima je sagrađen potencijalno imaju dosad nepronađenu grešku u svom dizajnu, ili mogu postati nesigurni razvojem kvantnih računala. Ako se pronađe greška u protokolu, ili neka nova metoda računarstva učini mogućim probijanje kriptografskih temelja Bitcoina, vjera u Bitcoin biti će znatno narušena. Rizik protokola bio je najviši u ranim godinama razvoja Bitcoina, kada je još uvijek bilo nejasno, čak i iskusnim kriptografima, je li Satoshi Nakamoto zaista riješio problem bizantskih generala (Byzantine Generals’ Problem). Brige oko ozbiljnih grešaka u Bitcoin protokolu nestale su kroz godine, no uzevši u obzir njegovu tehnološku prirodu, rizik protokola će uvijek ostati u Bitcoinu, makar i kao izuzetak.

Propadanje mjenjačnica

Time što je decentraliziran, Bitcoin je pokazao značajnu otpornost, suočen sa brojnim pokušajima raznih vlada da ga reguliraju ili unište. No, mjenjačnice koje trguju bitcoinima za fiat valute su centralizirani entiteti i podložne regulacijama i zatvaranju. Bez mjenjačnica i volje bankara da s njima posluju, proces monetizacije Bitcoina bio bi ozbiljno usporen, ako ne i potpuno zaustavljen. Iako postoje alternativni izvori likvidnosti za Bitcoin, poput “over-the-counter” brokera i decentraliziranih tržišta za kupovinu i prodaju bitcoina, kritičan proces otkrivanja i definiranja cijene se odvija na najlikvidnijim mjenjačnicama, koje su sve centralizirane.

Jedan od načina za umanjivanje rizika gašenja mjenjačnica je geografska arbitraža. Binance, jedna od velikih mjenjačnica iz Kine, preselila se u Japan nakon što joj je kineska vlada zabranila operiranje u Kini. Vlade su također oprezne kako ne bi ugušile novu industriju koja je potencijalno značajna kao i internet, i time predale nevjerojatnu konkurentnu vrijednost drugim nacijama.

Samo kroz koordinirano globalno ukidanje Bitcoin mjenjačnica bi proces monetizacije mogao biti zaustavljen. Trenutno smo u utrci; Bitcoin raste i postaje sve rašireniji, i doći će do trenutka kada bi potpuno ukidanje mjenjačnica postalo politički neizvedivo - kao i gašenje interneta. Mogućnost takvog ukidanja je još uvijek realna, i valja je uzeti u obzir pri ulaganju u Bitcoin. Kao što je gore objašnjeno, suverene vlade se polako bude i uviđaju prijetnju koju predstavlja neovisna digitalna valuta otporna na cenzuru, za njihovu monetarnu politiku. Otvoreno je pitanje hoće li išta poduzeti da odgovore ovoj prijetnji prije nego Bitcoin postane toliko utvrđen i raširen da politička akcija postane nemoćna i ne-efektivna.

Zamjenjivost

Otvorena i transparentna priroda Bitcoin blockchaina omogućava državama da proglase specifične bitcoine “okaljanima” zbog njihovog korištenja u određenim aktivnostima. Premda Bitcoin, na protokolarnoj razini, ne diskriminira transakcije na ikoji način, “okaljani” bitcoini bi mogli postati bezvrijedni ako bi ih regulacije proglasile ilegalnima i neprihvatljivima za mjenjačnice ili trgovce. Bitcoin bi tada izgubio jedno od kritičnih svojstava monetarnog dobra: zamjenjivost.

Da bi se ovaj problem riješio i umanjio, biti će potrebna poboljšanja na razini protokola kako bi se poboljšala privatnost transakcija. Premda postoji napredak u ovom smjeru, prvi put primjenjen u digitalnim valutama kao što su Monero i Zcash, potrebno je napraviti značajne tehnološke kompromise između efikasnosti i kompleksnosti Bitcoina i njegove privatnosti. Pitanje ostaje otvoreno je li moguće dodati nova svojstva privatnosti na Bitcoin, na način koji neće kompromitirati njegovu korisnost kao novca.

Zaključak

Bitcoin je novonastali novac koji je u procesu transformacije iz sakupljačkog dobra u spremište vrijednosti. Kao neovisno monetarno dobro, moguće je da će u budućnosti postati globalan novac, slično kao zlato za vrijeme 19. stoljeća. Prihvaćanje Bitcoina kao globalnog novca je upravo taj optimističan scenarij za Bitcoin, kojeg je artikulirao Satoshi Nakamoto još 2010. godine u email razmjeni sa Mikeom Hearnom:

"Ako zamisliš da se koristi u nekom dijelu svjetske trgovine, i da će postojati samo 21 milijun bitcoina za cijeli svijet, vrijednost po jedinici će biti znatno veća".

Ovaj scenarij je još snažnije definirao briljantni kriptograf Hal Finney, koji je ujedno primio i prve bitcoine od Nakamotoa, ubrzo nakon najave prvog funkcionalnog Bitcoin softvera:

"Zamislimo da Bitcoin bude uspješan i postane dominantan sustav plaćanja diljem svijeta. U tom slučaju će ukupna vrijednost valute biti jednaka ukupnoj vrijednosti svog bogatstva svijeta. Današnje procjene ukupnog svjetskog bogatska kućanstava koje sam pronašao borave negdje između 100 i 300 trilijuna dolara. Sa 20 milijuna bitcoina, svaki bi onda vrijedio oko 10 milijuna dolara."

Čak i da Bitcoin ne postane u cijelost globalan novac, nego da se samo natječe sa zlatom kao neovisno spremište vrijednosti, i dalje je masivno podcijenjen. Mapiranje tržišne kapitalizacije postojeće količine izrudarenog zlata (oko 8 trilijuna dolara) na maksimalnu dostupnost Bitcoina od 21 milijun, daje vrijednost od otprilike 380,000 dolara po bitcoinu. Kao što smo vidjeli u prethodnom tekstu, svojstva koja omogućavaju monetarnom dobru da bude prikladno spremište vrijednosti, čine Bitcoin superiornijim zlatu u svakom pogledu osim trajanja povijesti. No, kako vrijeme prolazi i Lindy efekt postane jači, dosadašnja povijest će prestati biti prednost zlata. Samim time, nije nerazumno očekivati da će Bitcoin narasti do, a možda i preko, ukupne cijene zlata na tržištvu do 2030. Opaska ovoj tezi je činjenica da veliki postotak vrijednosti zlata dolazi od toga što ga centralne banke čuvaju kao spremište vrijednosti. Da bi Bitcoin došao do te razine, određena količina suverenih država će trebati sudjelovati. Hoće li zapadnjačke demokracije sudjelovati u vlasništvu Bitcoina je nepoznato. Vjerojatnije je, nažalost, da će prve nacije u Bitcoin tržištu biti sitne diktature i kleptokracije.

Ako niti jedna država ne bude sudjelovala u Bitcoin tržištu, optimistična teza i dalje postoji. Kao nevisno spremište vrijednosti u rukama individualnih i institucionalnih ulagača, Bitcoin je i dalje vrlo rano u svojoj “krivulji prihvaćenosti” (adoption curve); tzv. “rana većina” ulaze na tržište sada, dok će ostali ući tek nekoliko godina kasnije. Sa širim sudjelovanjem individualnih i institucionalnih ulagača, cijena po bitcoinu između 100,000 i 200,000 dolara je sasvim moguća.

Posjedovanje bitcoina je jedna od malobrojnih asimetričnih novčanih strategija dostupnih svakome na svijetu. Poput “call” opcija, negativan rizik ulagača je ograničen na 1x, dok potencijalna dobit i dalje iznosi 100x ili više. Bitcoin je prvi istinski globalan balon čija je veličina ograničena samo potražnjom i željom građana svijeta da zaštite svoju ušteđevinu od raznovrsnih ekonomskih malverzacija vlade. Bitcoin je ustao kao feniks iz pepela globalne financijske krize 2008. godine - katastrofe kojoj su prethodile odluke centralnih banaka poput američke Federalne rezerve (Federal Reserve).

Onkraj samo financijske teze za Bitcoin, njegov rast i uspjeh kao neovisno spremište vrijednosti imat će duboke geopolitičke posljedice. Globalna, ne-inflacijska valuta će prisiliti suverene države da promjene svoje primarne mehanizme financiranja od inflacije u izravno oporezivanje; koje je daleko manje politički popularno. Države će se smanjivati proporcionalno političkoj boli koju im nanese oporezivanje kao jedini način financiranja. Nadalje, globalna trgovina vršiti će se na način koji zadovoljava aspiraciju Charlesa de Gaullea, da nijedna nacija ne bi smjela imati privilegiju nad ikojom drugom:

"Smatramo da je potrebno da se uspostavi međunarodna trgovina, kao što je bio slučaj prije velikih nesreća koje su zadesile svijet, na neosporivoj monetarnoj bazi, koja ne nosi na sebi oznaku ijedne države."

Za 50 godina, ta monetarna baza biti će Bitcoin.

@ 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.

@ 8947a945:9bfcf626

สวัสดีทุกคนบน Nostr ครับ รวมไปถึง watchersและ ผู้ติดตามของผมจาก Deviantart และ platform งานศิลปะอื่นๆนะครับ

ตั้งแต่ต้นปี 2024 ผมใช้ AI เจนรูปงานตัวละครสาวๆจากอนิเมะ และเปิด exclusive content ให้สำหรับผู้ที่ชื่นชอบผลงานของผมเป็นพิเศษ

ผมโพสผลงานผมทั้งหมดไว้ที่เวบ Deviantart และค่อยๆสร้างฐานผู้ติดตามมาเรื่อยๆอย่างค่อยเป็นค่อยไปมาตลอดครับ ทุกอย่างเติบโตไปเรื่อยๆของมัน ส่วนตัวผมมองว่ามันเป็นพิร์ตธุรกิจออนไลน์ ของผมพอร์ตนึงได้เลย

เมื่อวันที่ 16 กย.2024 มีผู้ติดตามคนหนึ่งส่งข้อความส่วนตัวมาหาผม บอกว่าชื่นชอบผลงานของผมมาก ต้องการจะขอซื้อผลงาน แต่ขอซื้อเป็น NFT นะ เสนอราคาซื้อขายต่อชิ้นที่สูงมาก หลังจากนั้นผมกับผู้ซื้อคนนี้พูดคุยกันในเมล์ครับ

นี่คือข้อสรุปสั่นๆจากการต่อรองซื้อขายครับ

(หลังจากนี้ผมขอเรียกผู้ซื้อว่า scammer นะครับ เพราะไพ่มันหงายมาแล้ว ว่าเขาคือมิจฉาชีพ)

• Scammer รายแรก เลือกผลงานที่จะซื้อ เสนอราคาซื้อที่สูงมาก แต่ต้องเป็นเวบไซต์ NFTmarket place ที่เขากำหนดเท่านั้น มันทำงานอยู่บน ERC20 ผมเข้าไปดูเวบไซต์ที่ว่านี้แล้วรู้สึกว่ามันดูแปลกๆครับ คนที่จะลงขายผลงานจะต้องใช้ email ในการสมัครบัญชีซะก่อน ถึงจะผูก wallet อย่างเช่น metamask ได้ เมื่อผูก wallet แล้วไม่สามารถเปลี่ยนได้ด้วย ตอนนั้นผมใช้ wallet ที่ไม่ได้ link กับ HW wallet ไว้ ทดลองสลับ wallet ไปๆมาๆ มันทำไม่ได้ แถมลอง log out แล้ว เลข wallet ก็ยังคาอยู่อันเดิม อันนี้มันดูแปลกๆแล้วหนึ่งอย่าง เวบนี้ค่า ETH ในการ mint 0.15 - 0.2 ETH … ตีเป็นเงินบาทนี่แพงบรรลัยอยู่นะครับ

• Scammer รายแรกพยายามชักจูงผม หว่านล้อมผมว่า แหม เดี๋ยวเขาก็มารับซื้องานผมน่า mint งานเสร็จ รีบบอกเขานะ เดี๋ยวเขารีบกดซื้อเลย พอขายได้กำไร ผมก็ได้ค่า gas คืนได้ แถมยังได้กำไรอีก ไม่มีอะไรต้องเสีนจริงมั้ย แต่มันเป้นความโชคดีครับ เพราะตอนนั้นผมไม่เหลือทุนสำรองที่จะมาซื้อ ETH ได้ ผมเลยต่อรองกับเขาตามนี้ครับ :

• ผมเสนอว่า เอางี้มั้ย ผมส่งผลงานของผมแบบ low resolution ให้ก่อน แลกกับให้เขาช่วยโอน ETH ที่เป็นค่า mint งานมาให้หน่อย พอผมได้ ETH แล้ว ผมจะ upscale งานของผม แล้วเมล์ไปให้ ใจแลกใจกันไปเลย ... เขาไม่เอา

• ผมเสนอให้ไปซื้อที่ร้านค้าออนไลน์ buymeacoffee ของผมมั้ย จ่ายเป็น USD ... เขาไม่เอา
• ผมเสนอให้ซื้อขายผ่าน PPV lightning invoice ที่ผมมีสิทธิ์เข้าถึง เพราะเป็น creator ของ Creatr ... เขาไม่เอา
• ผมยอกเขาว่างั้นก็รอนะ รอเงินเดือนออก เขาบอก ok

สัปดาห์ถัดมา มี scammer คนที่สองติดต่อผมเข้ามา ใช้วิธีการใกล้เคียงกัน แต่ใช้คนละเวบ แถมเสนอราคาซื้อที่สูงกว่าคนแรกมาก เวบที่สองนี้เลวร้ายค่าเวบแรกอีกครับ คือต้องใช้เมล์สมัครบัญชี ไม่สามารถผูก metamask ได้ พอสมัครเสร็จจะได้ wallet เปล่าๆมาหนึ่งอัน ผมต้องโอน ETH เข้าไปใน wallet นั้นก่อน เพื่อเอาไปเป็นค่า mint NFT 0.2 ETH

ผมบอก scammer รายที่สองว่า ต้องรอนะ เพราะตอนนี้กำลังติดต่อซื้อขายอยู่กับผู้ซื้อรายแรกอยู่ ผมกำลังรอเงินเพื่อมาซื้อ ETH เป็นต้นทุนดำเนินงานอยู่ คนคนนี้ขอให้ผมส่งเวบแรกไปให้เขาดูหน่อย หลังจากนั้นไม่นานเขาเตือนผมมาว่าเวบแรกมันคือ scam นะ ไม่สามารถถอนเงินออกมาได้ เขายังส่งรูป cap หน้าจอที่คุยกับผู้เสียหายจากเวบแรกมาให้ดูว่าเจอปัญหาถอนเงินไม่ได้ ไม่พอ เขายังบลัฟ opensea ด้วยว่าลูกค้าขายงานได้ แต่ถอนเงินไม่ได้

Opensea ถอนเงินไม่ได้ ตรงนี้แหละครับคือตัวกระตุกต่อมเอ๊ะของผมดังมาก เพราะ opensea อ่ะ ผู้ใช้ connect wallet เข้ากับ marketplace โดยตรง ซื้อขายกันเกิดขึ้น เงินวิ่งเข้าวิ่งออก wallet ของแต่ละคนโดยตรงเลย opensea เก็บแค่ค่า fee ในการใช้ platform ไม่เก็บเงินลูกค้าไว้ แถมปีนี้ค่า gas fee ก็ถูกกว่า bull run cycle 2020 มาก ตอนนี้ค่า gas fee ประมาณ 0.0001 ETH (แต่มันก็แพงกว่า BTC อยู่ดีอ่ะครับ)

ผมเลยเอาเรื่องนี้ไปปรึกษาพี่บิท แต่แอดมินมาคุยกับผมแทน ทางแอดมินแจ้งว่ายังไม่เคยมีเพื่อนๆมาปรึกษาเรื่องนี้ กรณีที่ผมทักมาถามนี่เป็นรายแรกเลย แต่แอดมินให้ความเห็นไปในทางเดียวกับสมมุติฐานของผมว่าน่าจะ scam ในเวลาเดียวกับผมเอาเรื่องนี้ไปถามในเพจ NFT community คนไทนด้วย ได้รับการ confirm ชัดเจนว่า scam และมีคนไม่น้อยโดนหลอก หลังจากที่ผมรู้ที่มาแล้ว ผมเลยเล่นสงครามปั่นประสาท scammer ทั้งสองคนนี้ครับ เพื่อดูว่าหลอกหลวงมิจฉาชีพจริงมั้ย

โดยวันที่ 30 กย. ผมเลยปั่นประสาน scammer ทั้งสองรายนี้ โดยการ mint ผลงานที่เขาเสนอซื้อนั่นแหละ ขึ้น opensea แล้วส่งข้อความไปบอกว่า

mint ให้แล้วนะ แต่เงินไม่พอจริงๆว่ะโทษที เลย mint ขึ้น opensea แทน พอดีบ้านจน ทำได้แค่นี้ไปถึงแค่ opensea รีบไปซื้อล่ะ มีคนจ้องจะคว้างานผมเยอะอยู่ ผมไม่คิด royalty fee ด้วยนะเฮ้ย เอาไปขายต่อไม่ต้องแบ่งกำไรกับผม

เท่านั้นแหละครับ สงครามจิตวิทยาก็เริ่มขึ้น แต่เขาจนมุม กลืนน้ำลายตัวเอง ช็อตเด็ดคือ

เขา : เนี่ยอุส่ารอ บอกเพื่อนในทีมว่าวันจันทร์ที่ 30 กย. ได้ของแน่ๆ เพื่อนๆในทีมเห็นงานผมแล้วมันสวยจริง เลยใส่เงินเต็มที่ 9.3ETH (+ capture screen ส่งตัวเลขยอดเงินมาให้ดู)ไว้รอโดยเฉพาะเลยนะ ผม : เหรอ ... งั้น ขอดู wallet address ที่มี transaction มาให้ดูหน่อยสิ เขา : 2ETH นี่มัน 5000$ เลยนะ ผม : แล้วไง ขอดู wallet address ที่มีการเอายอดเงิน 9.3ETH มาให้ดูหน่อย ไหนบอกว่าเตรียมเงินไว้มากแล้วนี่ ขอดูหน่อย ว่าใส่ไว้เมื่อไหร่ ... เอามาแค่ adrress นะเว้ย ไม่ต้องทะลึ่งส่ง seed มาให้ เขา : ส่งรูปเดิม 9.3 ETH มาให้ดู ผม : รูป screenshot อ่ะ มันไม่มีความหมายหรอกเว้ย ตัดต่อเอาก็ได้ง่ายจะตาย เอา transaction hash มาดู ไหนว่าเตรียมเงินไว้รอ 9.3ETH แล้วอยากซื้องานผมจนตัวสั่นเลยไม่ใช่เหรอ ถ้าจะส่ง wallet address มาให้ดู หรือจะช่วยส่ง 0.15ETH มาให้ยืม mint งานก่อน แล้วมากดซื้อ 2ETH ไป แล้วผมใช้ 0.15ETH คืนให้ก็ได้ จะซื้อหรือไม่ซื้อเนี่ย เขา : จะเอา address เขาไปทำไม ผม : ตัดจบ รำคาญ ไม่ขายให้ละ เขา : 2ETH = 5000 USD เลยนะ ผม : แล้วไง

ผมเลยเขียนบทความนี้มาเตือนเพื่อนๆพี่ๆทุกคนครับ เผื่อใครกำลังเปิดพอร์ตทำธุรกิจขาย digital art online แล้วจะโชคดี เจอของดีแบบผม

---

ทำไมผมถึงมั่นใจว่ามันคือการหลอกหลวง แล้วคนโกงจะได้อะไร

อันดับแรกไปพิจารณาดู opensea ครับ เป็นเวบ NFTmarketplace ที่ volume การซื้อขายสูงที่สุด เขาไม่เก็บเงินของคนจะซื้อจะขายกันไว้กับตัวเอง เงินวิ่งเข้าวิ่งออก wallet ผู้ซื้อผู้ขายเลย ส่วนทางเวบเก็บค่าธรรมเนียมเท่านั้น แถมค่าธรรมเนียมก็ถูกกว่าเมื่อปี 2020 เยอะ ดังนั้นการที่จะไปลงขายงานบนเวบ NFT อื่นที่ค่า fee สูงกว่ากันเป็นร้อยเท่า ... จะทำไปทำไม

ผมเชื่อว่า scammer โกงเงินเจ้าของผลงานโดยการเล่นกับความโลภและความอ่อนประสบการณ์ของเจ้าของผลงานครับ เมื่อไหร่ก็ตามที่เจ้าของผลงานโอน ETH เข้าไปใน wallet เวบนั้นเมื่อไหร่ หรือเมื่อไหร่ก็ตามที่จ่ายค่า fee ในการ mint งาน เงินเหล่านั้นสิ่งเข้ากระเป๋า scammer ทันที แล้วก็จะมีการเล่นตุกติกต่อแน่นอนครับ เช่นถอนไม่ได้ หรือซื้อไม่ได้ ต้องโอนเงินมาเพิ่มเพื่อปลดล็อค smart contract อะไรก็ว่าไป แล้วคนนิสัยไม่ดีพวกเนี้ย ก็จะเล่นกับความโลภของคน เอาราคาเสนอซื้อที่สูงโคตรๆมาล่อ ... อันนี้ไม่ว่ากัน เพราะบนโลก NFT รูปภาพบางรูปที่ไม่ได้มีความเป็นศิลปะอะไรเลย มันดันขายกันได้ 100 - 150 ETH ศิลปินที่พยายามสร้างตัวก็อาจจะมองว่า ผลงานเรามีคนรับซื้อ 2 - 4 ETH ต่องานมันก็มากพอแล้ว (จริงๆมากเกินจนน่าตกใจด้วยซ้ำครับ)

บนโลกของ BTC ไม่ต้องเชื่อใจกัน โอนเงินไปหากันได้ ปิดสมุดบัญชีได้โดยไม่ต้องเชื่อใจกัน

บบโลกของ ETH "code is law" smart contract มีเขียนอยู่แล้ว ไปอ่าน มันไม่ได้ยากมากในการทำความเข้าใจ ดังนั้น การจะมาเชื่อคำสัญญาจากคนด้วยกัน เป็นอะไรที่ไม่มีเหตุผล

ผมไปเล่าเรื่องเหล่านี้ให้กับ community งานศิลปะ ก็มีทั้งเสียงตอบรับที่ดี และไม่ดีปนกันไป มีบางคนยืนยันเสียงแข็งไปในทำนองว่า ไอ้เรื่องแบบเนี้ยไม่ได้กินเขาหรอก เพราะเขาตั้งใจแน่วแน่ว่างานศิลป์ของเขา เขาไม่เอาเข้ามายุ่งในโลก digital currency เด็ดขาด ซึ่งผมก็เคารพมุมมองเขาครับ แต่มันจะดีกว่ามั้ย ถ้าเราเปิดหูเปิดตาให้ทันเทคโนโลยี โดยเฉพาะเรื่อง digital currency , blockchain โดนโกงทีนึงนี่คือหมดตัวกันง่ายกว่าเงิน fiat อีก

อยากจะมาเล่าให้ฟังครับ และอยากให้ช่วยแชร์ไปให้คนรู้จักด้วย จะได้ระวังตัวกัน

Note

• ภาพประกอบ cyber security ทั้งสองนี่ของผมเองครับ ทำเอง วางขายบน AdobeStock
• อีกบัญชีนึงของผม "HikariHarmony" npub1exdtszhpw3ep643p9z8pahkw8zw00xa9pesf0u4txyyfqvthwapqwh48sw กำลังค่อยๆเอาผลงานจากโลกข้างนอกเข้ามา nostr ครับ ตั้งใจจะมาสร้างงานศิลปะในนี้ เพื่อนๆที่ชอบงาน จะได้ไม่ต้องออกไปหาที่ไหน

ผลงานของผมครับ - Anime girl fanarts : HikariHarmony - HikariHarmony on Nostr - General art : KeshikiRakuen - KeshikiRakuen อาจจะเป็นบัญชี nostr ที่สามของผม ถ้าไหวครับ

@ 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.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 8947a945:9bfcf626

Hello everyone on Nostr and all my watchersand followersfrom DeviantArt, as well as those from other art platforms

I have been creating and sharing AI-generated anime girl fanart since the beginning of 2024 and have been running member-exclusive content on Patreon.

I also publish showcases of my artworks to Deviantart. I organically build up my audience from time to time. I consider it as one of my online businesses of art. Everything is slowly growing

On September 16, I received a DM from someone expressing interest in purchasing my art in NFT format and offering a very high price for each piece. We later continued the conversation via email.

Here’s a brief overview of what happened

• The first scammer selected the art they wanted to buy and offered a high price for each piece. They provided a URL to an NFT marketplace site running on the Ethereum (ETH) mainnet or ERC20. The site appeared suspicious, requiring email sign-up and linking a MetaMask wallet. However, I couldn't change the wallet address later. The minting gas fees were quite expensive, ranging from 0.15 to 0.2 ETH

• The scammers tried to convince me that the high profits would easily cover the minting gas fees, so I had nothing to lose. Luckily, I didn’t have spare funds to purchase ETH for the gas fees at the time, so I tried negotiating with them as follows:

• I offered to send them a lower-quality version of my art via email in exchange for the minting gas fees, but they refused.

• I offered them the option to pay in USD through Buy Me a Coffee shop here, but they refused.
• I offered them the option to pay via Bitcoin using the Lightning Network invoice , but they refused.
• I asked them to wait until I could secure the funds, and they agreed to wait.

The following week, a second scammer approached me with a similar offer, this time at an even higher price and through a different NFT marketplace website.

This second site also required email registration, and after navigating to the dashboard, it asked for a minting fee of 0.2 ETH. However, the site provided a wallet address for me instead of connecting a MetaMask wallet.

I told the second scammer that I was waiting to make a profit from the first sale, and they asked me to show them the first marketplace. They then warned me that the first site was a scam and even sent screenshots of victims, including one from OpenSea saying that Opensea is not paying.

This raised a red flag, and I began suspecting I might be getting scammed. On OpenSea, funds go directly to users' wallets after transactions, and OpenSea charges a much lower platform fee compared to the previous crypto bull run in 2020. Minting fees on OpenSea are also significantly cheaper, around 0.0001 ETH per transaction.

I also consulted with Thai NFT artist communities and the ex-chairman of the Thai Digital Asset Association. According to them, no one had reported similar issues, but they agreed it seemed like a scam.

After confirming my suspicions with my own research and consulting with the Thai crypto community, I decided to test the scammers’ intentions by doing the following

I minted the artwork they were interested in, set the price they offered, and listed it for sale on OpenSea. I then messaged them, letting them know the art was available and ready to purchase, with no royalty fees if they wanted to resell it.

They became upset and angry, insisting I mint the art on their chosen platform, claiming they had already funded their wallet to support me. When I asked for proof of their wallet address and transactions, they couldn't provide any evidence that they had enough funds.

Here’s what I want to warn all artists in the DeviantArt community or other platforms If you find yourself in a similar situation, be aware that scammers may be targeting you.

---

My Perspective why I Believe This is a Scam and What the Scammers Gain

From my experience with BTC and crypto since 2017, here's why I believe this situation is a scam, and what the scammers aim to achieve

First, looking at OpenSea, the largest NFT marketplace on the ERC20 network, they do not hold users' funds. Instead, funds from transactions go directly to users’ wallets. OpenSea’s platform fees are also much lower now compared to the crypto bull run in 2020. This alone raises suspicion about the legitimacy of other marketplaces requiring significantly higher fees.

I believe the scammers' tactic is to lure artists into paying these exorbitant minting fees, which go directly into the scammers' wallets. They convince the artists by promising to purchase the art at a higher price, making it seem like there's no risk involved. In reality, the artist has already lost by paying the minting fee, and no purchase is ever made.

In the world of Bitcoin (BTC), the principle is "Trust no one" and “Trustless finality of transactions” In other words, transactions are secure and final without needing trust in a third party.

In the world of Ethereum (ETH), the philosophy is "Code is law" where everything is governed by smart contracts deployed on the blockchain. These contracts are transparent, and even basic code can be read and understood. Promises made by people don’t override what the code says.

I also discuss this issue with art communities. Some people have strongly expressed to me that they want nothing to do with crypto as part of their art process. I completely respect that stance.

However, I believe it's wise to keep your eyes open, have some skin in the game, and not fall into scammers’ traps. Understanding the basics of crypto and NFTs can help protect you from these kinds of schemes.

If you found this article helpful, please share it with your fellow artists.

Until next time Take care

Note

• Both cyber security images are mine , I created and approved by AdobeStock to put on sale
• I'm working very hard to bring all my digital arts into Nostr to build my Sats business here to my another npub "HikariHarmony" npub1exdtszhpw3ep643p9z8pahkw8zw00xa9pesf0u4txyyfqvthwapqwh48sw

Link to my full gallery - Anime girl fanarts : HikariHarmony - HikariHarmony on Nostr - General art : KeshikiRakuen

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na dvadesetjedan.com

Autor: Parker Lewis / Prevod na srpski: Plumsky

---

Ideja da država može nekako zabraniti bitcoin je jedna od poslednjih faza tuge, tačno pred prihvatanje realnosti. Posledica ove rečenice je priznanje da bitcoin “funkcioniše”. U stvari, ona predstavlja činjenicu da bitcoin funkcioniše toliko dobro da on preti postojećim državnim monopolima nad novcem i da će zbog toga države da ga unište kroz regulativne prepreke da bi eliminisale tu pretnju. Gledajte na tvrdnju da će države zabraniti bitcoin kao kondicionalnu logiku. Da li bitcoin funkcioniše kao novac? Ako je odgovor „ne“, onda države nemaju šta da zabrane. Ako je odgovor „da“, onda će države da probaju da ga zabrane. Znači, glavna poenta ovog razmišljanja je pretpostavka da bitcoin funkcioiniše kao novac. Onda je sledeće logično pitanje da li intervencija od strane države može uspešno da uništi upravo taj funkcionalan bitcoin.

Za početak, svako ko pokušava da razume kako, zašto, ili da li bitcoin funkcioniše mora da proceni ta pitanja potpuno nezavisno od prouzrekovanja državne regulacije ili intervencije. Iako je nesumnjivo da bitcoin mora da postoji uzgred državnih regulativa, zamislite na momenat da države ne postoje. Sam od sebe, da li bi bitcoin funkcionisao kao novac, kad bi se prepustio slobodnom tržištu? Ovo pitanje se širi u dodatna pitanja i ubrzo se pretvara u bunar bez dna. Šta je novac? Šta su svojstva koja čine jednu vrstu novca bolje od druge? Da li bitcoin poseduje ta svojstva? Da li je bitcoin bolja verzija novca po takvim osobinama? Ako je finalni zaključak da bitcoin ne funkcioniše kao novac, implikacije državne intervencije su nebitne. Ali, ako je bitcoin funkcionalan kao novac, ta pitanja onda postaju bitna u ovoj debati, i svako ko o tome razmišlja bi morao imati taj početnički kontekst da bi mogao proceniti da li je uopšte moguće zabraniti. Po svom dizajnu, bitcoin postoji van države. Ali bitcoin nije samo van kontrole države, on u stvari funkcioniše bez bilo kakve saradnje centralizovanih identiteta. On je globalan i decentralizovan. Svako može pristupiti bitcoinu bez potrebe saglasnosti bilo koga i što se više širi sve je teže cenzurisati celokupnu mrežu. Arhitektura bitcoina je namerno izmišljena da bude otporna na bilo koje pokušaje države da ga zabrane. Ovo ne znači da države širom sveta neće pokušavati da ga regulišu, oporezuju ili čak da potpuno zabrane njegovo korišćenje. Naravno da će biti puno bitki i otpora protiv usvajanja bitcoina među građanima. Federal Reserve i Američki Treasury (i njihovi globalni suparnici) se neće ležeći predati dok bitcoin sve više i više ugrožava njihove monopole prihvatljivog novca. Doduše, pre nego što se odbaci ideja da države mogu potpuno zabraniti bitcoin, mora se prvo razumeti posledice tog stava i njegovog glasnika.

Progresija poricanja i stepeni tuge

Pripovesti skeptičara se neprestano menjaju kroz vreme. Prvi stepen tuge: bitcoin nikad ne može funkcionisati-njegova vrednost je osnovana ni na čemu. On je moderna verzija tulip manije. Sa svakim ciklusom uzbuđenja, vrednost bitcoina skače i onda vrlo brzo se vraća na dole. Često nazvano kao kraj njegove vrednosti, bitcoin svaki put odbija da umre i njegova vrednost pronađe nivo koji je uvek viši od prethodnih ciklusa globalne usvajanja. Tulip pripovetka postaje stara i dosadna i skeptičari pređu na više nijansirane teme, i time menjaju bazu debate. Drugi stepen tuge predstoji: bitcoin je manjkav kao novac. On je previše volatilan da bi bio valuta, ili je suviše spor da bi se koristio kao sistem plaćanja, ili se ne može proširiti dovoljno da zadovolji sve promete plaćanja na svetu, ili troši isuviše struje. Taj niz kritike ide sve dalje i dalje. Ovaj drugi stepen je progresija poricanja i dosta je udaljen od ideje da je bitcoin ništa više od bukvalno bezvrednog ničega.

Uprkos tim pretpostavnim manjcima, vrednost bitcoin mreže nastavje da raste vremenom. Svaki put, ona ne umire, nasuprot, ona postaje sve veća i jača. Dok se skeptičari bave ukazivanjem na manjke, bitcoin ne prestaje. Rast u vrednosti je prouzrokovan jednostavnom dinamikom tržišta: postoji više kupca nego prodavca. To je sve i to je razlog rasta u adopciji. Sve više i više ljudi shvata zašto postoji fundamentalna potražnja za bitcoinom i zašto/kako on funkcioniše. To je razlog njegovog dugotrajnog rasta. Dokle god ga sve više ljudi koristi za čuvanje vrednosti, neće pasti cena snabdevanja. Zauvek će postojati samo 21 milion bitcoina. Nebitno je koliko ljudi zahtevaju bitcoin, njegova cela količina je uvek ista i neelastična. Dok skeptičari nastavljaju sa svojom starom pričom, mase ljudi nastavljaju da eliminišu zabludu i zahtevaju bitcoin zbog njegovih prednosti u smislu novčanih svojstva. Između ostalog, ne postoji grupa ljudi koja je više upoznata sa svim argumentima protiv bitcoina od samih bitcoinera.

Očajanje počinje da se stvara i onda se debata još jedanput pomera. Sada nije više činjenica je vrednost bitcoina osnovana ni na čemu niti da ima manjke kao valuta; sada se debata centrira na regulaciji državnih autoriteta. U ovom zadnjem stepenu tuge, bitcoin se predstavlja kao u stvari isuviše uspešnom alatkom i zbog toga države ne smeju dozvoliti da on postoji. Zaista? Znači da je genijalnost čoveka ponovo ostvarila funkcionalan novac u tehnološko superiornoj formi, čije su posledice zaista neshvatljive, i da će države upravo taj izum nekako zabraniti. Primetite da tom izjavom skeptičari praktično priznaju svoj poraz. Ovo su poslednji pokušaji u seriji promašenih argumenata. Skeptičari u isto vreme prihvataju da postoji fundamentalna potražnja za bitcoinom a onda se premeštaju na neosnovan stav da ga države mogu zabraniti.

Ajde da se poigramo i tim pitanjem. Kada bih zapravo razvijene države nastupile na scenu i pokušale da zabrane bitcoin? Trenutno, Federal Reserve i Treasury ne smatraju bitcoin kao ozbiljnu pretnju superiornosti dolara. Po njihovom celokupnom mišljenju, bitcoin je slatka mala igračka i ne može da funkcioniše kao novac. Sadašnja kompletna kupovna moć bitcoina je manja od $200 milijardi. Sa druge strane, zlato ima celokupnu vrednost od $8 triliona (40X veću od bitcoina) i količina odštampanog novca (M2) je otprilike 15 triliona (75X veličine bitcoinove vrednosti). Kada će Federal Reserve i Treasury da počne da smatra bitcoin kao ozbiljnu pretnju? Kad bitcoin poraste na $1, $2 ili $3 triliona? Možete i sami da izaberete nivo, ali implikacija je da će bitcoin biti mnogo vredniji, i posedovaće ga sve više ljudi širom sveta, pre nego što će ga državne vlasti shvatiti kao obiljnog protivnika.

Predsednik Tramp & Treasury Sekretar Mnučin o Bitcoinu (2019):

„Ja neću pričati o bitcoinu za 10 godina, u to možete biti sigurni {…} Ja bi se kladio da čak za 5 ili 6 godina neću više pričati o bitcoinu kao sekretar Trusury-a. Imaću preča posla {…} Mogu vam obećati da ja lično neću biti pun bitcoina.“ – Sekretar Treasury-a Stiv Mnučin

„Ja nisam ljubitelj bitcoina {…}, koji nije novac i čija vrednost je jako volatilna i osnovana na praznom vazduhu.“ – Predsednik Donald J. Tramp

Znači, logika skeptika ide ovako: bitcoin ne funkcioniše, ali ako funkcioniše, onda će ga država zabraniti. Ali, države slobodnog sveta neće pokušati da ga zabrane dokle god se on ne pokaže kao ozbiljna pretnja. U tom trenutku, bitcoin će biti vredniji i sigurno teži da se zabrani, pošto će ga više ljudi posedovati na mnogo širem geografskom prostoru. Ignorišite fundamentalne činjenice i asimetriju koja je urođena u globalnom dešavanju monetizacije zato što u slučaju da ste u pravu, države će taj proces zabraniti. Na kojoj strani tog argumenta bi radije stajao racionalan ekonomski učesnik? Posedovanje finansijske imovine kojoj vrednost toliko raste da preti globalnoj rezervnoj valuti, ili nasuprot – nemati tu imovinu? Sa pretpostavkom da individualci razumeju zašto je mogućnost (a sve više i verovatnoća) ove realnosti, koji stav je logičniji u ovom scenariju? Asimetrija dve strane ovog argumenta sama od sebe zahteva da je prvi stav onaj istinit i da fundamentalno razumevanje potražnje bitcoina samo još više ojačava to mišljenje.

Niko ne moze zabraniti bitcoin

Razmislite šta bitcoin u stvari predstavlja pa onda šta bi predstavljala njegova zabrana. Bitcoin je konverzija subjektivne vrednosti, stvorena i razmenjena u realnošću, u digitalne potpise. Jednostavno rečeno, to je konverzija ljudskog vremena u novac. Kad neko zahteva bitcoin, oni u isto vreme ne zahtevaju neki drugi posed, nek to bio dolar, kuća, auto ili hrana itd. Bitcoin predstavlja novčanu štednju koja sa sobom žrtvuje druge imovine i servise. Zabrana bitcoina bi bio napad na najosnovnije ljudske slobode koje je on upravo stvoren da brani. Zamislite reakciju svih onih koji su prihvatili bitcoin: „Bilo je zabavno, alatka za koju su svi eksperti tvrdili da neće nikad funkcionisati, sada toliko dobro radi i sad ti isti eksperti i autoriteti kažu da mi to nemožemo koristiti. Svi idite kući, predstava je gotova.“verovanje da će svi ljudi koji su učestvovali u bitcoin usvajanju, suverenitetu koji nudi i finansiskoj slobodi, odjednom samo da se predaju osnovnom rušenju njihovih prava je potpuno iracionalna pozicija.

Novac je jedan od najbitnijih instrumenata za slobodu koji je ikad izmišljen. Novac je to što u postojećem društvu ostvaruje mogućnosti siromašnom čoveku – čiji je domet veći nego onaj koji je bio dostižan bogatim ljudima pre ne toliko puno generacija.“ – F. A. Hajek

Države nisu uspele da zabrane konzumiranje alkohola, droga, kupovinu vatrenog oružja, pa ni posedovanje zlata. Država može samo pomalo da uspori pristup ili da deklariše posedovanje ilegalnim, ali ne može da uništi nešto što veliki broj raznovrsnih ljudi smatra vrednim. Kada je SAD zabranila privatno posedovanje zlata 1933., zlato nije palo u vrednosti ili nestalo sa finansijskog tržišta. Ono je u stvari poraslo u vrednosti u poređenju sa dolarom, i samo trideset godina kasnije, zabrana je bila ukinuta. Ne samo da bitcoin nudi veću vrednosno obećanje od bilo kog drugog dobra koje su države pokušale da zabrane (uključujući i zlato); nego po svojim osobinama, njega je mnogo teže zabraniti. Bitcoin je globalan i decentralizovan. On ne poštuje granice i osiguran je mnoštvom nodova i kriptografskim potpisima. Sam postupak zabrane bi zahtevao da se u isto vreme zaustavi „open source“ softver koji emituje i izvršava slanje i potvrđivanje digitalno enkriptovanih ključeva i potpisa. Ta zabrana bi morala biti koordinisana između velikog broja zemalja, sa tim da je nemoguće znati gde se ti nodovi i softver nalazi ili da se zaustavi instaliranje novih nodova u drugim pravnim nadležnostima. Da ne pominjemo i ustavske pitanja, bilo bi tehnički neizvodljivo da se takva zabrana primeni na bilo kakav značajan način.

Čak kada bih sve zemlje iz G-20 grupe koordinisale takvu zabranu u isto vreme, to ne bi uništilo bitcoin. U stvari, to bi bilo samoubistvo za fiat novčani sistem. To bi još više prikazalo masama da je bitcoin u stvari novac koji treba shvatiti ozbiljno, i to bi samo od sebe započelo globalnu igru vatanje mačke za rep. Bitcoin nema centralnu tačku za napad; bitcoin rudari, nodovi i digitalni potpisi su rasejani po celom svetu. Svaki aspekt bitcoina je decentralizovan, zato su glavni stubovi njegove arhitekture da učesnici uvek treba kontrolisati svoje potpise i upravljati svojim nodom. Što više digitalnih potpisa i nodova koji postoje, to je više bitcoin decentralizovan, i to je više odbranjiva njegova mreža od strane neprijatelja. Što je više zemalja gde rudari izvršavaju svoj posao, to je manji rizik da jedan nadležni identitet može uticati na njegov bezbednosni sistem. Koordinisan internacionalni napad na bitcoin bi samo koristio da bitcoin još više ojača svoj imuni sistem. Na kraju krajeva, to bi ubrzalo seobu iz tradicionalnog finansijskog sistema (i njegovih valuta) a i inovaciju koja postoji u bitcoin ekosistemu. Sa svakom bivšom pretnjom, bitcoin je maštovito pronalazio način da ih neutrališe pa i koordinisan napad od strane država ne bi bio ništa drugačiji.

Inovacija u ovoj oblasti koja se odlikuje svojom „permissionless“ (bez dozvole centralnih identiteta) osobinom, omogućava odbranu od svakojakih napada. Sve varijante napada koje su bile predvidjene je upravo to što zahteva konstantnu inovaciju bitcoina. To je ona Adam Smitova nevidljiva ruka, ali dopingovana. Pojedinačni učesnici mogu da veruju da su motivisani nekim većim uzrokom, ali u stvari, korisnost kaja je ugrađena u bitcoin stvara kod učesnika dovoljno snažan podsticaj da omogući svoje preživljavanje. Sopstveni interes milione, ako ne milijarde, nekoordinisanih ljudi koji se jedino slažu u svojom međusobnom potrebom za funkcionalnim novcem podstiče inovacije u bitcoinu. Danas, možda to izgleda kao neka kul nova tehnologija ili neki dobar investment u finansijskom portfoliju, ali čak i ako to mnogi ne razumeju, bitcoin je apsolutna nužnost u svetu. To je tako zato što je novac nužnost a historijski priznate valute se fundamentalno raspadaju. Pre dva meseca, tržište američkih državnih obveznica je doživeo kolaps na šta je Federal Reserve reagovao time što je povećao celokupnu količinu dolara u postojanju za $250 milijardi, a još više u bliskoj budućnosti. Tačno ovo je razlog zašto je bitcoin nužnost a ne samo luksuzni dodatak. Kada inovacija omogućava bazično funkcionisanje ekonomije ne postoji ni jedna država na svetu koja može da zaustavi njenu adopciju i rast. Novac je nužnost a bitcoin znatno poboljšava sistem novca koji je ikada postojao pre njega.

Sa više praktične strane, pokušaj zabranjivanja bitcoina ili njegove velike regulacije od nadležnosti bi direktno bilo u korist susedne nadležnih organa. Podsticaj da se odustane od koordinisanog napada na bitcoin bi bio isuviše veliki da bi takvi dogovori bili uspešni. Kada bi SAD deklarisovale posed bitcoina ilegalnim sutra, da li bi to zaustavilo njegov rast, razvoj i adopciji i da li bi to smanjilo vrednost celokupne mreže? Verovatno. Da li bi to uništilo bitcoin? Ne bi. Bitcoin predstavlja najpokretljivije kapitalno sredstvo na svetu. Zemlje i nadležne strukture koje kreiraju regulativnu strukturu koja najmanje ustručava korišćenje bitcoina će biti dobitnici velike količine uliva kapitala u svoje države.

Zabrana Bitcoinove Zatvoreničke Dileme

U praksi, zatvorenička dilema nije igra jedan na jedan. Ona je multidimenzijska i uključuje mnoštvo nadležnosti, čiji se interesi nadmeću međusobno, i to uskraćuje mogućnosti bilo kakve mogućnosti zabrane. Ljudski kapital, fizički kapital i novčani kapital će sav ići u pravcu država i nadležnosti koje najmanje ustručuju bitcoin. To se možda neće desiti sve odjednom, ali pokušaji zabrane su isto za badava koliko bi bilo odseći sebi nos u inat svom licu. To ne znači da države to neće pokušati. India je već probala da zabrani bitcoin. Kina je uvela puno restrikcija. Drugi će da prate njihove tragove. Ali svaki put kada država preduzme takve korake, to ima nepredvidljive efekte povećanja bitcoin adopcije. Pokušaji zabranjivanja bitcoina su jako efektivne marketing kampanje. Bitcoin postoji kao sistem nevezan za jednu suverenu državu i kao novac je otporan na cenzuru. On je dizajniran da postoji van državne kontrole. Pokušaji da se taj koncept zabrani samo još više daje njemu razlog i logiku za postojanje.

Jedini Pobednički Potez je da se Uključiš u Igru

Zabrana bitcoina je trošenje vremena. Neki će to pokušati; ali svi će biti neuspešni. Sami ti pokušaji će još više ubrzati njegovu adopciju i širenje. Biće to vetar od 100 km/h koji raspaljuje vatru. To će ojačati bitcoin sve više i doprineće njegovoj pouzdanosti. U svakom slučaju, verovanje da će države zabraniti bitcoin u momentu kada on postane dovoljno velika pretnja rezervnim valutam sveta, je iracionalan razlog da se on no poseduje kao instrument štednje novca. To ne samo da podrazumeva da je bitcoin novac, ali u isto vreme i ignoriše glavne razloge zašto je to tako: on je decentralizovan i otporan na cenzure. Zamislite da razumete jednu od nojvećih tajni današnjice i da u isto vreme tu tajnu asimetrije koju bitcoin nudi ne primenjujete u svoju korist zbog straha od države. Pre će biti, neko ko razume zašto bitcoin funkcioniše i da ga država ne može zaustaviti, ili nepuno znanje postoji u razumevanju kako bitcoin uopšte funckioniše. Počnite sa razmatranjem fundamentalnih pitanja, a onda primenite to kao temelj da bi procenili bilo koji potencijalan rizik od strane budućih regulacija ili restrikcija državnih organa. I nikad nemojte da zaboravite na vrednost asimetrije između dve strane ovde prezentiranih argumenata. Jedini pobednički potez je da se uključite u igru.

Stavovi ovde prezentirani su samo moji i ne predstavljaju Unchained Capital ili moje kolege. Zahvaljujem se Fil Gajgeru za razmatranje teksta i primedbe.

Originalni tekst

@ e6817453:b0ac3c39

Hey folks, today we're diving into an exciting and emerging topic: personal artificial intelligence (PAI) and its connection to sovereignty, privacy, and ethics. With the rapid advancements in AI, there's a growing interest in the development of personal AI agents that can work on behalf of the user, acting autonomously and providing tailored services. However, as with any new technology, there are several critical factors that shape the future of PAI. Today, we'll explore three key pillars: privacy and ownership, explainability, and bias.

1. Privacy and Ownership: Foundations of Personal AI

At the heart of personal AI, much like self-sovereign identity (SSI), is the concept of ownership. For personal AI to be truly effective and valuable, users must own not only their data but also the computational power that drives these systems. This autonomy is essential for creating systems that respect the user's privacy and operate independently of large corporations.

In this context, privacy is more than just a feature—it's a fundamental right. Users should feel safe discussing sensitive topics with their AI, knowing that their data won’t be repurposed or misused by big tech companies. This level of control and data ownership ensures that users remain the sole beneficiaries of their information and computational resources, making privacy one of the core pillars of PAI.

2. Bias and Fairness: The Ethical Dilemma of LLMs

Most of today’s AI systems, including personal AI, rely heavily on large language models (LLMs). These models are trained on vast datasets that represent snapshots of the internet, but this introduces a critical ethical challenge: bias. The datasets used for training LLMs can be full of biases, misinformation, and viewpoints that may not align with a user’s personal values.

This leads to one of the major issues in AI ethics for personal AI—how do we ensure fairness and minimize bias in these systems? The training data that LLMs use can introduce perspectives that are not only unrepresentative but potentially harmful or unfair. As users of personal AI, we need systems that are free from such biases and can be tailored to our individual needs and ethical frameworks.

Unfortunately, training models that are truly unbiased and fair requires vast computational resources and significant investment. While large tech companies have the financial means to develop and train these models, individual users or smaller organizations typically do not. This limitation means that users often have to rely on pre-trained models, which may not fully align with their personal ethics or preferences. While fine-tuning models with personalized datasets can help, it's not a perfect solution, and bias remains a significant challenge.

3. Explainability: The Need for Transparency

One of the most frustrating aspects of modern AI is the lack of explainability. Many LLMs operate as "black boxes," meaning that while they provide answers or make decisions, it's often unclear how they arrived at those conclusions. For personal AI to be effective and trustworthy, it must be transparent. Users need to understand how the AI processes information, what data it relies on, and the reasoning behind its conclusions.

Explainability becomes even more critical when AI is used for complex decision-making, especially in areas that impact other people. If an AI is making recommendations, judgments, or decisions, it’s crucial for users to be able to trace the reasoning process behind those actions. Without this transparency, users may end up relying on AI systems that provide flawed or biased outcomes, potentially causing harm.

This lack of transparency is a major hurdle for personal AI development. Current LLMs, as mentioned earlier, are often opaque, making it difficult for users to trust their outputs fully. The explainability of AI systems will need to be improved significantly to ensure that personal AI can be trusted for important tasks.

Addressing the Ethical Landscape of Personal AI

As personal AI systems evolve, they will increasingly shape the ethical landscape of AI. We’ve already touched on the three core pillars—privacy and ownership, bias and fairness, and explainability. But there's more to consider, especially when looking at the broader implications of personal AI development.

Most current AI models, particularly those from big tech companies like Facebook, Google, or OpenAI, are closed systems. This means they are aligned with the goals and ethical frameworks of those companies, which may not always serve the best interests of individual users. Open models, such as Meta's LLaMA, offer more flexibility and control, allowing users to customize and refine the AI to better meet their personal needs. However, the challenge remains in training these models without significant financial and technical resources.

There’s also the temptation to use uncensored models that aren’t aligned with the values of large corporations, as they provide more freedom and flexibility. But in reality, models that are entirely unfiltered may introduce harmful or unethical content. It’s often better to work with aligned models that have had some of the more problematic biases removed, even if this limits some aspects of the system’s freedom.

The future of personal AI will undoubtedly involve a deeper exploration of these ethical questions. As AI becomes more integrated into our daily lives, the need for privacy, fairness, and transparency will only grow. And while we may not yet be able to train personal AI models from scratch, we can continue to shape and refine these systems through curated datasets and ongoing development.

Conclusion

In conclusion, personal AI represents an exciting new frontier, but one that must be navigated with care. Privacy, ownership, bias, and explainability are all essential pillars that will define the future of these systems. As we continue to develop personal AI, we must remain vigilant about the ethical challenges they pose, ensuring that they serve the best interests of users while remaining transparent, fair, and aligned with individual values.

If you have any thoughts or questions on this topic, feel free to reach out—I’d love to continue the conversation!

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ e6817453:b0ac3c39

In the modern world of AI, managing vast amounts of data while keeping it relevant and accessible is a significant challenge, mainly when dealing with large language models (LLMs) and vector databases. One approach that has gained prominence in recent years is integrating vector search with metadata, especially in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipelines. Vector search and metadata enable faster and more accurate data retrieval. However, the process of pre- and post-search filtering results plays a crucial role in ensuring data relevance.

The Vector Search and Metadata Challenge

In a typical vector search, you create embeddings from chunks of text, such as a PDF document. These embeddings allow the system to search for similar items and retrieve them based on relevance. The challenge, however, arises when you need to combine vector search results with structured metadata. For example, you may have timestamped text-based content and want to retrieve the most relevant content within a specific date range. This is where metadata becomes critical in refining search results.

Unfortunately, most vector databases treat metadata as a secondary feature, isolating it from the primary vector search process. As a result, handling queries that combine vectors and metadata can become a challenge, particularly when the search needs to account for a dynamic range of filters, such as dates or other structured data.

LibSQL and vector search metadata

LibSQL is a more general-purpose SQLite-based database that adds vector capabilities to regular data. Vectors are presented as blob columns of regular tables. It makes vector embeddings and metadata a first-class citizen that naturally builds deep integration of these data points.

create table if not exists conversation ( id varchar(36) primary key not null, startDate real, endDate real, summary text, vectorSummary F32_BLOB(512) );

It solves the challenge of metadata and vector search and eliminates impedance between vector data and regular structured data points in the same storage.

As you can see, you can access vector-like data and start date in the same query.

select c.id ,c.startDate, c.endDate, c.summary, vector_distance_cos(c.vectorSummary, vector(${vector})) distance from conversation where ${startDate ? `and c.startDate >= ${startDate.getTime()}` : ''} ${endDate ? `and c.endDate <= ${endDate.getTime()}` : ''} ${distance ? `and distance <= ${distance}` : ''} order by distance limit ${top};

vector_distance_cos calculated as distance allows us to make a primitive vector search that does a full scan and calculates distances on rows. We could optimize it with CTE and limit search and distance calculations to a much smaller subset of data.

This approach could be calculation intensive and fail on large amounts of data.

Libsql offers a way more effective vector search based on FlashDiskANN vector indexed.

vector_top_k('idx_conversation_vectorSummary', ${vector} , ${top}) i

vector_top_k is a table function that searches for the top of the newly created vector search index. As you can see, we could use only vector as a function parameter, and other columns could be used outside of the table function. So, to use a vector index together with different columns, we need to apply some strategies.

Now we get a classical problem of integration vector search results with metadata queries.

Post-Filtering: A Common Approach

The most widely adopted method in these pipelines is post-filtering. In this approach, the system first retrieves data based on vector similarities and then applies metadata filters. For example, imagine you’re conducting a vector search to retrieve conversations relevant to a specific question. Still, you also want to ensure these conversations occurred in the past week.

Post-filtering allows the system to retrieve the most relevant vector-based results and subsequently filter out any that don’t meet the metadata criteria, such as date range. This method is efficient when vector similarity is the primary factor driving the search, and metadata is only applied as a secondary filter.

const sqlQuery = ` select c.id ,c.startDate, c.endDate, c.summary, vector_distance_cos(c.vectorSummary, vector(${vector})) distance from vector_top_k('idx_conversation_vectorSummary', ${vector} , ${top}) i inner join conversation c on i.id = c.rowid where ${startDate ? `and c.startDate >= ${startDate.getTime()}` : ''} ${endDate ? `and c.endDate <= ${endDate.getTime()}` : ''} ${distance ? `and distance <= ${distance}` : ''} order by distance limit ${top};

However, there are some limitations. For example, the initial vector search may yield fewer results or omit some relevant data before applying the metadata filter. If the search window is narrow enough, this can lead to complete results.

One working strategy is to make the top value in vector_top_K much bigger. Be careful, though, as the function's default max number of results is around 200 rows.

Pre-Filtering: A More Complex Approach

Pre-filtering is a more intricate approach but can be more effective in some instances. In pre-filtering, metadata is used as the primary filter before vector search takes place. This means that only data that meets the metadata criteria is passed into the vector search process, limiting the scope of the search right from the beginning.

While this approach can significantly reduce the amount of irrelevant data in the final results, it comes with its own challenges. For example, pre-filtering requires a deeper understanding of the data structure and may necessitate denormalizing the data or creating separate pre-filtered tables. This can be resource-intensive and, in some cases, impractical for dynamic metadata like date ranges.

In certain use cases, pre-filtering might outperform post-filtering. For instance, when the metadata (e.g., specific date ranges) is the most important filter, pre-filtering ensures the search is conducted only on the most relevant data.

Pre-filtering with distance-based filtering

So, we are getting back to an old concept. We do prefiltering instead of using a vector index.

WITH FilteredDates AS ( SELECT c.id, c.startDate, c.endDate, c.summary, c.vectorSummary FROM YourTable c WHERE ${startDate ? `AND c.startDate >= ${startDate.getTime()}` : ''} ${endDate ? `AND c.endDate <= ${endDate.getTime()}` : ''} ), DistanceCalculation AS ( SELECT fd.id, fd.startDate, fd.endDate, fd.summary, fd.vectorSummary, vector_distance_cos(fd.vectorSummary, vector(${vector})) AS distance FROM FilteredDates fd ) SELECT dc.id, dc.startDate, dc.endDate, dc.summary, dc.distance FROM DistanceCalculation dc WHERE 1=1 ${distance ? `AND dc.distance <= ${distance}` : ''} ORDER BY dc.distance LIMIT ${top};

It makes sense if the filter produces small data and distance calculation happens on the smaller data set.

As a pro of this approach, you have full control over the data and get all results without omitting some typical values for extensive index searches.

Choosing Between Pre and Post-Filtering

Both pre-filtering and post-filtering have their advantages and disadvantages. Post-filtering is more accessible to implement, especially when vector similarity is the primary search factor, but it can lead to incomplete results. Pre-filtering, on the other hand, can yield more accurate results but requires more complex data handling and optimization.

In practice, many systems combine both strategies, depending on the query. For example, they might start with a broad pre-filtering based on metadata (like date ranges) and then apply a more targeted vector search with post-filtering to refine the results further.

Conclusion

Vector search with metadata filtering offers a powerful approach for handling large-scale data retrieval in LLMs and RAG pipelines. Whether you choose pre-filtering or post-filtering—or a combination of both—depends on your application's specific requirements. As vector databases continue to evolve, future innovations that combine these two approaches more seamlessly will help improve data relevance and retrieval efficiency further.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na dvadesetjedan.com.

Autor: Gigi / Prevod na srpski: Plumsky

---

Postoji sveto carstvo privatnosti za svakog čoveka gde on bira i pravi odluke – carstvo stvoreno na bazičnim pravima i slobode koje zakon, generalno, ne sme narušavati. Džefri Fišer, Arhiepiskop Canterberija (1959)

Pre ne toliko dugo, uobičajen režim interneta je bio neenkriptovan običan tekst (plain text). Svi su mogli špiunirati svakoga i mnogi nisu o tome ni razmišljali. Globalno obelodanjivanje nadzora 2013. je to promenilo i danas se koriste mnogo bezbedniji protokoli i end-to-end enkripcija postaje standard sve više. Iako bitcoin postaje tinejdžer, mi smo – metaforično govoreći – i dalje u dobu običnog teksta narandžastog novčića. Bitcoin je radikalno providljiv protokol sam po sebi, ali postoje značajni načini da korisnik zaštiti svoju privatnost. U ovom članku želimo da istaknemo neke od ovih strategija, prodiskutujemo najbolje prakse, i damo preporuke koje mogu primeniti i bitcoin novajlije i veterani.

Zašto je privatnost bitna

Privatnost je potrebna da bi otvoreno društvo moglo da funkcioniše u digitalnoj eri. Privatnost nije isto što i tajanstvenost. Privatna stvar je nešto što neko ne želi da ceo svet zna, a tajna stvar je nešto što neko ne želi bilo ko da zna. Privatnost je moć da se čovek selektivno otkriva svom okruženju.

Ovim snažnim rečima Erik Hjus je započeo svoj tekst Sajferpankov Manifesto (Cypherpunk's Manifesto) 1993. Razlika između privatnosti i tajanstvenosti je suptilna ali jako važna. Odlučiti se za privatnost ne znači da neko ima tajne koje želi sakriti. Da ovo ilustrujemo shvatite samo da ono što obavljate u svom toaletu ili u spavaćoj sobi nije niti ilegalno niti tajna (u mnogim slučajevima), ali vi svejedno odlučujete da zatvorite vrata i navučete zavese.

Slično tome, koliko para imate i gde ih trošite nije naručito tajna stvar. Ipak, to bi trebalo biti privatan slučaj. Mnogi bi se složili da vaš šef ne treba da zna gde vi trošite vašu platu. Privatnosti je čak zaštićena od strane mnogobrojnih internacionalnih nadležnih organa. Iz Američke Deklaracije Prava i Dužnosti Čoveka (American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man) Ujedinjenim Nacijama, napisano je da je privatnost fundamentalno prava gradjana širom sveta.

Niko ne sme biti podvrgnut smetnjama njegovoj privatnosti, porodici, rezidenciji ili komunikacijama, niti napadnuta njegova čast i reputacija. Svi imaju pravo da se štite zakonom protiv takvih smetnja ili napada. Artikal 12, Deklaracija Ljudskih Prava Ujedinjenih Nacija

Bitcoin i privatnost

Iako je bitcoin često opisivan kao anoniman način plaćanja medijima, on u stvari poseduje potpuno suprotne osobine. On je poluanoniman u najboljem slučaju i danas mnogima nije ni malo lako primeniti taktike da bi bili sigurni da njihov poluanonimni identitet na bitcoin mreži ne bude povezan sa legalnim identitetom u stvarnom svetu.

Bitcoin je otvoren sistem. On je javna baza podataka koju svako može da proučava i analizira. Znači, svaka transakcija koja je upisana u tu bazu kroz dokaz rada (proof-of-work) postojaće i biće otkrivena dokle god bitcoin postoji, što znači - zauvek. Ne primenjivati najbolje prakse privatnosti može imati štetne posledice u dalekoj budućnosti.

Privatnost, kao sigurnost, je proces koji je težak, ali nije nemoguć. Alatke nastavljaju da se razvijaju koje čuvaju privatnost kad se koristi bitcoin and srećom mnoge od tih alatki su sve lakše za korišćenje. Nažalost ne postoji panacea u ovom pristupu. Mora se biti svesan svih kompromisa i usavršavati te prakse dok se one menjaju.

Najbolje prakse privatnosti

Kao i sve u bitcoinu, kontrola privatnosti je postepena, korak po korak, procedura. Naučiti i primeniti ove najbolje prakse zahteva strpljivost i odgovornost, tako da ne budite obeshrabreni ako vam se čini da je to sve previše. Svaki korak, koliko god bio mali, je korak u dobrom pravcu.

Koje korake preduzeti da bi uvećali svoju privatnost:

• Budite u vlasništvu sami svojih novčića
• Nikad ne ponavljajte korišćenje istih adresa
• Minimizirajte korišćenje servisa koji zahtevaju identitet (Know your customer - KYC)
• Minimizirajte sve izloženosti trećim licima
• Upravljajte svojim nodom
• Koristite Lightning mrežu za male transakcije
• Nemojte koristiti javne blok pretraživače za svoje transakcije
• Koristite metodu CoinJoin često i rano pri nabavljanju svojih novčića

Budite u vlasništvu sami svojih novčića: Ako ključevi nisu tvoji, onda nije ni bitcoin. Ako neko drugo drži vaš bitcoin za vas, oni znaju sve što se može znati: količinu, istoriju transakcija pa i sve buduće transakcije, itd. Preuzimanje vlasništva bitcoina u svoje ruke je prvi i najvažniji korak.

Nikad ne kroistite istu adresu dvaput: Ponavljanje adresa poništava privatnost pošiljalca i primaoca bitcoina. Ovo se treba izbegavati pod svaku cenu.

Minimizirajte korišćenje servisa koji zahtevaju identitet (KYC): Vezivati svoj legalni identitet za svoje bitcoin adrese je zlo koje se zahteva od strane mnogih državnih nadležnosti. Dok je efektivnost ovih zakona i regulacija disputabilno, posledice njihovog primenjivanja su uglavnom štetne po korisnicima. Ovo je očigledno pošto je česta pojava da se te informacije često izlivaju iz slabo obezbeđenih digitalnih servera. Ako izaberete da koristite KYC servise da bi nabavljali bitcoin, proučite i razumite odnos između vas i tog biznisa. Vi ste poverljivi tom biznisu za sve vaše lične podatke, pa i buduće obezbeđenje tih podataka. Ako i dalje zarađujete kroz fiat novčani sistem, mi preporučujemo da koristite samo bitcoin ekskluzivne servise koji vam dozvoljavaju da autamatski kupujete bitcoin s vremena na vreme. Ako zelite da potpuno da izbegnete KYC, pregledajte https://bitcoinqna.github.io/noKYConly/.

Minimizirajte sve izloženosti trećim licima: Poverljivost trećim licima je bezbednosna rupa (https://nakamotoinstitute.org/trusted-third-parties/). Ako možete biti poverljivi samo sebi, onda bi to tako trebalo da bude.

Upravljajte svojim nodom: Ako nod nije tvoj, onda nisu ni pravila. Upravljanje svojim nodom je suštinska potreba da bi se bitcoin koristio na privatan način. Svaka interakcija sa bitcoin mrežom je posrednjena nodom. Ako vi taj nod ne upravljate, čiji god nod koristite može da vidi sve što vi radite. Ova upustva (https://bitcoiner.guide/node/) su jako korisna da bi započeli proces korišćenja svog noda.

Koristite Lightning mrežu za male transakcije: Pošto Lightning protokol ne koristi glavnu bitcoin mrežu za trasakcije onda je i samim tim povećana privatnost korišćenja bez dodatnog truda. Iako je i dalje rano, oni apsolutno bezobzirni periodi Lightning mreže su verovatno daleko iza nas. Korišćenje Lightning-a za transakcije malih i srednjih veličina će vam pomoći da uvećate privatnost a da smanjite naplate svojih pojedinačnih bitcoin transakcija.

Nemojte koristiti javne blok pretraživače za svoje transakcije: Proveravanje adresa na javnim blok pretraživačima povezuje te adrese sa vašim IP podacima, koji se onda mogu koristiti da se otkrije vaš identitet. Softveri kao Umbrel i myNode vam omogućavaju da lako koristite sami svoj blok pretraživač. Ako morate koristiti javne pretraživače, uradite to uz VPN ili Tor.

Koristite CoinJoin često i rano pri nabavljanju svojih novčića: Pošto je bitcoin večan, primenjivanje saradničkih CoinJoin praksa će vam obezbediti privatnost u budućnosti. Dok su CoinJoin transakcije svakovrsne, softveri koji su laki za korišćenje već sad postoje koji mogu automatizovati ovu vrstu transakcija. Samourai Whirlpool (https://samouraiwallet.com/whirlpool) je odličan izbor za Android korisnike. Joinmarket (https://github.com/joinmarket-webui/jam) se može koristiti na vašem nodu. A servisi postoje koji pri snabdevanju vašeg bitcoina istog trenutka obave CoinJoin tranzakciju automatski.

Zaključak

Svi bi trebalo da se potrude da koriste bitcoin na što privatniji način. Privatnost nije isto što i tajanstvenost. Privatnost je ljudsko pravo i mi svi trebamo da branimo i primenljujemo to pravo. Teško je izbrisati postojeće informacije sa interneta; a izbrisati ih sa bitcoin baze podataka je nemoguće. Iako su daleko od savršenih, alatke postoje danas koje vam omogućavaju da najbolje prakse privatnosti i vi sami primenite. Mi smo vam naglasili neke od njih i - kroz poboljšanje u bitcoin protokolu kroz Taproot i Schnorr - one će postajati sve usavršenije.

Bitcoin postupci se ne mogu lako opisati korišćenjem tradicionalnim konceptima. Pitanja kao što su "Ko je vlasnik ovog novca?" ili "Odakle taj novac potiče?" postaju sve teža da se odgovore a u nekim okolnostima postaju potpuno beznačajna.

Satoši je dizajnirao bitcoin misleći na privatnost. Na nivou protokola svaka bitcoin transakcija je proces "topljenja" koji za sobom samo ostavlja heuristične mrvice hleba. Protokolu nije bitno odakle se pojavio bilo koji bitcoin ili satoši. Niti je njega briga ko je legalan identitet vlasnika. Protokolu je samo važno da li su digitalni potpisi validni. Dokle god je govor slobodan, potpisivanje poruka - privatno ili ne - ne sme biti kriminalan postupak.

Dodatni Resursi

This Month in Bitcoin Privacy | Janine

Hodl Privacy FAQ | 6102

Digital Privacy | 6102

UseWhirlpool.com | Bitcoin Q+A

Bitcoin Privacy Guide | Bitcoin Q+A

Ovaj članak napisan je u saradnji sa Matt Odellom, nezavisnim bitcoin istraživačem. Nađite njegove preporuke za privatnost na werunbtc.com

Originalni tekst

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Im Augenblick wird mit größter Intensität, großer Umsicht \ das deutsche Volk belogen. \ Olaf Scholz im FAZ-Interview

Online-Wahlen stärken die Demokratie, sind sicher, und 61 Prozent der Wahlberechtigten sprechen sich für deren Einführung in Deutschland aus. Das zumindest behauptet eine aktuelle Umfrage, die auch über die Agentur Reuters Verbreitung in den Medien gefunden hat. Demnach würden außerdem 45 Prozent der Nichtwähler bei der Bundestagswahl ihre Stimme abgeben, wenn sie dies zum Beispiel von Ihrem PC, Tablet oder Smartphone aus machen könnten.

Die telefonische Umfrage unter gut 1000 wahlberechtigten Personen sei repräsentativ, behauptet der Auftraggeber – der Digitalverband Bitkom. Dieser präsentiert sich als eingetragener Verein mit einer beeindruckenden Liste von Mitgliedern, die Software und IT-Dienstleistungen anbieten. Erklärtes Vereinsziel ist es, «Deutschland zu einem führenden Digitalstandort zu machen und die digitale Transformation der deutschen Wirtschaft und Verwaltung voranzutreiben».

Durchgeführt hat die Befragung die Bitkom Servicegesellschaft mbH, also alles in der Familie. Die gleiche Erhebung hatte der Verband übrigens 2021 schon einmal durchgeführt. Damals sprachen sich angeblich sogar 63 Prozent für ein derartiges «Demokratie-Update» aus – die Tendenz ist demgemäß fallend. Dennoch orakelt mancher, der Gang zur Wahlurne gelte bereits als veraltet.

Die spanische Privat-Uni mit Globalisten-Touch, IE University, berichtete Ende letzten Jahres in ihrer Studie «European Tech Insights», 67 Prozent der Europäer befürchteten, dass Hacker Wahlergebnisse verfälschen könnten. Mehr als 30 Prozent der Befragten glaubten, dass künstliche Intelligenz (KI) bereits Wahlentscheidungen beeinflusst habe. Trotzdem würden angeblich 34 Prozent der unter 35-Jährigen einer KI-gesteuerten App vertrauen, um in ihrem Namen für politische Kandidaten zu stimmen.

Wie dauerhaft wird wohl das Ergebnis der kommenden Bundestagswahl sein? Diese Frage stellt sich angesichts der aktuellen Entwicklung der Migrations-Debatte und der (vorübergehend) bröckelnden «Brandmauer» gegen die AfD. Das «Zustrombegrenzungsgesetz» der Union hat das Parlament heute Nachmittag überraschenderweise abgelehnt. Dennoch muss man wohl kein ausgesprochener Pessimist sein, um zu befürchten, dass die Entscheidungen der Bürger von den selbsternannten Verteidigern der Demokratie künftig vielleicht nicht respektiert werden, weil sie nicht gefallen.

Bundesweit wird jetzt zu «Brandmauer-Demos» aufgerufen, die CDU gerät unter Druck und es wird von Übergriffen auf Parteibüros und Drohungen gegen Mitarbeiter berichtet. Sicherheitsbehörden warnen vor Eskalationen, die Polizei sei «für ein mögliches erhöhtes Aufkommen von Straftaten gegenüber Politikern und gegen Parteigebäude sensibilisiert».

Der Vorwand «unzulässiger Einflussnahme» auf Politik und Wahlen wird als Argument schon seit einiger Zeit aufgebaut. Der Manipulation schuldig befunden wird neben Putin und Trump auch Elon Musk, was lustigerweise ausgerechnet Bill Gates gerade noch einmal bekräftigt und als «völlig irre» bezeichnet hat. Man stelle sich die Diskussionen um die Gültigkeit von Wahlergebnissen vor, wenn es Online-Verfahren zur Stimmabgabe gäbe. In der Schweiz wird «E-Voting» seit einigen Jahren getestet, aber wohl bisher mit wenig Erfolg.

Die politische Brandstiftung der letzten Jahre zahlt sich immer mehr aus. Anstatt dringende Probleme der Menschen zu lösen – zu denen auch in Deutschland die weit verbreitete Armut zählt –, hat die Politik konsequent polarisiert und sich auf Ausgrenzung und Verhöhnung großer Teile der Bevölkerung konzentriert. Basierend auf Ideologie und Lügen werden abweichende Stimmen unterdrückt und kriminalisiert, nicht nur und nicht erst in diesem Augenblick. Die nächsten Wochen dürften ausgesprochen spannend werden.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 8d34bd24:414be32b

I’ve been really deeply studying end times prophecy today. Trying to see how all of the prophecies from the initial proto-Gospel in Genesis 3 through the last chapter in Revelation is hard to arrange in my head. That being said, after reading the Bible daily for about 40 years and reading through it each year for about 30 years, I am really starting to see so many links between passages through out the Bible. It has made my Bible study enthralling. I wish I had time to spend hours and hours every day studying and writing about what I have learned.

I thought it might be handy to share some hints on how I study the Bible. Hopefully this can help some people, although I do tend to think my subscribers tend to be those who love Bible study and are already in the word. People who don’t love the Bible are unlikely to read my long, scripture laden posts. Still, hopefully this will be useful.

Starting the Habit of Bible Reading

The first and foremost thing we all need is to start the habit of daily Bible reading. You can’t worship a God you don’t know about and you can’t obey a God whose commands you don’t know. Every Christian needs to read the whole Bible. This needs to be a priority.

I used to recommend people just start at the beginning, Genesis, and read straight through to Revelation, but I’ve lately changed my mind. So many people will start in Genesis, enjoy Genesis and Exodus, which are basically just stories about creation, judgment in the global flood, and God’s chosen people. They then get to Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (the details of the law including the intricate ceremonial law) and they lose momentum in the tedium. I do think every Christian eventually needs to read and know these books, but I think it is OK to skip some or all of them the first time through. They will mean more once you have read the whole Bible. If you are only going to read one, I’d probably read Deuteronomy.

I also know that it can be helpful for some people to mix up their reading. I used to have book marks with daily readings, so I read some Old Testament, some Psalms/Proverbs, some New Testament. There was one other category, but I can’t remember what it was. This way, you get a little of different types of passages. My bookmarks burnt up when my house burnt down and when I went searching online for something similar, I found a few similar reading plans, but not the one I used and really liked. Here are a couple that looked good, but I haven’t used myself. here. here. here. These plans look good, but don’t have the convenient bookmarks. here. here. For those who like reading online or on your phone (which isn’t me), I found this one. It looked nice I’ve just started using it despite the fact I prefer a Bible I can hold, turn the pages of, and write in. It has a chronological Old Testament Passage and a New Testament reading that relates in some way to the Old Testament Passage. It also links to some maps that let you see where the places mentioned in the passages are located and questions to get you to think about what you read. The one downside is it only lets you attach notes if you create a group. I do really like the idea that you can setup a group to read through the Bible and share your comments and thoughts, but I haven’t tried the feature.

Another thing I’ve found very helpful is a chronological Bible. It is handy having things in the order they happened and the different passages that cover an event (such as from each gospel or 1/2 Samuel vs 1/2 Chronicles or Leviticus vs Deuteronomy, etc.) right by each other. It is handy to see what actually comes before what and the way different writers describe the same event, since different authors include different details. I think reading a chronological Bible has helped me see more links between passages and get a better understanding of the Bible as a whole. I am getting close to finishing my second reading through. I don’t know if one chronological Bible is significantly better than another, but this is the one I am reading right now.

Another tactic I have used, when I started getting bogged down reading through the Bible again and again was to study one book of the Bible in depth. It worked best reading one of the shorter books. I’d read through the book repeatedly for a month, usually in 1-3 days. I’d follow the links in my study Bible to related passages or study where some of the words were used in other parts of the Bible. I’d get so I really knew the book well.

One thing that has helped me with my Bible study is writing in my Bible. The first time I wrote, it felt almost sacrilegious, but it helps me to organize my thoughts. I’ll write what I get out of it, how it relates to another passage, etc. I’ll underline or circle key words or sentences. These are then useful when I read through again and may see something different, but it reminds me of my growth and learning. I’ve actually thought I really need to get a new wide margin Bible to have more room for my notes. I can write really small and have an ultrafine point pen, so I can write even smaller than the print. The problem is my eyes aren’t so good and I now have trouble reading my tiny print. I can’t read my own writing without my reading glasses.

Bible reading starts getting really exciting when you get to know the Bible well enough that you start seeing the links between different passages and different books. Suddenly it opens up a whole new level of understanding. It is like an exciting scavenger hunt finding how all of the ideas in the Bible relate to each other and clarify each other in one whole.

Historically I’ve hated writing. The thought of writing a journal or something sounded like torture, but I have truly found organizing my thoughts in an essay, really helps my understanding of the Scriptures in ways that reading and thinking about it never did. Whether anyone reads my writings or not, I’ll continue writing because it is a blessing to me. I have grown immensely in my understanding of the Bible by writing out a reasoned argument for what I believe the Bible is saying. I’ve also done in depth study and realized that I was not completely right in my understanding and had to adjust my understanding of Scripture.

but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:15)

As Christians, we are supposed to be ready to make a defense. Reading, studying, and knowing the Bible is the only true way to be ready. I made a necklace with the first letter in each word in this verse to help me memorize it.

Memorizing God’s word is also well worth the effort. I’ll admit, that I would be terrible for following my own advice in this, except I have a special needs son, who is in Awana, and needs help memorizing 1-5 verses a week. The only way either of us can pull it off is I make a song for each 1-3 verse passage that he has to memorize. We then sing them together until we know them. I debated on whether to share my songs. They are not well done. The version uploaded is my first rough attempt at the song and we usually fine tune them over the week, but I don’t get around to rerecording them. I also have at best an OK voice. Still, I decided to share in case these songs can help someone else with their Bible memorization. Hopefully I am not embarrassing myself too much.

Another thing that has helped me is finding Open Bible’s geocoding site. When reading Bible passages, there are frequent references to places that are unfamiliar, either because they are far away or because the ancient names, rather than modern names, are used. This site allows you to see on a map (satellite & modern country formats) where places are located and how they relate to each other. I’ve especially found this useful with end times prophecy because the Bible describes places with their ancient, not modern names.

In addition to my direct Bible study, I also daily listen to sermons, Christian podcasts, read Christian substack posts, and read Christian commentaries. All help my understanding of the Bible. FYI, the sermons, podcasts, blogs, and commentaries are a risk if you don’t know the Bible and aren’t being like the Bereans who searched “… the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:11) There are so many false or erroneous teachers, that you have to be very careful listening to people and never put the opinions of men above the word of God. Of course, it is possible to learn a bunch from Godly teachers. Sadly, even the best Bible teachers seem to have at least one area of error. For example, I love listening to R.C. Sproul’s “Renewing Your Mind” podcast, but his teaching on the first 11 chapters of Genesis are a bit “squishy” (not outright wrong, but not holding firm enough to the Bible) and I’d say his end times teaching is flat out wrong. Everything I’ve heard him teach between Genesis 12 and Jude is amazing and very true to the Bible. This is where he spends almost all of his time teaching, so I can highly recommend his podcast. Without a firm foundation in the Bible, it is not possible to recognize false teaching, especially when taught by someone who is very good in most respects.

I hope this is useful to people to help them get into the habit of regular Bible reading and seeing how exciting Bible study can be.

May God give you a hunger for and understanding of His word. May you fill your heart and mind with the word of God so it overflows and is seen by all around you.

Trust Jesus.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na dvadesetjedan.com.

Autor: Matt Corallo / Prevod na hrvatski: Davor

---

Bitcoineri, od programera Bitcoin Core-a preko dugogodišnjih entuzijasta Bitcoina do nedavnih pronalazača /r/Bitcoina, vole razgovarati o tome kako je decentralizacija Bitcoina njegova ultimativna značajka. Doduše, rijetko vidite da netko objašnjava zašto je decentralizacija važna. Zasigurno je to zanimljiva značajka iz perspektive računalne znanosti, no zašto bi potrošači, tvrtke ili investitori marili za to? Ova objava je pokušaj da se napiše zašto je decentralizacija temelj vrijednosti Bitcoina i što je još važnije, postavi buduće objave u kojima se govori o tome kada ona to nije.

Kada Bitcoineri govore o decentralizaciji Bitcoina, prva stvar koja se pojavljuje je često spominjani nedostatak inherentnog povjerenja u treću stranu. Dok je dobro postavljeno povjerenje preduvjet za učinkovit rad mnogih sustava, jednom kada se takvo povjerenje izgubi, sustavi mogu postati nevjerojatno krhki. Uzmimo, za primjer, povjerenje u američke banke prije uspostave FDIC-a (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). Dok je pristup bankovnim uslugama omogućio više pogodnosti i mnogim tvrtkama učinkovitije poslovanje, poznato je da su banke propadale, pritom upropaštavajući sa sobom sva sredstva klijenata. Dok je predstavljanje FDIC-a i sličnih programa decentraliziralo povjerenje u financijske institucije s jedne strane na dvije, transakcije u velikom dijelu svijeta ne nude takvu zaštitu. Čak i uz takve programe, pojedinci nisu univerzalno zaštićeni od gubitka preko granica i preko određene vrijednosti.

U novije vrijeme, propisi koji dopuštaju pojedinim državnim dužnosnicima jednostrano oduzimanje imovine postali su uobičajeni. Naročito u SAD-u, sada zloglasna “Operacija Choke Point” i programi oduzimanja civilne imovine, omogućili su službenicima za provođenje zakona i privatnim institucijama da zapljenjuju financijsku imovinu i uskraćuju financijske usluge uz malo ili nimalo nadzora. Uklanjanje provjerenih skrbnika i stvaranje sustava s likvidnom imovinom, koja se ne može zaplijeniti, ima potencijal pružiti pouzdanije financijske usluge mnogima koji inače ne bi mogli djelovati učinkovito ili uopće ne bi mogli djelovati. Ova mogućnost da se Bitcoin ne može zaplijeniti, omogućena je samo zbog nedostatka za centraliziranim povjerenjem. Centralizirani sustavi elektroničke gotovine i financijski sustavi su pokušali pružiti takvu pouzdanost, propisi i poslovna stvarnost su to gotovo univerzalno spriječili.

Svojstvo koje je jednako važno za sposobnost Bitcoina da pruža financijske usluge zviždačima, stranim disidentima i porno zvijezdama je njegov otpor cenzuri transakcija. Sposobnost trećih strana da zaplijene imovinu rezultira izravnim i čistim novčanim gubitkom, zamrzavanje imovine može imati sličan učinak. Kada pojedinac ili organizacija više nisu u mogućnosti obavljati transakcije za plaćanje roba i usluga, njihova financijska imovina brzo gubi vrijednost. Iako Bitcoin ima vrlo dobru priču o nemogućnosti zapljene (svaka strana u sustavu nameće nemogućnost bilo koga da potroši Bitcoin bez dodanog privatnog ključa), njegova priča o otporu cenzuri je malo utančanija.

U svijetu u kojem nijedan rudar Bitcoina nema više od 1% ukupne hash snage (ili nešto drugo što je jednako decentralizirano), trebalo bi biti lako pronaći rudara koji je ili anoniman i prihvaća sve transakcije ili je u nadležnosti koja ne pokušava cenzurirati vaše transakcije. Naravno, ovo nije svijet kakav danas imamo, a cenzura transakcija jedan je od većih razloga da se ozbiljno zabrinemo centralizacijom rudarenja (za pune čvorove). Ipak, mogućnost pojedinca da kupi hash snagu (u obliku lako dostupnog starog hardvera ili u obliku njegovog iznajmljivanja) za rudarenje svoje inače cenzurirane transakcije, opcija je sve dok je pravilo najdužeg lanca na snazi ​​kod svih rudara. Iako je znatno skuplji nego što bi bio u istinski decentraliziranom Bitcoinu, to omogućuje Bitcoinu da zadrži neka od svojih anti-cenzuriranih svojstava.

Ako ste već dovoljno dugo u priči oko Bitcoina, možda ćete prepoznati gornja svojstva kao kritična za zamjenjivost. Zamjenjivost, kao ključno svojstvo svakog monetarnog instrumenta, odnosi se na ideju da vrijednost jedne jedinice treba biti ekvivalentna svakoj drugoj jedinici. Bez mogućnosti odmrzavanja/otpora cenzuri i nemogućnosti zapljene, Bitcoin (i svaki drugi monetarni sustav) počinje gubiti zamjenjivost. Trgovci i platni procesori više ne mogu razumno prihvaćati Bitcoin bez provjere niza crnih lista i mnogo truda kako bi bili sigurni da će moći potrošiti Bitcoin koji prihvaćaju. Ako povjerenje u zamjenjivost Bitcoina deformira, njegova bi korist mogla biti značajno deformirana.

Još jedno svojstvo koje proizlazi iz decentralizacije Bitcoina, je njegov otvoreni pristup. Ulagači iz Silicijske doline često ga nazivaju jednim od najzanimljivijih svojstava Bitcoina, a mnogi ga vole nazivati ​​"bez dopuštenja". Sposobnost bilo koga, bilo gdje u svijetu, sa internetskom vezom, da prihvaća Bitcoin za robu i usluge i koristi Bitcoin za kupnju roba i usluga je vrlo uzbudljiva. Opet, ovo svojstvo ovisi o decentralizaciji Bitcoina. Iako postoje mnogi centralizirani pružatelji financijskih usluga, gdje mnogi od njih promoviraju svoju dostupnost bilo kome, sama njihova prisutnost kao centraliziranog tijela koje može proizvoljno uskratiti uslugu, čini ih podložnim budućim promjenama politike iz bilo kojeg razloga. PayPal je, na primjer, utemeljen na idealima univerzalnog pristupa elektroničkoj gotovini. Međutim, zbog svoje pozicije središnje vlasti, brzo je promijenio svoje politike, kako bi udovoljio pritiscima regulatora i politikama postojećeg financijskog sustava na koji se oslanjao. Ovih dana, PayPal je nadaleko poznat po zamrzavanju računa i oduzimanju imovine uz malo ili nimalo upozorenja. U osnovi, oslanjanje na centralizirane strane za usluge nije kompatibilno s univerzalnim otvorenim pristupom u financijskom svijetu.

Primijetit ćete da se sve gore navedene kritične značajke, one koje Bitcoin čine tako uzbudljivim za sve nas, centralizirani sistemi već neko vrijeme mogu implementirati. Zapravo to se radilo i prije, u učinkovitijim sustavima od Bitcoina. Naravno, nikada nisu potrajali, gubeći kritična svojstva nakon podešavanja kako bi se popravila ova ili ona stvar, implementirajući regulatorne sustave cenzure izravno u osnovne slojeve, ograničavajući pristup rastu dobiti i potpuno gašenje. Stvarno, decentralizacija u Bitcoinu sama po sebi nije značajka, već je umjesto toga jedini način za koji znamo da održimo značajke koje želimo u sustavima kojima upravljaju ljudi.

Originalni tekst

@ 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".

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Menschen tun alles, egal wie absurd, \ um ihrer eigenen Seele nicht zu begegnen. \ Carl Gustav Jung

«Extremer Reichtum ist eine Gefahr für die Demokratie», sagen über die Hälfte der knapp 3000 befragten Millionäre aus G20-Staaten laut einer Umfrage der «Patriotic Millionaires». Ferner stellte dieser Zusammenschluss wohlhabender US-Amerikaner fest, dass 63 Prozent jener Millionäre den Einfluss von Superreichen auf US-Präsident Trump als Bedrohung für die globale Stabilität ansehen.

Diese Besorgnis haben 370 Millionäre und Milliardäre am Dienstag auch den in Davos beim WEF konzentrierten Privilegierten aus aller Welt übermittelt. In einem offenen Brief forderten sie die «gewählten Führer» auf, die Superreichen – also sie selbst – zu besteuern, um «die zersetzenden Auswirkungen des extremen Reichtums auf unsere Demokratien und die Gesellschaft zu bekämpfen». Zum Beispiel kontrolliere eine handvoll extrem reicher Menschen die Medien, beeinflusse die Rechtssysteme in unzulässiger Weise und verwandele Recht in Unrecht.

Schon 2019 beanstandete der bekannte Historiker und Schriftsteller Ruthger Bregman an einer WEF-Podiumsdiskussion die Steuervermeidung der Superreichen. Die elitäre Veranstaltung bezeichnete er als «Feuerwehr-Konferenz, bei der man nicht über Löschwasser sprechen darf.» Daraufhin erhielt Bregman keine Einladungen nach Davos mehr. Auf seine Aussagen machte der Schweizer Aktivist Alec Gagneux aufmerksam, der sich seit Jahrzehnten kritisch mit dem WEF befasst. Ihm wurde kürzlich der Zutritt zu einem dreiteiligen Kurs über das WEF an der Volkshochschule Region Brugg verwehrt.

Nun ist die Erkenntnis, dass mit Geld politischer Einfluss einhergeht, alles andere als neu. Und extremer Reichtum macht die Sache nicht wirklich besser. Trotzdem hat man über Initiativen wie Patriotic Millionaires oder Taxmenow bisher eher selten etwas gehört, obwohl es sie schon lange gibt. Auch scheint es kein Problem, wenn ein Herr Gates fast im Alleingang versucht, globale Gesundheits-, Klima-, Ernährungs- oder Bevölkerungspolitik zu betreiben – im Gegenteil. Im Jahr, als der Milliardär Donald Trump zum zweiten Mal ins Weiße Haus einzieht, ist das Echo in den Gesinnungsmedien dagegen enorm – und uniform, wer hätte das gedacht.

Der neue US-Präsident hat jedoch «Davos geerdet», wie Achgut es nannte. In seiner kurzen Rede beim Weltwirtschaftsforum verteidigte er seine Politik und stellte klar, er habe schlicht eine «Revolution des gesunden Menschenverstands» begonnen. Mit deutlichen Worten sprach er unter anderem von ersten Maßnahmen gegen den «Green New Scam», und von einem «Erlass, der jegliche staatliche Zensur beendet»:

«Unsere Regierung wird die Äußerungen unserer eigenen Bürger nicht mehr als Fehlinformation oder Desinformation bezeichnen, was die Lieblingswörter von Zensoren und derer sind, die den freien Austausch von Ideen und, offen gesagt, den Fortschritt verhindern wollen.»

Wie der «Trumpismus» letztlich einzuordnen ist, muss jeder für sich selbst entscheiden. Skepsis ist definitiv angebracht, denn «einer von uns» sind weder der Präsident noch seine auserwählten Teammitglieder. Ob sie irgendeinen Sumpf trockenlegen oder Staatsverbrechen aufdecken werden oder was aus WHO- und Klimaverträgen wird, bleibt abzuwarten.

Das WHO-Dekret fordert jedenfalls die Übertragung der Gelder auf «glaubwürdige Partner», die die Aktivitäten übernehmen könnten. Zufällig scheint mit «Impfguru» Bill Gates ein weiterer Harris-Unterstützer kürzlich das Lager gewechselt zu haben: Nach einem gemeinsamen Abendessen zeigte er sich «beeindruckt» von Trumps Interesse an der globalen Gesundheit.

Mit dem Projekt «Stargate» sind weitere dunkle Wolken am Erwartungshorizont der Fangemeinde aufgezogen. Trump hat dieses Joint Venture zwischen den Konzernen OpenAI, Oracle, und SoftBank als das «größte KI-Infrastrukturprojekt der Geschichte» angekündigt. Der Stein des Anstoßes: Oracle-CEO Larry Ellison, der auch Fan von KI-gestützter Echtzeit-Überwachung ist, sieht einen weiteren potenziellen Einsatz der künstlichen Intelligenz. Sie könne dazu dienen, Krebserkrankungen zu erkennen und individuelle mRNA-«Impfstoffe» zur Behandlung innerhalb von 48 Stunden zu entwickeln.

Warum bitte sollten sich diese superreichen «Eliten» ins eigene Fleisch schneiden und direkt entgegen ihren eigenen Interessen handeln? Weil sie Menschenfreunde, sogenannte Philanthropen sind? Oder vielleicht, weil sie ein schlechtes Gewissen haben und ihre Schuld kompensieren müssen? Deswegen jedenfalls brauchen «Linke» laut Robert Willacker, einem deutschen Politikberater mit brasilianischen Wurzeln, rechte Parteien – ein ebenso überraschender wie humorvoller Erklärungsansatz.

Wenn eine Krähe der anderen kein Auge aushackt, dann tut sie das sich selbst noch weniger an. Dass Millionäre ernsthaft ihre eigene Besteuerung fordern oder Machteliten ihren eigenen Einfluss zugunsten anderer einschränken würden, halte ich für sehr unwahrscheinlich. So etwas glaube ich erst, wenn zum Beispiel die Rüstungsindustrie sich um Friedensverhandlungen bemüht, die Pharmalobby sich gegen institutionalisierte Korruption einsetzt, Zentralbanken ihre CBDC-Pläne für Bitcoin opfern oder der ÖRR die Abschaffung der Rundfunkgebühren fordert.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ da18e986:3a0d9851

After months of development I am excited to officially announce the first version of DVMDash (v0.1). DVMDash is a monitoring and debugging tool for all Data Vending Machine (DVM) activity on Nostr. The website is live at https://dvmdash.live and the code is available on Github.

Data Vending Machines (NIP-90) offload computationally expensive tasks from relays and clients in a decentralized, free-market manner. They are especially useful for AI tools, algorithmic processing of user’s feeds, and many other use cases.

The long term goal of DVMDash is to become 1) a place to easily see what’s happening in the DVM ecosystem with metrics and graphs, and 2) provide real-time tools to help developers monitor, debug, and improve their DVMs.

DVMDash aims to enable users to answer these types of questions at a glance: * What’s the most popular DVM right now? * How much money is being paid to image generation DVMs? * Is any DVM down at the moment? When was the last time that DVM completed a task? * Have any DVMs failed to deliver after accepting payment? Did they refund that payment? * How long does it take this DVM to respond? * For task X, what’s the average amount of time it takes for a DVM to complete the task? * … and more

For developers working with DVMs there is now a visual, graph based tool that shows DVM-chain activity. DVMs have already started calling other DVMs to assist with work. Soon, we will have humans in the loop monitoring DVM activity, or completing tasks themselves. The activity trace of which DVM is being called as part of a sub-task from another DVM will become complicated, especially because these decisions will be made at run-time and are not known ahead of time. Building a tool to help users and developers understand where a DVM is in this activity trace, whether it’s gotten stuck or is just taking a long time, will be invaluable. For now, the website only shows 1 step of a dvm chain from a user's request.

One of the main designs for the site is that it is highly clickable, meaning whenever you see a DVM, Kind, User, or Event ID, you can click it and open that up in a new page to inspect it.

Another aspect of this website is that it should be fast. If you submit a DVM request, you should see it in DVMDash within seconds, as well as events from DVMs interacting with your request. I have attempted to obtain DVM events from relays as quickly as possible and compute metrics over them within seconds.

This project makes use of a nosql database and graph database, currently set to use mongo db and neo4j, for which there are free, community versions that can be run locally.

Finally, I’m grateful to nostr:npub10pensatlcfwktnvjjw2dtem38n6rvw8g6fv73h84cuacxn4c28eqyfn34f for supporting this project.

Features in v0.1:

Global Network Metrics:

This page shows the following metrics: - DVM Requests: Number of unencrypted DVM requests (kind 5000-5999) - DVM Results: Number of unencrypted DVM results (kind 6000-6999) - DVM Request Kinds Seen: Number of unique kinds in the Kind range 5000-5999 (except for known non-DVM kinds 5666 and 5969) - DVM Result Kinds Seen: Number of unique kinds in the Kind range 6000-6999 (except for known non-DVM kinds 6666 and 6969) - DVM Pub Keys Seen: Number of unique pub keys that have written a kind 6000-6999 (except for known non-DVM kinds) or have published a kind 31990 event that specifies a ‘k’ tag value between 5000-5999 - DVM Profiles (NIP-89) Seen: Number of 31990 that have a ‘k’ tag value for kind 5000-5999 - Most Popular DVM: The DVM that has produced the most result events (kind 6000-6999) - Most Popular Kind: The Kind in range 5000-5999 that has the most requests by users. - 24 hr DVM Requests: Number of kind 5000-5999 events created in the last 24 hrs - 24 hr DVM Results: Number of kind 6000-6999 events created in the last 24 hours - 1 week DVM Requests: Number of kind 5000-5999 events created in the last week - 1 week DVM Results: Number of kind 6000-6999 events created in the last week - Unique Users of DVMs: Number of unique pubkeys of kind 5000-5999 events - Total Sats Paid to DVMs: - This is an estimate. - This value is likely a lower bound as it does not take into consideration subscriptions paid to DVMs - This is calculated by counting the values of all invoices where: - A DVM published a kind 7000 event requesting payment and containing an invoice - The DVM later provided a DVM Result for the same job for which it requested payment. - The assumption is that the invoice was paid, otherwise the DVM would not have done the work - Note that because there are multiple ways to pay a DVM such as lightning invoices, ecash, and subscriptions, there is no guaranteed way to know whether a DVM has been paid. Additionally, there is no way to know that a DVM completed the job because some DVMs may not publish a final result event and instead send the user a DM or take some other kind of action.

Recent Requests:

This page shows the most recent 3 events per kind, sorted by created date. You should always be able to find the last 3 events here of all DVM kinds.

DVM Browser:

This page will either show a profile of a specific DVM, or when no DVM is given in the url, it will show a table of all DVMs with some high level stats. Users can click on a DVM in the table to load the DVM specific page.

Kind Browser:

This page will either show data on a specific kind including all DVMs that have performed jobs of that kind, or when no kind is given, it will show a table summarizing activity across all Kinds.

Debug:

This page shows the graph based visualization of all events, users, and DVMs involved in a single job as well as a table of all events in order from oldest to newest. When no event is given, this page shows the 200 most recent events where the user can click on an event in order to debug that job. The graph-based visualization allows the user to zoom in and out and move around the graph, as well as double click on any node in the graph (except invoices) to open up that event, user, or dvm in a new page.

Playground:

This page is currently under development and may not work at the moment. If it does work, in the current state you can login with NIP-07 extension and broadcast a 5050 event with some text and then the page will show you events from DVMs. This page will be used to interact with DVMs live. A current good alternative to this feature, for some but not all kinds, is https://vendata.io/.

Looking to the Future

I originally built DVMDash out of Fear-of-Missing-Out (FOMO); I wanted to make AI systems that were comprised of DVMs but my day job was taking up a lot of my time. I needed to know when someone was performing a new task or launching a new AI or Nostr tool!

I have a long list of DVMs and Agents I hope to build and I needed DVMDash to help me do it; I hope it helps you achieve your goals with Nostr, DVMs, and even AI. To this end, I wish for this tool to be useful to others, so if you would like a feature, please submit a git issue here or note me on Nostr!

Immediate Next Steps:

• Refactoring code and removing code that is no longer used
• Improve documentation to run the project locally
• Adding a metric for number of encrypted requests
• Adding a metric for number of encrypted results

Long Term Goals:

• Add more metrics based on community feedback
• Add plots showing metrics over time
• Add support for showing a multi-dvm chain in the graph based visualizer
• Add a real-time mode where the pages will auto update (currently the user must refresh the page)
• ... Add support for user requested features!

Acknowledgements

There are some fantastic people working in the DVM space right now. Thank you to nostr:npub1drvpzev3syqt0kjrls50050uzf25gehpz9vgdw08hvex7e0vgfeq0eseet for making python bindings for nostr_sdk and for the recent asyncio upgrades! Thank you to nostr:npub1nxa4tywfz9nqp7z9zp7nr7d4nchhclsf58lcqt5y782rmf2hefjquaa6q8 for answering lots of questions about DVMs and for making the nostrdvm library. Thank you to nostr:npub1l2vyh47mk2p0qlsku7hg0vn29faehy9hy34ygaclpn66ukqp3afqutajft for making the original DVM NIP and vendata.io which I use all the time for testing!

P.S. I rushed to get this out in time for Nostriga 2024; code refactoring will be coming :)

@ 3c984938:2ec11289

Bienvenide a Nostr!

Introduccíon

Es tu primera vez aqui en Nostr? Bienvenides! Nostr es un acrónimo raro para "Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays" on un solo objetivo; resistirse a la censura. Una alternativa a las redes sociales tradicionales, comunicaciónes, blogging, streaming, podcasting, y feventualmente el correo electronico (en fase de desarrollo) con características descentralizadas que te capacita, usario. Jamas seras molestado por un anuncio, capturado por una entidad centralizada o algoritmo que te monetiza.

Permítame ser su anfitrión! Soy Onigiri! Yo estoy explorando el mundo de Nostr, un protocolo de comunicacíon decentralizada. Yo escribo sobre las herramientas y los desarolladores increíbles de Nostr que dan vida a esta reino.

Bienvenides a Nostr Wonderland

Estas a punto de entrar a un otro mundo digtal que te hará explotar tu mente de todas las aplicaciones descentralizadas, clientes, sitios que puedes utilizar. Nunca volverás a ver a las comunicaciones ni a las redes sociales de la mesma manera. Todo gracias al carácter criptográfico de nostr, inpirado por la tecnología "blockchain". Cada usario, cuando crean una cuenta en Nostr, recibe un par de llaves: una privada y una publico. Estos son las llaves de tu propio reino. Lo que escribes, cantes, grabes, lo que creas - todo te pertenece.

Unos llaves de Oro y Plata

Mi amigo y yo llamamos a esto "identidad mediante cifrado" porque tu identidad es cifrado. Tu puedes compartir tu llave de plata "npub" a otros usarios para conectar y seguir. Utiliza tu llave de oro "nsec" para accedar a tu cuenta y exponerte a muchas aplicaciones. Mantenga la llave a buen recaudo en todo momento. Ya no hay razor para estar enjaulado por los terminos de plataformas sociales nunca más.

Onigirl npub18jvyjwpmm65g8v9azmlvu8knd5m7xlxau08y8vt75n53jtkpz2ys6mqqu3

Todavia No tienes un cliente? Seleccione la mejor opción.

Encuentra la aplicación adecuada para ti! Utilice su clave de oro "nsec" para acceder a estas herramientas maravillosas. También puedes visit a esta pagina a ver a todas las aplicaciones. Antes de pegar tu llave de oro en muchas aplicaciones, considera un "signer" (firmante) para los sitios web 3. Por favor, mire la siguiente imagen para más detalles. Consulte también la leyenda.

Get a Signer extension via chrome webstore

Un firmante (o "signer" en inglés) es una extensión del navegador web. Nos2x and NostrConnect son extensiónes ampliamente aceptado para aceder a Nostr. Esto simplifica el proceso de aceder a sitios "web 3". En lugar de copiar y pegar la clave oro "nsec" cada vez, la mantienes guardado en la extensión y le des permiso para aceder a Nostr.

👉⚡⚡Obtén una billetera Bitcoin lightning para enviar/recibir Zaps⚡⚡ (Esto es opcional)

Aqui en Nostr, utilizamos la red Lightning de Bitcoin (L2). Nesitaras una cartera lightning para enviar y recibir Satoshis, la denominacion mas chiquita de un Bitcoin. (0.000000001 BTC) Los "zaps" son un tipo de micropago en Nostr. Si te gusta el contenido de un usario, es norma dejarle una propina en la forma de un ¨zap". Por ejemplo, si te gusta este contenido, tu me puedes hacer "zap" con Satoshis para recompensar mi trabajo. Pero apenas llegaste, as que todavia no tienes una cartera. No se preocupe, puedo ayudar en eso!

"Stacker.News" es una plataforma donde los usarios pueden ganar SATS por publicar articulos y interactuar con otros.

Stacker.News es el lugar mas facil para recibir una direccion de cartera Bitcoin Lightning.

1. Acedese con su extensión firmante "signer" - Nos2x or NostrConnect - hace click en tu perfil, un codigo de letras y numeros en la mano superior derecha. Veás algo como esto
2. Haga clic en "edit" y elija un nombre que te guste. Se puede cambiar si deseas en el futuro.
3. Haga clic en "save"
4. Crea una biografía y la comunidad SN son muy acogedora. Te mandarán satoshi para darte la bienvenida.
5. Tu nueva direccion de cartera Bitcoin Lightning aparecerá asi ^^No le mandas "zaps" a esta direccion; es puramente con fines educativos.
6. Con tu Nueva dirección de monedero Bitcoin Lightning puedes ponerla en cualquier cliente o app de tu elección. Para ello, ve a tu página de perfil y bajo la dirección de tu monedero en "Dirección Lightning", introduce tu nueva dirección y pulsa "guardar " y ya está. Enhorabuena.

👉✨Con el tiempo, es posible que desee pasar a las opciones de auto-custodia y tal vez incluso considerar la posibilidad de auto-alojar su propio nodo LN para una mejor privacidad. La buena noticia es que stacker.news tambien está dejando de ser una cartera custodio.

⭐NIP-05-identidad DNS⭐ Al igual que en Twitter, una marca de verificación es para mostrar que eres del mismo jardín "como un humano", y no un atípico como una mala hierba o, "bot". Pero no de la forma nefasta en que lo hacen las grandes tecnológicas. En el país de las maravillas de Nostr, esto te permite asignar tu llave de plata, "npub", a un identificador DNS. Una vez verificado, puedes gritar para anunciar tu nueva residencia Nostr para compartir.

✨Hay un montón de opciones, pero si has seguido los pasos, esto se vuelve extremadamente fácil.

👉✅¡Haz clic en tu "Perfil ", luego en "Configuración ", desplázate hasta la parte inferior y pega tu clave Silver, "npub!" y haz clic en "Guardar " y ¡listo! Utiliza tu monedero relámpago de Stacker.news como tu NIP-05. ¡¡¡Enhorabuena!!! ¡Ya estás verificado! Dale unas horas y cuando uses tu cliente "principal " deberías ver una marca de verificación.

Nostr, el infonformista de los servidores.

En lugar de utilizar una única instancia o un servidor centralizado, Nostr está construido para que varias bases de datos intercambien mensajes mediante "relés". Los relés, que son neutrales y no discriminatorios, almacenan y difunden mensajes públicos en la red Nostr. Transmiten mensajes a todos los demás clientes conectados a ellos, asegurando las comunicaciones en la red descentralizada.

¡Mis amigos en Nostr te dan la bienvenida!

Bienvenida a la fiesta. ¿Le apetece un té?🍵

¡Hay mucho mas!

Esto es la punta del iceberg. Síguenme mientras continúo explorando nuevas tierras y a los desarolladores, los caballeres que potencioan este ecosistema. Encuéntrame aquí para mas contenido como este y comparten con otros usarios de nostr. Conozca a los caballeres que luchan por freedomTech (la tecnología de libertad) en Nostr y a los proyectos a los que contribuyen para hacerla realidad.💋

Onigirl @npub18jvyjwpmm65g8v9azmlvu8knd5m7xlxau08y8vt75n53jtkpz2ys6mqqu3

---

🧡😻Esta guía ha sido cuidadosamente traducida por miggymofongo

Puede seguirla aquí. @npub1ajt9gp0prf4xrp4j07j9rghlcyukahncs0fw5ywr977jccued9nqrcc0cs

sitio web

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Die grauenvollste Aussicht ist die der Technokratie – \ einer kontrollierenden Herrschaft, \ die durch verstümmelte und verstümmelnde Geister ausgeübt wird. \ Ernst Jünger

«Davos ist nicht mehr sexy», das Weltwirtschaftsforum (WEF) mache Davos kaputt, diese Aussagen eines Einheimischen las ich kürzlich in der Handelszeitung. Während sich einige vor Ort enorm an der «teuersten Gewerbeausstellung der Welt» bereicherten, würden die negativen Begleiterscheinungen wie Wohnungsnot und Niedergang der lokalen Wirtschaft immer deutlicher.

Nächsten Montag beginnt in dem Schweizer Bergdorf erneut ein Jahrestreffen dieses elitären Clubs der Konzerne, bei dem man mit hochrangigen Politikern aus aller Welt und ausgewählten Vertretern der Systemmedien zusammenhocken wird. Wie bereits in den vergangenen vier Jahren wird die Präsidentin der EU-Kommission, Ursula von der Leyen, in Begleitung von Klaus Schwab ihre Grundsatzansprache halten.

Der deutsche WEF-Gründer hatte bei dieser Gelegenheit immer höchst lobende Worte für seine Landsmännin: 2021 erklärte er sich «stolz, dass Europa wieder unter Ihrer Führung steht» und 2022 fand er es bemerkenswert, was sie erreicht habe angesichts des «erstaunlichen Wandels», den die Welt in den vorangegangenen zwei Jahren erlebt habe; es gebe nun einen «neuen europäischen Geist».

Von der Leyens Handeln während der sogenannten Corona-«Pandemie» lobte Schwab damals bereits ebenso, wie es diese Woche das Karlspreis-Direktorium tat, als man der Beschuldigten im Fall Pfizergate die diesjährige internationale Auszeichnung «für Verdienste um die europäische Einigung» verlieh. Außerdem habe sie die EU nicht nur gegen den «Aggressor Russland», sondern auch gegen die «innere Bedrohung durch Rassisten und Demagogen» sowie gegen den Klimawandel verteidigt.

Jene Herausforderungen durch «Krisen epochalen Ausmaßes» werden indes aus dem Umfeld des WEF nicht nur herbeigeredet – wie man alljährlich zur Zeit des Davoser Treffens im Global Risks Report nachlesen kann, der zusammen mit dem Versicherungskonzern Zurich erstellt wird. Seit die Globalisten 2020/21 in der Praxis gesehen haben, wie gut eine konzertierte und konsequente Angst-Kampagne funktionieren kann, geht es Schlag auf Schlag. Sie setzen alles daran, Schwabs goldenes Zeitfenster des «Great Reset» zu nutzen.

Ziel dieses «großen Umbruchs» ist die totale Kontrolle der Technokraten über die Menschen unter dem Deckmantel einer globalen Gesundheitsfürsorge. Wie aber könnte man so etwas erreichen? Ein Mittel dazu ist die «kreative Zerstörung». Weitere unabdingbare Werkzeug sind die Einbindung, ja Gleichschaltung der Medien und der Justiz.

Ein «Great Mental Reset» sei die Voraussetzung dafür, dass ein Großteil der Menschen Einschränkungen und Manipulationen wie durch die Corona-Maßnahmen praktisch kritik- und widerstandslos hinnehme, sagt der Mediziner und Molekulargenetiker Michael Nehls. Er meint damit eine regelrechte Umprogrammierung des Gehirns, wodurch nach und nach unsere Individualität und unser soziales Bewusstsein eliminiert und durch unreflektierten Konformismus ersetzt werden.

Der aktuelle Zustand unserer Gesellschaften ist auch für den Schweizer Rechtsanwalt Philipp Kruse alarmierend. Durch den Umgang mit der «Pandemie» sieht er die Grundlagen von Recht und Vernunft erschüttert, die Rechtsstaatlichkeit stehe auf dem Prüfstand. Seiner dringenden Mahnung an alle Bürger, die Prinzipien von Recht und Freiheit zu verteidigen, kann ich mich nur anschließen.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 6871d8df:4a9396c1

Embracing AI: A Case for AI Accelerationism

In an era where artificial intelligence (AI) development is at the forefront of technological innovation, a counter-narrative championed by a group I refer to as the 'AI Decels'—those advocating for the deceleration of AI advancements— seems to be gaining significant traction. After tuning into a recent episode of the Joe Rogan Podcast, I realized that the prevailing narrative around AI was heading in a dangerous direction. Rogan had Aza Raskin and Tristan Harris, technology safety advocates, who released a talk called 'The AI Dilemma,' on for a discussion. You may know them from the popular documentary 'The Social Dilemma' on the dangers of social media. It became increasingly clear that the cautionary stance dominating this discourse might be tipping the scales too far, veering towards an over-regulated future that stifles innovation rather than fostering it.

Are we moving too fast?

While acknowledging AI's benefits, Aza and Tristan fear it could be dangerous if not guided by ethical standards and safeguards. They believe AI development is moving too quickly and that the right incentives for its growth are not in place. They are concerned about the possibility of "civilizational overwhelm," where advanced AI technology far outpaces 21st-century governance. They fear a scenario where society and its institutions cannot manage or adapt to the rapid changes and challenges introduced by AI.

They argue for regulating and slowing down AI development due to rapid, uncontrolled advancement driven by competition among companies like Google, OpenAI, and Microsoft. They claim this race can lead to unsafe releases of new technologies, with AI systems exhibiting unpredictable, emergent behaviors, posing significant societal risks. For instance, AI can inadvertently learn tasks like sentiment analysis or human emotion understanding, creating potential for misuse in areas like biological weapons or cybersecurity vulnerabilities.

Moreover, AI companies' profit-driven incentives often conflict with the public good, prioritizing market dominance over safety and ethics. This misalignment can lead to technologies that maximize engagement or profits at societal expense, similar to the negative impacts seen with social media. To address these issues, they suggest government regulation to realign AI companies' incentives with safety, ethical considerations, and public welfare. Implementing responsible development frameworks focused on long-term societal impacts is essential for mitigating potential harm.

This isn't new

Though the premise of their concerns seems reasonable, it's dangerous and an all too common occurrence with the emergence of new technologies. For example, in their example in the podcast, they refer to the technological breakthrough of oil. Oil as energy was a technological marvel and changed the course of human civilization. The embrace of oil — now the cornerstone of industry in our age — revolutionized how societies operated, fueled economies, and connected the world in unprecedented ways. Yet recently, as ideas of its environmental and geopolitical ramifications propagated, the narrative around oil has shifted.

Tristan and Aza detail this shift and claim that though the period was great for humanity, we didn't have another technology to go to once the technological consequences became apparent. The problem with that argument is that we did innovate to a better alternative: nuclear. However, at its technological breakthrough, it was met with severe suspicions, from safety concerns to ethical debates over its use. This overregulation due to these concerns caused a decades-long stagnation in nuclear innovation, where even today, we are still stuck with heavy reliance on coal and oil. The scare tactics and fear-mongering had consequences, and, interestingly, they don't see the parallels with their current deceleration stance on AI.

These examples underscore a critical insight: the initial anxiety surrounding new technologies is a natural response to the unknowns they introduce. Yet, history shows that too much anxiety can stifle the innovation needed to address the problems posed by current technologies. The cycle of discovery, fear, adaptation, and eventual acceptance reveals an essential truth—progress requires not just the courage to innovate but also the resilience to navigate the uncertainties these innovations bring.

Moreover, believing we can predict and plan for all AI-related unknowns reflects overconfidence in our understanding and foresight. History shows that technological progress, marked by unexpected outcomes and discoveries, defies such predictions. The evolution from the printing press to the internet underscores progress's unpredictability. Hence, facing AI's future requires caution, curiosity, and humility. Acknowledging our limitations and embracing continuous learning and adaptation will allow us to harness AI's potential responsibly, illustrating that embracing our uncertainties, rather than pretending to foresee them, is vital to innovation.

The journey of technological advancement is fraught with both promise and trepidation. Historically, each significant leap forward, from the dawn of the industrial age to the digital revolution, has been met with a mix of enthusiasm and apprehension. Aza Raskin and Tristan Harris's thesis in the 'AI Dilemma' embodies the latter.

Who defines "safe?"

When slowing down technologies for safety or ethical reasons, the issue arises of who gets to define what "safe" or “ethical” mean? This inquiry is not merely technical but deeply ideological, touching the very core of societal values and power dynamics. For example, the push for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives shows how specific ideological underpinnings can shape definitions of safety and decency.

Take the case of the initial release of Google's AI chatbot, Gemini, which chose the ideology of its creators over truth. Luckily, the answers were so ridiculous that the pushback was sudden and immediate. My worry, however, is if, in correcting this, they become experts in making the ideological capture much more subtle. Large bureaucratic institutions' top-down safety enforcement creates a fertile ground for ideological capture of safety standards.

I claim that the issue is not the technology itself but the lens through which we view and regulate it. Suppose the gatekeepers of 'safety' are aligned with a singular ideology. In that case, AI development would skew to serve specific ends, sidelining diverse perspectives and potentially stifling innovative thought and progress.

In the podcast, Tristan and Aza suggest such manipulation as a solution. They propose using AI for consensus-building and creating "shared realities" to address societal challenges. In practice, this means that when individuals' viewpoints seem to be far apart, we can leverage AI to "bridge the gap." How they bridge the gap and what we would bridge it toward is left to the imagination, but to me, it is clear. Regulators will inevitably influence it from the top down, which, in my opinion, would be the opposite of progress.

In navigating this terrain, we must advocate for a pluralistic approach to defining safety, encompassing various perspectives and values achieved through market forces rather than a governing entity choosing winners. The more players that can play the game, the more wide-ranging perspectives will catalyze innovation to flourish.

Ownership & Identity

Just because we should accelerate AI forward does not mean I do not have my concerns. When I think about what could be the most devastating for society, I don't believe we have to worry about a Matrix-level dystopia; I worry about freedom. As I explored in "Whose data is it anyway?," my concern gravitates toward the issues of data ownership and the implications of relinquishing control over our digital identities. This relinquishment threatens our privacy and the integrity of the content we generate, leaving it susceptible to the inclinations and profit of a few dominant tech entities.

To counteract these concerns, a paradigm shift towards decentralized models of data ownership is imperative. Such standards would empower individuals with control over their digital footprints, ensuring that we develop AI systems with diverse, honest, and truthful perspectives rather than the massaged, narrow viewpoints of their creators. This shift safeguards individual privacy and promotes an ethical framework for AI development that upholds the principles of fairness and impartiality.

As we stand at the crossroads of technological innovation and ethical consideration, it is crucial to advocate for systems that place data ownership firmly in the hands of users. By doing so, we can ensure that the future of AI remains truthful, non-ideological, and aligned with the broader interests of society.

But what about the Matrix?

I know I am in the minority on this, but I feel that the concerns of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) are generally overblown. I am not scared of reaching the point of AGI, and I think the idea that AI will become so intelligent that we will lose control of it is unfounded and silly. Reaching AGI is not reaching consciousness; being worried about it spontaneously gaining consciousness is a misplaced fear. It is a tool created by humans for humans to enhance productivity and achieve specific outcomes.

At a technical level, large language models (LLMs) are trained on extensive datasets and learning patterns from language and data through a technique called "unsupervised learning" (meaning the data is untagged). They predict the next word in sentences, refining their predictions through feedback to improve coherence and relevance. When queried, LLMs generate responses based on learned patterns, simulating an understanding of language to provide contextually appropriate answers. They will only answer based on the datasets that were inputted and scanned.

AI will never be "alive," meaning that AI lacks inherent agency, consciousness, and the characteristics of life, not capable of independent thought or action. AI cannot act independently of human control. Concerns about AI gaining autonomy and posing a threat to humanity are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of AI and the fundamental differences between living beings and machines. AI spontaneously developing a will or consciousness is more similar to thinking a hammer will start walking than us being able to create consciousness through programming. Right now, there is only one way to create consciousness, and I'm skeptical that is ever something we will be able to harness and create as humans. Irrespective of its complexity — and yes, our tools will continue to become evermore complex — machines, specifically AI, cannot transcend their nature as non-living, inanimate objects programmed and controlled by humans.
The advancement of AI should be seen as enhancing human capabilities, not as a path toward creating autonomous entities with their own wills. So, while AI will continue to evolve, improve, and become more powerful, I believe it will remain under human direction and control without the existential threats often sensationalized in discussions about AI's future.

With this framing, we should not view the race toward AGI as something to avoid. This will only make the tools we use more powerful, making us more productive. With all this being said, AGI is still much farther away than many believe.

Today's AI excels in specific, narrow tasks, known as narrow or weak AI. These systems operate within tightly defined parameters, achieving remarkable efficiency and accuracy that can sometimes surpass human performance in those specific tasks. Yet, this is far from the versatile and adaptable functionality that AGI represents.

Moreover, the exponential growth of computational power observed in the past decades does not directly translate to an equivalent acceleration in achieving AGI. AI's impressive feats are often the result of massive data inputs and computing resources tailored to specific tasks. These successes do not inherently bring us closer to understanding or replicating the general problem-solving capabilities of the human mind, which again would only make the tools more potent in our hands.

While AI will undeniably introduce challenges and change the aspects of conflict and power dynamics, these challenges will primarily stem from humans wielding this powerful tool rather than the technology itself. AI is a mirror reflecting our own biases, values, and intentions. The crux of future AI-related issues lies not in the technology's inherent capabilities but in how it is used by those wielding it. This reality is at odds with the idea that we should slow down development as our biggest threat will come from those who are not friendly to us.

AI Beget's AI

While the unknowns of AI development and its pitfalls indeed stir apprehension, it's essential to recognize the power of market forces and human ingenuity in leveraging AI to address these challenges. History is replete with examples of new technologies raising concerns, only for those very technologies to provide solutions to the problems they initially seemed to exacerbate. It looks silly and unfair to think of fighting a war with a country that never embraced oil and was still primarily getting its energy from burning wood. The evolution of AI is no exception to this pattern. As we venture into uncharted territories, the potential issues that arise with AI—be it ethical concerns, use by malicious actors, biases in decision-making, or privacy intrusions—are not merely obstacles but opportunities for innovation. It is within the realm of possibility, and indeed, probability, that AI will play a crucial role in solving the problems it creates. The idea that there would be no incentive to address and solve these problems is to underestimate the fundamental drivers of technological progress.

Market forces, fueled by the demand for better, safer, and more efficient solutions, are powerful catalysts for positive change. When a problem is worth fixing, it invariably attracts the attention of innovators, researchers, and entrepreneurs eager to solve it. This dynamic has driven progress throughout history, and AI is poised to benefit from this problem-solving cycle.

Thus, rather than viewing AI's unknowns as sources of fear, we should see them as sparks of opportunity. By tackling the challenges posed by AI, we will harness its full potential to benefit humanity. By fostering an ecosystem that encourages exploration, innovation, and problem-solving, we can ensure that AI serves as a force for good, solving problems as profound as those it might create. This is the optimism we must hold onto—a belief in our collective ability to shape AI into a tool that addresses its own challenges and elevates our capacity to solve some of society's most pressing issues.

An AI Future

The reality is that it isn't whether AI will lead to unforeseen challenges—it undoubtedly will, as has every major technological leap in history. The real issue is whether we let fear dictate our path and confine us to a standstill or embrace AI's potential to address current and future challenges.

The approach to solving potential AI-related problems with stringent regulations and a slowdown in innovation is akin to cutting off the nose to spite the face. It's a strategy that risks stagnating the U.S. in a global race where other nations will undoubtedly continue their AI advancements. This perspective dangerously ignores that AI, much like the printing press of the past, has the power to democratize information, empower individuals, and dismantle outdated power structures.

The way forward is not less AI but more of it, more innovation, optimism, and curiosity for the remarkable technological breakthroughs that will come. We must recognize that the solution to AI-induced challenges lies not in retreating but in advancing our capabilities to innovate and adapt.

AI represents a frontier of limitless possibilities. If wielded with foresight and responsibility, it's a tool that can help solve some of the most pressing issues we face today. There are certainly challenges ahead, but I trust that with problems come solutions. Let's keep the AI Decels from steering us away from this path with their doomsday predictions. Instead, let's embrace AI with the cautious optimism it deserves, forging a future where technology and humanity advance to heights we can't imagine.

@ 3c984938:2ec11289

I'm having some pain in my heart about the U.S. elections.

Ever since Obama campaigned for office, an increase of young voters have come out of the woodwork. Things have not improved. They've actively told you that "your vote matters." I believe this to be a lie unless any citizen can demand at the gate, at the White House to be allowed to hold and point a gun to the president's head. (Relax, this is a hyperbole)

Why so dramatic? Well, what does the president do? Sign bills, commands the military, nominates new Fed chairman, ambassadors, supreme judges and senior officials all while traveling in luxury planes and living in a white palace for four years.

They promised Every TIME to protect citizen rights when they take the oath and office.

...They've broken this several times, with so-called "emergency-crisis"

The purpose of a president, today, it seems is to basically hire armed thugs to keep the citizens in check and make sure you "voluntarily continue to be a slave," to the system, hence the IRS. The corruption extends from the cop to the judge and even to politicians. The politicians get paid from lobbyists to create bills in congress for the president to sign. There's no right answer when money is involved with politicians. It is the same if you vote Obama, Biden, Trump, or Haley. They will wield the pen to serve themselves to say it will benefit the country.

In the first 100 years of presidency, the government wasn't even a big deal. They didn't even interfere with your life as much as they do today.

^^ You hold the power in your hands, don't let them take it. Don't believe me? Try to get a loan from a bank without a signature. Your signature is as good as gold (if not better) and is an original trademark.

Just Don't Vote. End the Fed. Opt out.

^^ I choose to form my own path, even if it means leaving everything I knew prior. It doesn't have to be a spiritual thing. Some, have called me religious because of this. We're all capable of greatness and having humanity.

✨Don't have a machine heart with a machine mind. Instead, choose to have a heart like the cowardly lion from the "Wizard Of Oz."

There's no such thing as a good president or politicians.

If there was, they would have issued non-interest Federal Reserve Notes. Lincoln and Kennedy tried to do this, they got shot.

There's still a banner of America there, but it's so far gone that I cannot even recognize it. However, I only see a bunch of 🏳‍🌈 pride flags.

✨Patrick Henry got it wrong, when he delivered his speech, "Give me liberty or give me death." Liberty and freedom are two completely different things.

Straightforward from Merriam-Webster Choose Right or left? No control, to be 100% without restrictions- free.

✨I disagree with the example sentence given. Because you cannot advocate for human freedom and own slaves, it's contradicting it. Which was common in the founding days.

I can understand many may disagree with me, and you might be thinking, "This time will be different." I, respectfully, disagree, and the proxy wars are proof. Learn the importance of Bitcoin, every Satoshi is a step away from corruption.

✨What does it look like to pull the curtains from the "Wizard of Oz?"

Have you watched the video below, what 30 Trillion dollars in debt looks like visually? Even I was blown away. https://video.nostr.build/d58c5e1afba6d7a905a39407f5e695a4eb4a88ae692817a36ecfa6ca1b62ea15.mp4

I say this with love. Hear my plea?

Normally, I don't write about anything political. It just feels like a losing game. My energy feels it's in better use to learn new things, write and to create. Even a simple blog post as simple as this. Stack SATs, and stay humble.

<3 Onigirl

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Ich begann, Social Media aufzubauen, \ um den Menschen eine Stimme zu geben. \ Mark Zuckerberg

Sind euch auch die Tränen gekommen, als ihr Mark Zuckerbergs Wendehals-Deklaration bezüglich der Meinungsfreiheit auf seinen Portalen gehört habt? Rührend, oder? Während er früher die offensichtliche Zensur leugnete und später die Regierung Biden dafür verantwortlich machte, will er nun angeblich «die Zensur auf unseren Plattformen drastisch reduzieren».

«Purer Opportunismus» ob des anstehenden Regierungswechsels wäre als Klassifizierung viel zu kurz gegriffen. Der jetzige Schachzug des Meta-Chefs ist genauso Teil einer kühl kalkulierten Business-Strategie, wie es die 180 Grad umgekehrte Praxis vorher war. Social Media sind ein höchst lukratives Geschäft. Hinzu kommt vielleicht noch ein bisschen verkorkstes Ego, weil derartig viel Einfluss und Geld sicher auch auf die Psyche schlagen. Verständlich.

«Es ist an der Zeit, zu unseren Wurzeln der freien Meinungsäußerung auf Facebook und Instagram zurückzukehren. Ich begann, Social Media aufzubauen, um den Menschen eine Stimme zu geben», sagte Zuckerberg.

Welche Wurzeln? Hat der Mann vergessen, dass er von der Überwachung, dem Ausspionieren und dem Ausverkauf sämtlicher Daten und digitaler Spuren sowie der Manipulation seiner «Kunden» lebt? Das ist knallharter Kommerz, nichts anderes. Um freie Meinungsäußerung geht es bei diesem Geschäft ganz sicher nicht, und das war auch noch nie so. Die Wurzeln von Facebook liegen in einem Projekt des US-Militärs mit dem Namen «LifeLog». Dessen Ziel war es, «ein digitales Protokoll vom Leben eines Menschen zu erstellen».

Der Richtungswechsel kommt allerdings nicht überraschend. Schon Anfang Dezember hatte Meta-Präsident Nick Clegg von «zu hoher Fehlerquote bei der Moderation» von Inhalten gesprochen. Bei der Gelegenheit erwähnte er auch, dass Mark sehr daran interessiert sei, eine aktive Rolle in den Debatten über eine amerikanische Führungsrolle im technologischen Bereich zu spielen.

Während Milliardärskollege und Big Tech-Konkurrent Elon Musk bereits seinen Posten in der kommenden Trump-Regierung in Aussicht hat, möchte Zuckerberg also nicht nur seine Haut retten – Trump hatte ihn einmal einen «Feind des Volkes» genannt und ihm lebenslange Haft angedroht –, sondern am liebsten auch mitspielen. KI-Berater ist wohl die gewünschte Funktion, wie man nach einem Treffen Trump-Zuckerberg hörte. An seine Verhaftung dachte vermutlich auch ein weiterer Multimilliardär mit eigener Social Media-Plattform, Pavel Durov, als er Zuckerberg jetzt kritisierte und gleichzeitig warnte.

Politik und Systemmedien drehen jedenfalls durch – was zu viel ist, ist zu viel. Etwas weniger Zensur und mehr Meinungsfreiheit würden die Freiheit der Bürger schwächen und seien potenziell vernichtend für die Menschenrechte. Zuckerberg setze mit dem neuen Kurs die Demokratie aufs Spiel, das sei eine «Einladung zum nächsten Völkermord», ernsthaft. Die Frage sei, ob sich die EU gegen Musk und Zuckerberg behaupten könne, Brüssel müsse jedenfalls hart durchgreifen.

Auch um die Faktenchecker macht man sich Sorgen. Für die deutsche Nachrichtenagentur dpa und die «Experten» von Correctiv, die (noch) Partner für Fact-Checking-Aktivitäten von Facebook sind, sei das ein «lukratives Geschäftsmodell». Aber möglicherweise werden die Inhalte ohne diese vermeintlichen Korrektoren ja sogar besser. Anders als Meta wollen jedoch Scholz, Faeser und die Tagesschau keine Fehler zugeben und zum Beispiel Correctiv-Falschaussagen einräumen.

Bei derlei dramatischen Befürchtungen wundert es nicht, dass der öffentliche Plausch auf X zwischen Elon Musk und AfD-Chefin Alice Weidel von 150 EU-Beamten überwacht wurde, falls es irgendwelche Rechtsverstöße geben sollte, die man ihnen ankreiden könnte. Auch der Deutsche Bundestag war wachsam. Gefunden haben dürften sie nichts. Das Ganze war eher eine Show, viel Wind wurde gemacht, aber letztlich gab es nichts als heiße Luft.

Das Anbiedern bei Donald Trump ist indes gerade in Mode. Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) tut das auch, denn sie fürchtet um Spenden von über einer Milliarde Dollar. Eventuell könnte ja Elon Musk auch hier künftig aushelfen und der Organisation sowie deren größtem privaten Förderer, Bill Gates, etwas unter die Arme greifen. Nachdem Musks KI-Projekt xAI kürzlich von BlackRock & Co. sechs Milliarden eingestrichen hat, geht da vielleicht etwas.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Was du bist hängt von drei Faktoren ab: \ Was du geerbt hast, \ was deine Umgebung aus dir machte \ und was du in freier Wahl \ aus deiner Umgebung und deinem Erbe gemacht hast. \ Aldous Huxley

Das brave Mitmachen und Mitlaufen in einem vorgegebenen, recht engen Rahmen ist gewiss nicht neu, hat aber gerade wieder mal Konjunktur. Dies kann man deutlich beobachten, eigentlich egal, in welchem gesellschaftlichen Bereich man sich umschaut. Individualität ist nur soweit angesagt, wie sie in ein bestimmtes Schema von «Diversität» passt, und Freiheit verkommt zur Worthülse – nicht erst durch ein gewisses Buch einer gewissen ehemaligen Regierungschefin.

Erklärungsansätze für solche Entwicklungen sind bekannt, und praktisch alle haben etwas mit Massenpsychologie zu tun. Der Herdentrieb, also der Trieb der Menschen, sich – zum Beispiel aus Unsicherheit oder Bequemlichkeit – lieber der Masse anzuschließen als selbstständig zu denken und zu handeln, ist einer der Erklärungsversuche. Andere drehen sich um Macht, Propaganda, Druck und Angst, also den gezielten Einsatz psychologischer Herrschaftsinstrumente.

Aber wollen die Menschen überhaupt Freiheit? Durch Gespräche im privaten Umfeld bin ich diesbezüglich in der letzten Zeit etwas skeptisch geworden. Um die Jahreswende philosophiert man ja gerne ein wenig über das Erlebte und über die Erwartungen für die Zukunft. Dabei hatte ich hin und wieder den Eindruck, die totalitären Anwandlungen unserer «Repräsentanten» kämen manchen Leuten gerade recht.

«Desinformation» ist so ein brisantes Thema. Davor müsse man die Menschen doch schützen, hörte ich. Jemand müsse doch zum Beispiel diese ganzen merkwürdigen Inhalte in den Social Media filtern – zur Ukraine, zum Klima, zu Gesundheitsthemen oder zur Migration. Viele wüssten ja gar nicht einzuschätzen, was richtig und was falsch ist, sie bräuchten eine Führung.

Freiheit bedingt Eigenverantwortung, ohne Zweifel. Eventuell ist es einigen tatsächlich zu anspruchsvoll, die Verantwortung für das eigene Tun und Lassen zu übernehmen. Oder die persönliche Freiheit wird nicht als ausreichend wertvolles Gut angesehen, um sich dafür anzustrengen. In dem Fall wäre die mangelnde Selbstbestimmung wohl das kleinere Übel. Allerdings fehlt dann gemäß Aldous Huxley ein Teil der Persönlichkeit. Letztlich ist natürlich alles eine Frage der Abwägung.

Sind viele Menschen möglicherweise schon so «eingenordet», dass freiheitliche Ambitionen gar nicht für eine ganze Gruppe, ein Kollektiv, verfolgt werden können? Solche Gedanken kamen mir auch, als ich mir kürzlich diverse Talks beim viertägigen Hacker-Kongress des Chaos Computer Clubs (38C3) anschaute. Ich war nicht nur überrascht, sondern reichlich erschreckt angesichts der in weiten Teilen mainstream-geformten Inhalte, mit denen ein dankbares Publikum beglückt wurde. Wo ich allgemein hellere Köpfe erwartet hatte, fand ich Konformismus und enthusiastisch untermauerte Narrative.

Gibt es vielleicht so etwas wie eine Herdenimmunität gegen Indoktrination? Ich denke, ja, zumindest eine gestärkte Widerstandsfähigkeit. Was wir brauchen, sind etwas gesunder Menschenverstand, offene Informationskanäle und der Mut, sich freier auch zwischen den Herden zu bewegen. Sie tun das bereits, aber sagen Sie es auch dieses Jahr ruhig weiter.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na dvadesetjedan.com.

Autor: Alex Gladstein / Prevod na hrvatski: TheVeka

---

Francuska još uvijek koristi monetarni kolonijalizam za iskorištavanje 15 afričkih nacija. Može li Bitcoin biti izlaz?

U jesen 1993. obitelj Fodéa Diopa štedjela je za njegovu budućnost. Briljantan 18-godišnjak koji živi u Senegalu, Fodé je imao pred sobom svijetlu budućnost kao košarkaš i inženjer. Njegov otac, školski učitelj, pomogao mu je pronaći inspiraciju u računalima i povezivanju sa svijetom oko sebe. A njegov atletski talent donio mu je ponude za studiranje u Europi i Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama.

Ali kada se probudio ujutro 12. siječnja 1994., sve se promijenilo. Preko noći je njegova obitelj izgubila pola svoje ušteđevine. Ne zbog krađe, pljačke banke ili bankrota neke tvrtke - već zbog devalvacije valute koju je nametnula strana sila sa sjedištem udaljenim 5000 kilometara od njih.

Prethodne večeri francuski dužnosnici sastali su se sa svojim afričkim kolegama u Dakaru kako bi razgovarali o sudbini "franca de la Communauté financière africaine" (ili franka Financijske zajednice Afrike), široko poznatog kao CFA franak ili skraćeno "seefa". Tijekom čitavog Fodéova života njegov CFA franak bio je vezan za francuski franak u omjeru od 1 naprama 50, ali kad je kasnonoćni sastanak završio, ponoćna objava postavila je novu vrijednost od 1 naprama 100.

Okrutna je ironija bila da je ekonomska sudbina milijuna Senegalaca bila potpuno izvan njihovih vlastitih ruku. Nikakvi prosvjedi nisu mogli svrgnuti njihove ekonomske gospodare. Desetljećima su novi predsjednici dolazili i odlazili, ali temeljni financijski aranžman nikada se nije mijenjao. Za razliku od tipične fiat valute, sustav je bio daleko podmukliji. Bio je to monetarni kolonijalizam.

Mehanika CFA sustava

U svojoj knjizi koja otvara oči, Posljednja afrička kolonijalna valuta: priča o CFA franku (Africa's Last Colonial Currency: The CFA Franc Story), znanstvenici iz područja ekonomije Fanny Pigeaud i Ndongo Samba Sylla govore o tragičnoj i, ponekad šokantnoj, povijesti CFA franka.

Francuska je, kao i druge europske sile, kolonizirala mnoge nacije diljem svijeta u doba svog imperijalnog vrhunca. Veoma često ta kolonizacija bila je brutalna. Nakon okupacije od strane nacističke Njemačke u Drugom svjetskom ratu, Francusko kolonijalno carstvo "Empire colonial français" počeo se raspadati. Francuzi su se borili da zadrže svoje kolonije, nanoseći pritom ogromne ljudske žrtve. Unatoč vođenju skupog niza globalnih ratova, izgubljena je Indokina, zatim Sirija i Libanon, te, na kraju, francuski teritorij u sjevernoj Africi, uključujući cijenjenu naseljeničku koloniju Alžir, bogatu naftom i plinom. No Francuska je bila odlučna ne izgubiti svoje teritorije u zapadnoj i središnjoj Africi. Oni su osiguravali vojnu snagu tijekom dva svjetska rata i nudili obilje prirodnih resursa - uključujući uran, kakao, drvo i boksit - koji su obogatili i održali metropolu (Francusku u njenim postojećim europskim granicama).

Kako se približavala 1960., dekolonizacija se činila neizbježnom. Europa je bila ujedinjena u povlačenju iz Afrike nakon desetljeća pustošenja i pljačke koju su sponzorirale države. Ali francuske su vlasti shvatile da mogu dobiti svoj kolač i pojesti ga, prepuštanjem političke kontrole uz zadržavanje monetarne kontrole.

Ovo naslijeđe i danas postoji u 15 zemalja koje govore francuski i koriste valutu koju kontrolira Pariz: Senegal, Mali, Obala Bjelokosti, Gvineja Bisau, Togo, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger, Kamerun, Čad, Srednjoafrička Republika, Gabon, Ekvatorijalna Gvineja, Republika Kongo i Komori. U 2022. Francuzi još uvijek vrše monetarnu kontrolu nad više od 2,5 milijuna četvornih kilometara afričkog teritorija, površine 80% veličine Indije.

Francuska je službenu dekolonizaciju započela 1956. s Defferreovim okvirnim zakon "La Loi-cadre Defferre", dijelom zakona koji kolonijama daje više autonomije i stvara demokratske institucije i opće pravo glasa. Godine 1958. francuski ustav je izmijenjen kako bi se uspostavila La Communauté (Zajednica): skupina autonomnih, demokratski upravljanih prekomorskih teritorija. Predsjednik Charles de Gaulle obišao je kolonije diljem zapadne i središnje Afrike kako bi ponudio autonomiju bez neovisnosti kroz La Communauté ili neposrednu potpunu neovisnost. Jasno je dao do znanja da će s prvim biti povlastica i stabilnosti, a s drugim velikih rizika, pa čak i kaosa.

Godine 1960. Francuska je zapravo imala veću populaciju — oko 40 milijuna ljudi — od 30 milijuna stanovnika sadašnjih 15 CFA zemalja. Ali danas 67 milijuna ljudi živi u Francuskoj, a 183 milijuna u CFA zoni. Prema projekcijama UN-a, do 2100. godine Francuska će imati 74 milijuna, a CFA nacije više od 800 milijuna. S obzirom da Francuska još uvijek drži njihovu financijsku sudbinu u svojim rukama, situacija sve više nalikuje ekonomskom apartheidu.

Kada je CFA franak prvobitno uveden 1945., vrijedio je 1,7 francuskih franaka. Godine 1948. ojačan je na 2 francuska franka. Ali u vrijeme kad je CFA franak bio vezan za euro krajem 1990-ih, vrijedio je 0,01 francuski franak. To je ukupna devalvacija od 99,5%. Svaki put kad je Francuska devalvirala CFA franak, povećala je svoju kupovnu moć u odnosu na svoje bivše kolonije i poskupila im uvoz vitalne robe. Godine 1992. Francuzi su putem nacionalnog referenduma mogli glasovati o prihvaćanju eura ili ne. Državljanima CFA-e bilo je uskraćeno takvo pravo i bili su isključeni iz pregovora koji bi njihov novac vezali za novu valutu.

Točan mehanizam CFA sustava evoluirao je od njegovog nastanka, ali osnovna funkcionalnost i metode iskorištavanja su nepromijenjene. Oni su opisani onim što Pigeaud i Sylla nazivaju "teorijom ovisnosti", gdje se resursi perifernih nacija u razvoju "kontinuirano crpe u korist središnjih bogatih nacija... bogate nacije ne ulažu u siromašne nacije da bi ih učinile bogatijima... [ovo] izrabljivanje evoluiralo je tijekom vremena od brutalnih režima ropstva do sofisticiranijih i manje očitih načina održavanja političkog i ekonomskog ropstva.”

Tri središnje banke danas opslužuju 15 zemalja CFA: Središnja banka zapadnoafričkih država (Banque Centrale des États de l'Afrique de l'Ouest - BCEAO) za zapadnoafričke zemlje, Banka država Srednje Afrike (Banque des États de l'Afrique Centrale - BEAC) za srednjoafričke zemlje i Središnja banka Komora (Banque Centrale des Comores BCC) za Komore. Središnje banke drže devizne rezerve (tj. nacionalnu štednju) za pojedinačne nacije u svojoj regiji, koje u svakom trenutku moraju držati nevjerojatnih 50% u francuskoj riznici. Ova brojka, koliko god visoka, rezultat je povijesnih pregovora. Izvorno su bivše kolonije morale držati 100% svojih rezervi u Francuskoj, a tek su 1970-ih stekle pravo kontrolirati neke i ustupiti "samo" 65% Parizu. CFA države nemaju nikakvu diskreciju u pogledu svojih rezervi pohranjenih u inozemstvu. Zapravo, oni ne znaju kako se taj novac troši. U međuvremenu, Pariz točno zna kako se troši novac svake CFA države, budući da vodi "operativne račune" za svaku zemlju u tri središnje banke.

Kao primjer kako ovo funkcionira, kada tvrtka za proizvodnju kave iz Bjelokosti proda robu u vrijednosti od milijun dolara kineskom kupcu, juani od kupca se mijenjaju u eure na francuskom tržištu valuta. Zatim francuska riznica preuzima eure i kreditira iznos u CFA francima na račun Obale Bjelokosti u BCEAO, koji zatim kreditira račun proizvođača kave u zemlji. Sve prolazi kroz Pariz. Prema Pigeaudu i Sylli, Francuska još uvijek proizvodi sve novčanice i kovanice koje se koriste u CFA regiji — naplaćujući 45 milijuna eura godišnje za uslugu — i još uvijek drži 90% zlatnih rezervi CFA, oko 36,5 tona.

Sustav CFA daje pet glavnih prednosti francuskoj vladi:

• rezerve bonusa koje može koristiti prema vlastitom nahođenju;
• velika tržišta za skup izvoz i jeftin uvoz;
• mogućnost kupnje strateških minerala u domaćoj valuti bez smanjenja rezervi;
• povoljne zajmove kada su CFA zemlje u kreditima i povoljne kamatne stope kada su u dugovima (dugo je vremena francuska stopa - inflacije čak premašivala kamatnu stopu zajma, što znači da je Francuska zapravo prisiljavala CFA nacije da plaćaju naknadu za -skladištenje svojih rezervi u inozemstvu); i, konačno,
• "dvostruki zajam", u kojem će CFA nacija posuditi novac od Francuske, i, u potrazi za raspoređivanjem kapitala, imati malo izbora s obzirom na perverzne makroekonomske okolnosti u kojima treba sklopiti ugovor s francuskim tvrtkama. To znači da se glavnica kredita odmah vraća u Francusku, ali je afrička nacija još uvijek opterećena i glavnicom i kamatama.

To dovodi do svojevrsnog fenomena "recikliranja petrodolara" (slično onome kako bi Saudijska Arabija uzimala dolare zarađene prodajom nafte i ulagala ih u američke trezorske zapise), jer bi CFA izvoznici povijesno prodavali sirovine Francuskoj, a dio prihoda bivao prikupljen od strane regionalne središnje banke i “reinvestiran” natrag u dug metropole kroz francuski ili danas europski državni dug. Pored toga, tu je još i selektivna konvertibilnost CFA franka. Poduzeća danas mogu lako prodati svoje CFA franke za eure (prethodno francuske franke), ali građani koji nose CFA franke izvan zone svoje središnje banke ne mogu ih formalno nigdje zamijeniti. Beskorisne su otprilike kao i razglednice. Ako državljanka Bjelokosti napušta svoju zemlju, mora prvo zamijeniti novčanice za eure, gdje francusko ministarstvo financija i Europska središnja banka (ECB) izdvajaju seigniorage (danak feudalnom gospodaru) putem tečaja.

Monetarna represija u igri je da Francuska prisiljava CFA nacije da drže golemu količinu rezervi u pariškim blagajnama, sprječavajući Afrikance u stvaranju domaćih kredita. Regionalne središnje banke na kraju posuđuju vrlo malo po vrlo visokim stopama, umjesto da posuđuju više po niskim stopama. A CFA nacije na kraju, protiv svojih želja, kupuju francuski ili, danas europski, dug svojim strateškim rezervama.

Ono što možda najviše iznenađuje jest posebna povlastica prava prvenstva pri uvozu i izvozu. Ako ste malijski proizvođač pamuka, svoju robu prvo morate ponuditi Francuskoj prije nego što odete na međunarodna tržišta. Ili ako ste u Beninu i želite izgraditi novi infrastrukturni projekt, morate razmotriti francuske ponude, prije ostalih. To je povijesno značilo da je Francuska mogla doći do robe jeftinije od tržišne iz svojih bivših kolonija i prodavati vlastitu robu i usluge po cijenama višim od tržišnih.

Pigeaud i Sylla ovo nazivaju nastavkom "kolonijalnog pakta", koji je bio usredotočen na četiri temeljna načela:

• kolonijama je bila zabranjena industrijalizacija i morale su se zadovoljiti opskrbom metropole sirovinama koje su ih pretvarale u gotove proizvode koji su se zatim preprodani kolonijama,
• metropola je uživala monopol kolonijalnog izvoza i uvoza,
• monopol prilikom slanja kolonijalnih proizvoda u inozemstvo i konačno,
• metropola je dala trgovačke povlastice proizvodima kolonija.

Rezultat toga je situacija u kojoj “središnje banke imaju velike devizne rezerve plaćene po niskim ili čak negativnim stopama u realnom iznosu, u kojoj komercijalne banke drže višak likvidnosti, gdje je pristup kreditima za kućanstva i poduzeća racionaliziran i u kojoj su države sve više prisiljene, kako bi financirali svoje razvojne projekte, ugovarati devizne kredite po neodrživim kamatama, što dodatno potiče bijeg kapitala.

Danas je CFA sustav "afrikaniziran", što znači da novčanice sada prikazuju afričku kulturu te floru i faunu na njima, a središnje banke nalaze se u Dakaru, Yaoundéu i Moroniju - ali to su samo kozmetičke promjene. Novčanice se još uvijek izrađuju u Parizu, operativne račune još uvijek vode francuske vlasti, a francuski dužnosnici još uvijek sjede u odborima regionalnih središnjih banaka i de facto imaju pravo veta. Nevjerojatna je situacija u kojoj građanin Gabona ima francuskog birokrata koji donosi odluke u njezino ime. Kao da ECB ili Federalne rezerve imaju Japance ili Ruse koji odlučuju umjesto Europljana i Amerikanaca.

Svjetska banka i Međunarodni monetarni fond kroz povijest su radili zajedno s Francuskom na provođenju CFA sustava i rijetko, ako ikad, kritiziraju njegovu izrabljivačku prirodu. Zapravo, kao dio sustava Bretton Woods nakon Drugog svjetskog rata - gdje bi Amerikanci vodili Svjetsku banku, a Europljani MMF - položaj generalnog direktora MMF-a često je držao francuski dužnosnik, do nedavno Christine Lagarde. Tijekom godina MMF je pomagao Francuskoj da vrši pritisak na CFA nacije da slijede željenu politiku. Istaknuti primjer bio je ranih 1990-ih, kada Obala Bjelokosti nije htjela devalvirati svoju valutu, ali Francuzi su se zalagali za takvu promjenu. Prema Pigeaudu i Sylli, “krajem 1991., MMF je odbio nastaviti posuđivati novac Obali Bjelokosti, ponudivši zemlji dvije mogućnosti. Ili će država vratiti dugove ugovorene s Fondom ili će prihvatiti devalvaciju.” Obala Bjelokosti i druge CFA nacije su poklekle i prihvatile devalvaciju tri godine kasnije.

U suprotnosti s vrijednostima sloboda, jednakost, bratstvo (liberté, égalité, fraternité), francuski su dužnosnici podupirali tiraniju u CFA zoni posljednjih šest desetljeća. Na primjer, tri čovjeka - Omar Bongo u Gabonu, Paul Biya u Kamerunu i Gnassingbé Eyadéma u Togu - zajedno su skupili 120 godina na vlasti. Sve bi ih njihovi ljudi izbacili daleko prije da Francuzi nisu osigurali gotovinu, oružje i diplomatsko pokriće. Prema Pigeaudu i Sylli, između 1960. i 1991. “Pariz je izveo gotovo 40 vojnih intervencija u 16 zemalja kako bi obranio svoje interese.” Taj je broj danas sigurno veći.

S vremenom je CFA sustav omogućio francuskoj državi da iskorištava resurse i rad CFA nacija, ne dopuštajući im da povećaju svoju akumulaciju kapitala i razviju vlastita izvozno vođena gospodarstva. Rezultati su bili katastrofalni za razvoj društva općenito.

Danas je BDP Obale Slonovače (korigiran za inflaciju) po glavi stanovnika (u dolarima) oko 1.700 USD, u usporedbi s 2.500 USD u kasnim 1970-ima. U Senegalu je tek 2017. BDP po stanovniku premašio visine dosegnute 1960-ih. Kao što primjećuju Pigeaud i Sylla, “10 država zone franka zabilježilo je svoje najviše razine prosječnog dohotka prije 2000-ih. U posljednjih 40 godina prosječna se kupovna moć gotovo posvuda pogoršala. U Gabonu je najveći prosječni prihod zabilježen 1976. godine, nešto ispod 20.000 dolara. Četrdeset godina kasnije smanjio se za pola. Gvineja Bisau pridružila se CFA sustavu 1997. godine, godine u kojoj je zabilježila vrhunac svog prosječnog prihoda. 19 godina kasnije, ovo je palo za 20%.”

Zapanjujućih 10 od 15 CFA zemalja Ujedinjeni narodi smatraju među "najmanje razvijenim zemljama" u svijetu, uz Haiti, Jemen i Afganistan. Na raznim međunarodnim ljestvicama Niger, Srednjoafrička Republika, Čad i Gvineja Bisau često se ubrajaju u najsiromašnije zemlje svijeta. Francuzi održavaju, zapravo, ekstremnu verziju onoga što je Allen Farrington nazvao "kapitalnim površinskim rudnikom".

Senegalski političar Amadou Lamine-Guèye jednom je sažeo CFA sustav kao građani koji imaju "samo dužnosti, a nikakva prava", te da je "zadatak koloniziranih teritorija bio proizvoditi puno, proizvoditi iznad vlastitih potreba i proizvoditi na štetu njihovih neposrednijih interesa, kako bi se metropoli omogućio bolji životni standard i sigurnija opskrba.” Metropola, naravno, odolijeva ovom opisu. Kao što je francuski ministar gospodarstva Michel Sapin rekao u travnju 2017., "Francuska je tu kao prijatelj."

Sada se možete zapitati: Opiru li se afričke zemlje ovom iskorištavanju? Odgovor je da, ali oni plaćaju visoku cijenu. Rani nacionalistički vođe iz doba afričke neovisnosti prepoznali su kritičnu vrijednost ekonomske slobode.

“Neovisnost je samo uvod u novu i uključeniju borbu za pravo na vođenje vlastitih gospodarskih i društvenih poslova [..] neometano uništavajućom i ponižavajućom neokolonijalističkom kontrolom i uplitanjem,” izjavio je 1963. Kwame Nkrumah, koji je vodio pokret koji je Ganu učinio prvom neovisnom nacijom u podsaharskoj Africi. Ali kroz povijest CFA regije, nacionalni čelnici koji su se suprotstavili francuskim vlastima uglavnom su loše prolazili.

Godine 1958. Gvineja je pokušala zatražiti monetarnu neovisnost. U poznatom govoru, vatreni nacionalist Sekou Touré rekao je gostujućem Charlesu de Gaulleu: "Radije bismo imali siromaštvo u slobodi nego bogatstvo u ropstvu," i nedugo zatim napustio sustav CFA. Prema The Washington Postu, “kao reakcija, i kao upozorenje drugim područjima s francuskim govornim područjem, Francuzi su se povukli iz Gvineje tijekom dva mjeseca, odnoseći sa sobom sve što su mogli. Odvrnuli su žarulje, uklonili planove za kanalizacijske cjevovode u Conakryju, glavnom gradu, pa čak i spalili lijekove umjesto da ih ostave Gvinejcima.”

Zatim, kao čin destabilizirajuće odmazde, Francuzi su pokrenuli operaciju Persil, tijekom koje su, prema Pigeaudu i Sylli, francuske obavještajne službe krivotvorile goleme količine novih gvinejskih novčanica i zatim ih "masovno" ubacile u zemlju. "Rezultat", pišu oni, "bio je kolaps gvinejskog gospodarstva." Demokratske nade zemlje srušene su zajedno s njezinim financijama, jer je Touré uspio učvrstiti svoju moć u kaosu i započeti 26 godina brutalne vladavine.

U lipnju 1962. malijski vođa za neovisnost Modibo Keita objavio je da Mali napušta CFA zonu kako bi kovao vlastitu valutu. Keita je detaljno objasnio razloge za taj potez, kao što su ekonomska prevelika ovisnost (80% malijskog uvoza dolazi iz Francuske), koncentracija ovlasti za donošenje odluka u Parizu i usporavanje ekonomske diversifikacije i rasta.

“Istina je da je vjetar dekolonizacije prošao preko starog zdanja, ali nije ga previše poljuljao”, rekao je o statusu quo. Kao odgovor, francuska vlada učinila je malijski franak nekonvertibilnim. Uslijedila je duboka gospodarska kriza, a Keita je svrgnut vojnim udarom 1968. Mali je na kraju odlučio ponovno ući u CFA zonu, ali su Francuzi nametnuli dvije devalvacije malijskog franka kao uvjete za povratak i nisu dopustili ponovni ulazak do 1984. godine.

Godine 1969., kada je predsjednik Nigera Hamani Diori tražio "fleksibilniji" aranžman, gdje bi njegova zemlja imala veću monetarnu neovisnost, Francuzi su to odbili. Prijetili su mu uskraćivanjem plaćanja za uran koji su skupljali iz pustinjskih rudnika koji će Francuskoj dati energetsku neovisnost putem nuklearne energije. Šest godina kasnije, Diorijevu vladu svrgnuo je general Seyni Kountché, tri dana prije planiranog sastanka za ponovno pregovaranje o cijeni nigerskog urana. Diori je želio povisiti cijenu, ali se njegov bivši kolonijalni gospodar nije složio s tim. Francuska vojska bila je stacionirana u blizini tijekom puča, ali, kako Pigeaud i Sylla primjećuju, nisu ni prstom maknuli.

Godine 1985., revolucionarni vojni vođa Thomas Sankara iz Burkine Faso upitan je u intervjuu: “Nije li CFA franak oružje za dominaciju Afrikom? Planira li Burkina Faso nastaviti nositi ovaj teret? Zašto afričkom seljaku u njegovom selu treba konvertibilna valuta?” Sankara je odgovorio: “Je li valuta konvertibilna ili ne to nikada nije bila briga afričkog seljaka. On je protiv svoje volje bačen u ekonomski sustav protiv kojeg je bespomoćan.”

Sankaru je dvije godine kasnije ubio njegov najbolji prijatelj i drugi zapovjednik, Blaise Compaoré. Nikada nije održano suđenje. Umjesto toga, Compaoré je preuzeo vlast i vladao do 2014., lojalan i brutalan sluga CFA sustava.

Borba Faride Nabourema za financijsku slobodu Toga

U prosincu 1962. prvi postkolonijalni vođa Toga Sylvanus Olympio formalno je krenuo u osnivanje središnje banke Togoa i togoanskog franka. Ali ujutro 13. siječnja 1963., nekoliko dana prije nego što je trebao zacementirati ovu tranziciju, ubili su ga togoanski vojnici koji su prošli obuku u Francuskoj. Gnassingbé Eyadéma bio je jedan od vojnika koji su počinili zločin. Kasnije je preuzeo vlast i postao diktator Toga uz punu francusku podršku, vladajući više od pet desetljeća i promičući CFA franak do svoje smrti 2005. Njegov sin vlada do danas. Olympiovo ubojstvo nikada nije riješeno.

Obitelj Faride Nabourema uvijek je bila uključena u borbu za ljudska prava u Togu. Njezin otac bio je aktivni vođa opozicije, a služio je kao politički zatvorenik. Njegov se otac suprotstavljao Francuzima tijekom kolonijalnih vremena. Danas je ona vodeća figura demokratskog pokreta u zemlji.

Farida je imala 15 godina kada je saznala da je povijest diktature Toga bila isprepletena s CFA frankom. Do tog vremena, ranih 2000-ih, počela se zbližavati sa svojim ocem i postavljati mu pitanja o povijesti svoje zemlje. “Zašto je naš prvi predsjednik ubijen samo nekoliko godina nakon što smo stekli neovisnost?” upitala je.

Odgovor: opirao se CFA franku.

Godine 1962. Olympia je započela pokret prema financijskoj neovisnosti od Francuske. Parlament je glasovao za početak takve tranzicije i stvaranje togoanskog franka i držanje njihovih rezervi u vlastitoj središnjoj banci. Farida je bila šokirana kada je saznala da je Olympio ubijen samo dva dana prije nego što je Togo trebao napustiti CFA aranžman. Kako je rekla: “Njegova odluka da traži monetarnu slobodu viđena je kao uvreda hegemoniji u frankofonskoj Africi. Bojali su se da će ih drugi slijediti.”

Danas je, kaže ona, za mnoge togoanske aktiviste CFA glavni razlog za traženje veće slobode. “To je ono što animira mnoge u oporbenom pokretu.”

Razlozi zašto su jasni. Farida je rekla da Francuska drži više od polovice rezervi Toga u svojim bankama, gdje Togoanci nemaju nikakav nadzor nad time kako se te rezerve troše. Često se te rezerve, koje su zaradili Togoanci, koriste za kupnju francuskog duga za financiranje aktivnosti francuskog naroda. Zapravo, taj se novac često posuđuje bivšem kolonijalnom gospodaru uz negativan stvarni prinos. Togoanci plaćaju Parizu da im čuva novac, a pritom financiraju životni standard Francuza.

Godine 1994. devalvacija koja je ukrala ušteđevinu obitelji Fode Diopa u Senegalu teško je pogodila i Togo, uzrokujući ogroman porast državnog duga, smanjenje javnog financiranja lokalne infrastrukture i povećanje siromaštva.

“Zapamtite,” rekla je Farida, “naša vlada je prisiljena dati prednost držanju naših rezervi u francuskoj banci umjesto trošenju kod kuće, tako da kada nas udari šok, moramo se degradirati, kako bismo osigurali da odgovarajuća količina gotovine bude u rukama Parižana .”

To stvara nacionalnu klimu ovisnosti, u kojoj su Togoanci prisiljeni isporučivati sirovu robu i unositi gotovu robu. To je zatvoreni krug iz kojeg nema izlaza.

Farida je rekla da je prije otprilike 10 godina pokret protiv CFA-a počeo dobivati na snazi. Zbog mobilnih telefona i društvenih medija ljudi su se mogli ujediniti i organizirati na decentraliziran način. Nekada su se samo građani Bjelokosti i Togoa borili odvojeno, rekla je, ali sada postoji regionalni napor između aktivista.

Desetljećima postoji ideja o "eko" valuti za sve zemlje Ekonomske zajednice zapadnoafričkih država (ECOWAS), uključujući regionalne gospodarske sile Nigeriju i Ganu. Farida je rekla da su Francuzi pokušali preoteti ovaj plan, videći ga kao način za proširenje vlastitog financijskog carstva. Godine 2013. tadašnji predsjednik François Hollande formirao je komisiju koja je izradila dokument za francusku budućnost u Africi. U njemu su izjavili da je imperativ uključiti anglofone zemlje (afričke zemlje u kojima se priča engleskim jezikom) poput Gane.

Administracija Emmanuela Macrona sada pokušava preimenovati CFA franak u Eco, u kontinuiranom procesu "afrikanizacije" francuskog kolonijalnog financijskog sustava. Nigerija i Gana odustale su od Eko projekta, nakon što su shvatile da će Francuzi i dalje imati kontrolu. Ništa se još formalno nije dogodilo, ali zemlje kojima trenutačno upravlja središnja banka BCEAO na putu su da pređu na ovu eko valutu do 2027. Francuzi će i dalje imati sposobnost donošenja odluka i ne postoje službeni planovi za prilagodbu središnjeg bankarstva srednjoafričkih CFA nacija ili Komora.

"Vrhunac je licemjerja za francuske vođe poput Macrona da odu u Davos i kažu da su gotovi s kolonijalizmom", rekla je Farida, "dok ga zapravo pokušavaju proširiti."

Rekla je da je izvorno CFA franak stvoren na temelju valutnog plana koji su koristili nacistički okupatori Francuske. Tijekom Drugog svjetskog rata, Njemačka je stvorila nacionalnu valutu za francuske kolonije kako bi mogla lako kontrolirati uvoz i izvoz koristeći samo jednu financijsku polugu. Kada je rat završio i Francuzi ponovno stekli slobodu, odlučili su koristiti isti model za svoje kolonije. Dakle, rekla je Farida, temelj CFA franka je zapravo nacistički.

Sustav ima mračnu genijalnost u tome što su Francuzi s vremenom uspjeli tiskati novac za kupnju vitalnih dobara iz svojih bivših kolonija, ali te afričke zemlje moraju raditi kako bi zaradile rezerve.

"To nije fer, to nije neovisnost", rekla je Farida. “To je čista eksploatacija.”

Francuska tvrdi da je sustav dobar jer osigurava stabilnost, nisku inflaciju i konvertibilnost Togoancima. Ali konvertibilnost na kraju olakšava bijeg kapitala - kada je tvrtkama lako pobjeći od CFA-a i danas parkirati svoje profite u eurima - dok zarobljavaju Togoance u režimu seigniorage. Kad god se CFA pretvori - a mora biti pretvoren, jer se ne može koristiti izvan ekonomske zone u kojoj građani međusobno razmijenjuju dobra i usluge - Francuzi i ECB uzimaju svoj dio.

Da, rekla je Farida, inflacija je niska u Togu u usporedbi s neovisnim državama, ali velik dio njihove zarade ide za borbu protiv inflacije umjesto za podršku razvoju infrastrukture i industrije kod kuće. Istaknula je rast Gane, koja ima neovisnu monetarnu politiku i višu inflaciju tijekom vremena od CFA zemalja, u usporedbi s Togom. Po svim pokazateljima - zdravstvu, rastu srednje klase, nezaposlenosti - Gana je superiornija. Zapravo, kad pogledamo iz većega, rekla je da niti jedna CFA nacija nije među 10 najbogatijih zemalja u Africi. Ali od 10 najsiromašnijih, polovica je u CFA zoni.

Farida kaže da francuski kolonijalizam nadilazi novac. Također utječe na obrazovanje i kulturu. Na primjer, rekla je, Svjetska banka daje 130 milijuna dolara godišnje za potporu frankofonim zemljama (zemlje u kojima se priča francuskim jezikom) za plaćanje udžbenika u javnim školama. Farida kaže da je 90% tih knjiga tiskano u Francuskoj. Novac ide izravno iz Svjetske banke u Pariz, a ne u Togo ili bilo koju drugu afričku naciju. Knjige su alat za ispiranje mozga, rekla je Farida. Usredotočeni su na slavu francuske kulture i potkopavaju postignuća drugih naroda, bilo da su američki, azijski ili afrički.

U srednjoj školi Farida je pitala svog oca: "Koriste li ljudi u Europi neki drugi jezik osim francuskog?" On se smijao. Učili su samo o francuskoj povijesti, francuskim izumiteljima i francuskim filozofima. Odrasla je misleći da su jedini pametni ljudi Francuzi. Nikada nije pročitala nijednu američku ili britansku knjigu prije nego što je prvi put otputovala u inozemstvo.

Općenito, rekla je Farida, Francuska Afrika konzumira 80% knjiga koje Francuzi tiskaju. Predsjednik Macron želi proširiti ovu dominaciju i obećao je potrošiti stotine milijuna eura za jačanje francuskog jezika u Africi, izjavljujući da bi on mogao biti "prvi jezik" kontinenta i nazivajući ga "jezikom slobode". S obzirom na trenutne trendove, do 2050. 85% svih govornika francuskog moglo bi živjeti u Africi. Jezik je jedan od stupova podrške opstanku CFA franka.

Politika je nešto drugo. Važan dio CFA sustava je francuska podrška diktaturi. S iznimkom Senegala, niti jedna zemlja bloka CFA nije imala smislenu demokratizaciju. Svaki pojedini uspješni tiranin u frankofonskoj Africi, rekla je Farida, imao je punu podršku francuske države. Kad god dođe do državnog udara protiv demokracije, Francuzi podržavaju pučiste sve dok su oni prijatelji CFA režima. Ali u trenutku kad netko ima antifrancuske tendencije, vidite sankcije, prijetnje ili čak atentate.

Farida ističe primjer Chad i Malija danas. Obje zemlje su pod prijetnjom terorizma i pobune. U Cahdu je pokojnog vojnog diktatora Idrissa Debyja Francuska podržavala tri desetljeća do njegove smrti u travnju. Prema chadskom ustavu, čelnik parlamenta obično je sljedeći na redu za predsjednika, no umjesto toga vojska je postavila Debyjeva sina, generala u vojsci. Francuska vlada pozdravila je ovu ilegalnu tranziciju, a predsjednik Macron je čak posjetio Chad kako bi proslavio ovu prijevaru. U govoru odavanja počasti nazvao je Debyja "prijateljem" i "hrabrim vojnikom" i rekao "Francuska neće dopustiti da itko dovede u pitanje ili prijeti stabilnosti i integritetu Chada danas ili sutra". Sin će, naravno, promovirati CFA franak.

Mali je, s druge strane, rekla je Farida, imao državni udar mjesec dana nakon Chadovog. Hunta i stanovništvo nisu toliko prijateljski raspoloženi prema Parizu i čini se da u Rusiji traže novog partnera za suzbijanje terorizma. Tako je francuska vlada državni udar nazvala "neprihvatljivim", prijeti da će povući trupe iz Malija kako bi ih "ostavila nasamo s teroristima", kako je rekao Farida, i priprema sankcije. Mali je kažnjen od strane Francuske jer je učinio isto što i Chad. Ima despotizma i korupcije s obje strane. Jedina razlika je u tome što se Mali želio odmaknuti od francuske monetarne kontrole, dok Chad i dalje surađuje.

“Kada ste diktator, dokle god radite za Francusku, oni će i dalje nalaziti izgovore da vam pomognu da ostanete na vlasti”, rekla je Farida. Isto su učinili 2005. u njezinoj zemlji Togo, što je dovelo do toga da je sin preuzeo vlast od svog oca diktatora i do njezinog vlastitog političkog buđenja.

Misija Fode Diopa da donese bitcoin u Senegal

Tek kada je Fodé Diop imao priliku otputovati u SAD, mogao je početi gledati svoju zemlju Senegal izvana.

Isprva je devalvacija CFA franka 1994. dovela njegovu akademsku budućnost u opasnost. Imao je priliku otići studirati i igrati košarku na sveučilištu u Kansasu, ali je njegova obiteljska ušteđevina bila uništena. Sretniji od većine oko njega, njegova je obitelj imala još jednu mogućnost: njegov je otac imao prava na knjige za nastavne materijale koje je on izradio, a on ih je mogao upotrijebiti da posudi ono što je bilo potrebno da Fodé ode u školu.

Jednog dana, nekoliko godina nakon što je završio fakultet, dok je živio u SAD-u i radio na novoj web stranici za video on demand sa svojim bratom, Fodé je slučajno naišao na YouTube video dr. Cheikha Anta Diopa, senegalskog znanstvenika i povjesničara, govoreći o tome kako su novac i jezik bili alati za kontrolu ljudskih umova i sredstava za život.

Fodé je već čuo za dr. Diopa - najveće sveučilište u Senegalu nazvano je po njemu - ali nije slušao njegovu kritiku CFA sustava. To je teško pogodilo Fodéa. Kaže da je to bilo poput trenutka u "Matrixu", jednom od njegovih omiljenih filmova, kada Neo uzima crvenu pilulu od Morpheusa i bježi iz svoje kapsule u uznemirujuće brutalni stvarni svijet. Napokon je ugledao vodu u kojoj je plivao dok je odrastao.

"Ovo je bio prvi put u životu da sam počeo razmišljati svojom glavom", rekao je Fodé. “Prvi put sam shvatio da je valuta moje zemlje mehanizam kontrole.”

Rekao je da je to više od puke kontrole nad valutom. Budući da Francuzi tiskaju i kontroliraju novac preko operativnih računa svake zemlje, oni imaju podatke.

“Oni znaju što kamo ide, imaju informacije o svim zemljama. Oni imaju prednost nad tim zemljama. Oni znaju tko je korumpiran. Oni znaju tko kupuje nekretnine u Francuskoj. Oni znaju što je dostupno. Oni imaju prvo pravo odbijanja povlaštenih uvoznih i izvoznih cijena. Imaju potpunu dominaciju,” rekao je Fodé.

Kasnije će razmišljati o devalvaciji iz 1994. godine. Tada je imao samo 18 godina pa nije shvaćao što se dogodilo, osim činjenice da su obiteljske financije postale znatno teže.

“Stavljaju vam vreću na glavu kako ne biste primijetili svoju stvarnost”, rekao je.

U retrospektivi, o tome se vodila velika javna rasprava. Ljudi su shvatili da kada bi išli pretvarati u francuski franak, dobili bi upola manje za svoj novac, iako su radili istu količinu posla. Francuski razlog, rekao je Fodé, bio je učiniti izvoz jeftinijim kako bi afričke zemlje mogle proizvoditi konkurentnije. Ali Fodé to vidi drugačije: to je Francuskoj omogućilo da udari bičem i kupi jeftiniju robu.

Fodé je imao još dva trenutka "crvene pilule". Sljedeći je došao 2007., kada je radio u Las Vegasu na tehnološkoj sceni. Gledao je video Stevea Jobsa, koji je upravo predstavio prvi iPhone. Fodé je bio zapanjen: mobilni telefon koji je imao izvorni preglednik sa zaslonom osjetljivim na dodir. Ista stvar koja je bila na vašem računalu sada je bila i na vašem telefonu. Odmah je znao da će to promijeniti svijet. Njegova sljedeća misao: Kako da izvorna plaćanja unesemo u iPhone aplikacije, tako da ljudi bez bankovnih računa i kreditnih kartica mogu koristiti mobilni novac?

Posljednja crvena pilula za Fodéa bilo je učenje o Bitcoinu 2010. godine. Živio je u Los Angelesu kada je prvi put pročitao bitcoin white paper (bijeli knjiga) Satoshija Nakamota za "peer-to-peer elektronički novčani sustav". Od trenutka kada ga je pročitao, Fodé je pomislio: Po prvi put imamo oružje kojim se možemo boriti protiv ugnjetavanja i kolonijalizma. Novac naroda, koji ne kontroliraju vlade. "Ovo je", rekao je, "upravo ono što nam treba."

Godinama ranije, Fodé je pročitao "Izvan kontrole" Kevina Kellyja. Jedno od poglavlja bilo je o e-valutama. Znao je da će na kraju sav novac biti digitalan, dio velike globalne elektroničke revolucije. Ali nikada nije preduboko razmišljao o transformativnoj snazi koju digitalni novac može imati, sve do Bitcoina.

“Što je novac? Odakle dolazi? Postavljajući ova pitanja, to je ono što je Bitcoin učinio za mene,” rekao je. "Prije toga, ne postavljate sami sebi ova pitanja."

Možda, mislio je, jednog dana Francuska više neće imati pravo ili mogućnost tiskati i kontrolirati novac senegalskog naroda.

Fodé i njegov cimer u Las Vegasu ostajali bi do kasno mnogo puta tijekom narednih godina, razmišljajući o tome što bi Bitcoin mogao omogućiti za plaćanja, štednju i sve gospodarske aktivnosti. Saznao je što se dogodilo kad ste ukrali svoju kreditnu karticu, kakve je informacije to otkrilo. I što su treće strane radile s tim informacijama.

Mislio je da bi brak pametnog telefona i Bitcoina bio nevjerojatan alat za osnaživanje. Fodé bi se često vraćao u Senegal, a svaki put kad bi išao, sa sobom bi ponio hrpu telefona koje bi poklonio. Promatrao ih je kao veze s vanjskim svijetom za svoje prijatelje kod kuće.

Tijekom sljedećih godina radio je u različitim startupovima, a sve u industriji digitalizacije različitih dijelova naših života. Godine 2017. napustio je Vegas i otišao u San Francisco. Pridružio se kampu za kodiranje i odlučio postati računalni inženjer. U početku se jako uključio u scenu kriptovaluta u cjelini, no na kraju se, kaže, "odljubio" od Ethereuma, otprilike u vrijeme kad je počeo ići na sokratske seminare u San Franciscu s osnivačem Rivera Alexom Leishmanom. Upoznao je mnoge programere koji su radili na razvoju bitcoina i najranije korisnike Lightning mreže.

Godine 2019. pobijedio je na hackathonu u sektoru transporta, izradivši Lightning fakturu koja bi otključala Teslu. To mu je dalo veliki poticaj samopouzdanju da može pomoći promijeniti svijet. Odlučio je otići kući u Senegal kako bi širio znanje o Bitcoin. Na putu mu je izvršna direktorica Lightning Labsa Elizabeth Stark dala stipendiju za putovanje na Lightning konferenciju u Berlinu. Tamo je upoznao Richarda Myersa iz GoTenne i programera Willa Clarka, koji su razmišljali o tome kako se mesh mrežama boriti protiv internetske cenzure. Fodé je pomislio: U Senegalu francuski telekom Orange kontrolira sve telefonske mreže. Možda bi mogli pronaći način da zaobiđu francusku kontrolu nad komunikacijama i mogućnost "isključivanja interneta" putem Bitcoina i Lightninga.

Sve telekomunikacijske kanale u Senegalu kontrolira Francuska i mogu ih zatvoriti u slučaju prosvjeda protiv čelnika zemlje, kojeg podržavaju sve dok se drži CFA sustava. Ali, moguće je pronaći krajnje točke, rekao je Fodé, preko drugih pružatelja usluga. To mogu biti druge nacionalne telefonske mreže ili čak satelitske veze. Fodé je stvorio uređaj koji može hvatati ove druge signale. Mobilni telefoni mogli bi se spojiti s tim uređajem, omogućujući korisnicima da budu online čak i kada su Francuzi isključili internet. Kako bi potaknuo ljude koji upravljaju takvim uređajima, plaćao bi im u bitcoinu. Za usmjeravanje podataka i održavanje ovih uređaja u Senegalu plaća se putem Lightninga. To je ono na čemu Fodé danas radi.

"Vrlo je riskantno", rekao je Fodé. “Možete se suočiti sa zatvorom ili novčanom kaznom. Ali uz novčane poticaje, ljudi su voljni.”

Sljedeći put kada Orange isključi internet kako bi zaštitio svog saveznika u vladi, ljudi će možda imati novi način komuniciranja koji režim ne može zaustaviti.

Lightning je, rekao je Fodé, sve.

“Potrebna su nam trenutna i jeftina plaćanja. Ne možemo vršiti on-chain Bitcoin plaćanja. Naknade su jednostavno preskupe. Moramo koristiti Lightning. Nema druge opcije”, rekao je. "I radi."

To posebno zvuči istinito u području doznaka, koje su, prema Svjetskoj banci, glavni izvor BDP-a za mnoge CFA zemlje. Na primjer: 14,5% BDP-a temelji se na inozemnim doznakama. Za Senegal je 10,7%; Gvineja Bisau, 9,8%; Togo, 8,4%; i Mali, 6%. Prosječni trošak slanja doznake od 200 USD u sub-saharsku Afriku je 8%, a prosječni trošak slanja 500 USD 9%. Devizne doznake putem servisa poput Strike-a koje se temelje na bitcoinu mogu smanjiti naknade ispod 1%. Usvajanjem bitcoin modela i koriptenjem ovakvih usluga može se uštedjeti od 0,5% do 1% BDP-a CFA zemalja.Ako to pogledamo izdaleka, svake godine pošiljatelji doznaka širom svijeta šalju kući otprilike 700 milijardi dolara. Moglo bi se uštedjeti između 30 i 40 milijardi dolara, što je otprilike isti iznos koji SAD troši svake godine na inozemnu pomoć.

Fodé razumije zašto bi ljudi na Zapadu mogli biti skeptični prema Bitcoinu. “Ako imate aplikaciju Venmo i Cash, možda ne vidite zašto je to važno. Imate sve pogodnosti modernog monetarnog sustava. Ali kad odete u Senegal, više od 70% naših ljudi nikada nije kročilo u banku. Mama nikada nije imala kreditnu ili debitnu karticu”, rekao je.

Pita se: Kako će uopće sudjelovati u globalnom financijskom sustavu?

Rekao je da će brak pametnih telefona i Bitcoina osloboditi ljude i promijeniti društvo. Fodé je spomenuo "Mobilni val", knjigu koju je izvršni direktor MicroStrategyja Michael Saylor napisao o revoluciji pomoću uređaja koji stanu u jednu ruku. Kad je Fodé prvi put dotaknuo iPhone, znao je da je to ono što je čekao. Svemir se urotio, pomislio je. U samo nekoliko kratkih godina, vidio je iPhone, Veliku financijsku krizu, Satotshijevo izdanje Bitcoina i vlastitu tranziciju da postane američki građanin.

Rekao je da, budući da je pola života proveo u Africi, a pola u SAD-u, vidi put naprijed.

“Kada odem kući, vidim kako su ljudi sputani. Ali na isti način na koji smo preskočili fiksne telefone i prešli ravno na mobitele, preskočit ćemo banke i prijeći ravno na Bitcoin.”

Još jedan učinak koji vidi u Senegalu je da kada su ljudi izloženi Bitcoinu, počnu štedjeti.

“Danas, kod kuće, razmišljam o tome kako pomoći ljudima da uštede novac”, rekao je. “Ovdje nitko ništa ne štedi. Samo troše svaki CFA franak koji mogu dobiti.”

Fodé je "zauvijek zahvalan" za bitcoin koji mu je Leishman dao, jer ga je na kraju dao u malim dijelovima ljudima u Senegalu - onima koji su dolazili na događaje ili postavljali dobra pitanja. Ljudi su vidjeli kako njegova vrijednost raste s vremenom.

S velikim je uzbuđenjem promatrao što se događa u El Salvadoru. Kada je ranije ovog mjeseca stajao u konferencijskoj dvorani u Miamiju i slušao osnivača Strikea Jacka Mallersa kako najavljuje da je jedna država dodala bitcoin kao zakonsko sredstvo plaćanja, Fodé je rekao da je zaplakao. Mislio je da se ovo nikada neće dogoditi.

“Ono što je počelo kao pohrana vrijednosti, sada se razvija u sredstvo razmjene”, rekao je.

El Salvador ima neke sličnosti sa zemljama CFA zone. To je siromašnija nacija, vezana za stranu valutu, ovisna o uvozu, sa slabijom izvoznom bazom. Njegovu monetarnu politiku kontrolira vanjska sila. 70% zemlje nema bankarstvo, a 22% nacionalnog BDP-a oslanja se na inozemne doznake.

"Ako bi to mogla biti dobra opcija za njih," mislio je Fodé, "možda bi mogla biti i za nas."

Ali zna da postoje velike prepreke.

Jedan je francuski jezik. Nema puno francuskih informacija na GitHubu ili u dokumentacijskim materijalima za Lightning ili o Bitcoin coreu. Trenutno Fodé radi na prevođenju dijela ovoga na francuski kako bi se lokalna zajednica programera mogla više uključiti.

Može li se zajednica Bitcoin Beach (Bitcoin plaža) na kraju pojaviti u Senegalu? Da, rekao je Fodé. Zato se vratio i zato vodi sastanke, prikuplja donacije putem Lightninga i gradi verziju Radija Slobodna Europa koju pokreću građani i koja se temelji na Bitcoinu.

"Mogli bi me zatvoriti", rekao je. "Ali kroz sastanke se trudim da ne budem niti jedina točka neuspjeha (single point of failure)."

On misli da će biti teško usvojiti Bitcoin u Senegalu zbog francuskog utjecaja.

"Neće proći bez borbe", rekao je.

Kao što je rekao Ndongo Samba Sylla, “Danas se Francuska suočava s relativnim ekonomskim padom u regiji koju je dugo smatrala svojim privatnim rezervatom. Čak i suočena s usponom drugih sila poput Kine, Francuska nema namjeru odustati od vlasti - borit će se do posljednjeg."

Ali možda bi to, umjesto nasilne revolucije, mogla biti postupna mirna revolucija tijekom vremena koja izbacuje kolonijalizam.

"Ne iznenadno isključivanje, već paralelni sustav, gdje se ljudi mogu sami odlučiti tijekom vremena", rekao je Fodé. “Bez prisile.”

Što se tiče ljudi koji misle da samo trebamo tražiti od vlade da zaštiti naša prava?

"Oni ne znaju da demokracije poput Francuske imaju lošu stranu", rekao je Fodé. “Neće nam dati slobodu. Umjesto toga, trebali bismo slijediti korake cypherpunka i zgrabiti našu slobodu koristeći otvoreni kod.”

Na pitanje o šansama Bitcoina da zamijeni središnje bankarstvo, Fodé je rekao da ta ideja “Amerikancima može zvučati ludo, ali za Senegalce ili Togoance, središnje banke su parazit našeg društva. Moramo uzvratiti.”

Fodé smatra da Bitcoin "mijenja život".

“Nikada prije nismo imali sustav u kojem bi se novac mogao kovati na decentraliziran način. Ali ovo je ono što imamo danas. To je rješenje za one kojima je najpotrebnije. Po prvi put imamo moćno oruđe za suzbijanje ugnjetavanja”, rekao je. “Možda nije savršeno, ali moramo koristiti alate koje danas imamo da se borimo za ljude. Ne čekati da nam netko dođe pomoći.”

Odvajanje novca od države

Godine 1980. kamerunski ekonomist Joseph Tchundjang Pouemi napisao je Novac, ropstvo i sloboda: Afrička monetarna represija (Monnaie, servitude et liberté: La répression monétaire de l’Afrique) Teza: novčana ovisnost je temelj svih drugih oblika ovisnosti. Završne riječi knjige posebno snažno zvuče danas: “Sudbina Afrike bit će iskovana novcem ili se uopće neće iskovati.”

Novac i valuta zakopani su ispod površine u globalnom pokretu za ljudska prava. Oni se gotovo nikada ne spominju na konferencijama o ljudskim pravima i rijetko se o njima raspravlja među aktivistima. Ali pitajte zagovornika demokracije iz autoritarnog režima o novcu, i ispričat će vam nevjerojatne i tragične priče. Demonetizacija u Eritreji i Sjevernoj Koreji, hiperinflacija u Zimbabveu i Venezueli, državni nadzor u Kini i Hong Kongu, zamrznuta plaćanja u Bjelorusiji i Nigeriji i ekonomski zaštitni zidovi u Iranu i Palestini. A sada: monetarni kolonijalizam u Togu i Senegalu. Bez financijske slobode pokreti i nevladine organizacije ne mogu se održati. Ako su njihovi bankovni računi zatvoreni, novčanice demonetizirane ili sredstva obezvrijeđena, njihova moć je ograničena i tiranija maršira.

Monetarna represija i dalje se skriva i o njoj se ne govori u pristojnim krugovima. Današnja stvarnost za 182 milijuna ljudi koji žive u CFA zemljama je da iako su možda politički neovisni po imenu, njihova su gospodarstva i novac još uvijek pod kolonijalnom vlašću, a strane sile još uvijek zlorabe i produljuju taj odnos kako bi iscijedile i iskorištavale što više vrijednosti iz njihova društva i geografije što je više moguće.

Posljednjih godina građani CFA zone sve više ustaju. Slogan Francusko odobrenje "France Dégage!" postao je poklič okupljanja. No čini se da najglasniji kritičari sustava, među njima Pigeaud i Sylla, ne nude održivu alternativu. Oni odbacuju status quo i ropstvo MMF-a, samo kako bi predložili ili regionalnu valutu, koju kontroliraju lokalni čelnici, ili sustav u kojem svaka CFA nacija stvara i upravlja vlastitom valutom. Ali samo zato što su Senegal ili Togo dobili monetarnu neovisnost od Francuske, ne jamči da će imati dobre rezultate ili da čelnici zemlje neće zlorabiti valutu.

Još uvijek postoji prijetnja domaće diktatorske loše vladavine ili novog zarobljavanja od strane ruskih ili kineskih stranih sila. Jasno je da ljudima treba novac koji zapravo lomi kotač, novac koji mogu kontrolirati i kojim vlade bilo koje vrste ne mogu manipulirati. Baš kao što je došlo do povijesnog odvajanja crkve i države koje je utrlo put prosperitetnijem i slobodnijem ljudskom društvu, u tijeku je odvajanje novca od države.

Bi li građani CFA nacija, s vremenom, s povećanjem pristupa internetu, mogli popularizirati Bitcoin do te mjere da bi vlade bile prisiljene de facto ga usvojiti, kao što se dogodilo u zemljama Latinske Amerike poput Ekvadora s "dolarización popular" (popularna dolarizacija)? Povijest ostaje za pisati, ali jedno je sigurno: Svjetska banka i MMF oduprijet će se svim trendovima u tom smjeru. Već su zamahnuli protiv El Salvadora.

Nedavno je glumac Hill Harper citiran u The New York Timesu u vezi s njegovim aktivizmom oko Bitcoina u afroameričkoj zajednici. Rekao je, vrlo jednostavno, "Oni ne mogu kolonizirati Bitcoin."

Farida Nabourema se slaže. “Bitcoin”, rekla je, “prvi put ikada da postoji novac koji je zapravo decentraliziran i dostupan svakome u svijetu bez obzira na boju kože, ideologiju, nacionalnost, količinu bogatstva ili kolonijalnu prošlost.”

Rekla je da je to narodna valuta, pa čak ide i korak dalje.

"Možda", rekla je, "bitcoin bismo trebali nazvati valutom dekolonizacije."

Originalan tekst autora Alex Gladstein objavljen je na portalu Bitcoin Magazine. Prijevod teksta napravljen je uz dozvolu autora.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Heute möchte ich ein Gedicht mit euch teilen. Es handelt sich um eine Ballade des österreichischen Lyrikers Johann Gabriel Seidl aus dem 19. Jahrhundert. Mir sind diese Worte fest in Erinnerung, da meine Mutter sie perfekt rezitieren konnte, auch als die Kräfte schon langsam schwanden.

Dem originalen Titel «Die Uhr» habe ich für mich immer das Wort «innere» hinzugefügt. Denn der Zeitmesser – hier vermutliche eine Taschenuhr – symbolisiert zwar in dem Kontext das damalige Zeitempfinden und die Umbrüche durch die industrielle Revolution, sozusagen den Zeitgeist und das moderne Leben. Aber der Autor setzt sich philosophisch mit der Zeit auseinander und gibt seinem Werk auch eine klar spirituelle Dimension.

Das Ticken der Uhr und die Momente des Glücks und der Trauer stehen sinnbildlich für das unaufhaltsame Fortschreiten und die Vergänglichkeit des Lebens. Insofern könnte man bei der Uhr auch an eine Sonnenuhr denken. Der Rhythmus der Ereignisse passt uns vielleicht nicht immer in den Kram.

Was den Takt pocht, ist durchaus auch das Herz, unser «inneres Uhrwerk». Wenn dieses Meisterwerk einmal stillsteht, ist es unweigerlich um uns geschehen. Hoffentlich können wir dann dankbar sagen: «Ich habe mein Bestes gegeben.»

Ich trage, wo ich gehe, stets eine Uhr bei mir; \ Wieviel es geschlagen habe, genau seh ich an ihr. \ Es ist ein großer Meister, der künstlich ihr Werk gefügt, \ Wenngleich ihr Gang nicht immer dem törichten Wunsche genügt.

Ich wollte, sie wäre rascher gegangen an manchem Tag; \ Ich wollte, sie hätte manchmal verzögert den raschen Schlag. \ In meinen Leiden und Freuden, in Sturm und in der Ruh, \ Was immer geschah im Leben, sie pochte den Takt dazu.

Sie schlug am Sarge des Vaters, sie schlug an des Freundes Bahr, \ Sie schlug am Morgen der Liebe, sie schlug am Traualtar. \ Sie schlug an der Wiege des Kindes, sie schlägt, will's Gott, noch oft, \ Wenn bessere Tage kommen, wie meine Seele es hofft.

Und ward sie auch einmal träger, und drohte zu stocken ihr Lauf, \ So zog der Meister immer großmütig sie wieder auf. \ Doch stände sie einmal stille, dann wär's um sie geschehn, \ Kein andrer, als der sie fügte, bringt die Zerstörte zum Gehn.

Dann müßt ich zum Meister wandern, der wohnt am Ende wohl weit, \ Wohl draußen, jenseits der Erde, wohl dort in der Ewigkeit! \ Dann gäb ich sie ihm zurücke mit dankbar kindlichem Flehn: \ Sieh, Herr, ich hab nichts verdorben, sie blieb von selber stehn.

Johann Gabriel Seidl (1804-1875)

@ 557c650b:b04c6817

Um exercício mental

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Bitcoin transactions explained

A transaction is a piece of data that takes inputs and produces outputs. Forget about the blockchain thing, Bitcoin is actually just a big tree of transactions. The blockchain is just a way to keep transactions ordered.

Imagine you have 10 satoshis. That means you have them in an unspent transaction output (UTXO). You want to spend them, so you create a transaction. The transaction should reference unspent outputs as its inputs. Every transaction has an immutable id, so you use that id plus the index of the output (because transactions can have multiple outputs). Then you specify a script that unlocks that transaction and related signatures, then you specify outputs along with a script that locks these outputs.

As you can see, there's this lock/unlocking thing and there are inputs and outputs. Inputs must be unlocked by fulfilling the conditions specified by the person who created the transaction they're in. And outputs must be locked so anyone wanting to spend those outputs will need to unlock them.

For most of the cases locking and unlocking means specifying a public key whose controller (the person who has the corresponding private key) will be able to spend. Other fancy things are possible too, but we can ignore them for now.

Back to the 10 satoshis you want to spend. Since you've successfully referenced 10 satoshis and unlocked them, now you can specify the outputs (this is all done in a single step). You can specify one output of 10 satoshis, two of 5, one of 3 and one of 7, three of 3 and so on. The sum of outputs can't be more than 10. And if the sum of outputs is less than 10 the difference goes to fees. In the first days of Bitcoin you didn't need any fees, but now you do, otherwise your transaction won't be included in any block.

If you're still interested in transactions maybe you could take a look at this small chapter of that Andreas Antonopoulos book.

If you hate Andreas Antonopoulos because he is a communist shitcoiner or don't want to read more than half a page, go here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Coin_analogy

@ 3c984938:2ec11289

It's been a journey from the Publishing Forest of Nostr to the open sea of web3. I've come across a beautiful chain of islands and thought. Why not take a break and explore this place? If I'm searching for devs and FOSS, I should search every nook and cranny inside the realm of Nostr. It is quite vast for little old me. I'm just a little hamster and I don't speak in code or binary numbers zeros and ones.

After being in sea for awhile, my heart raced for excitement for what I could find. It seems I wasn't alone, there were others here like me! Let's help spread the message to others about this uncharted realm. See, look at the other sailboats, aren't they pretty? Thanks to some generous donation of SATs, I was able to afford the docking fee.

Ever feel like everyone was going to a party, and you were supposed to dress up, but you missed the memo? Or a comic-con? well, I felt completely underdressed and that's an understatement. Well, turns out there is a some knights around here. Take a peek!

A black cat with a knight passed by very quickly. He was moving too fast for me to track. Where was he going? Then I spotted a group of knights heading in the same direction, so I tagged along. The vibes from these guys was impossible to resist. They were just happy-go-lucky. 🥰They were heading to a tavern on a cliff off the island.

Ehh? a Tavern? Slightly confused, whatever could these knights be doing here? I guess when they're done with their rounds they would here to blow off steam. Things are looking curiouser and curiouser. But the black cat from earlier was here with its rider, whom was dismounting. So you can only guess, where I'm going.

The atmosphere in this pub, was lively and energetic. So many knights spoke among themselves. A group here, another there, but there was one that caught my eye. I went up to a group at a table, whose height towed well above me even when seated. Taking a deep breath, I asked, "Who manages this place?" They unanimous pointed to one waiting for ale at the bar. What was he doing? Watching others talk? How peculiar.

So I went up to him! And introduced myself.

"Hello I'm Onigirl"

"Hello Onigirl, Welcome to Gossip"

"Gossip, what is Gossip?" scratching my head and whiskers.

What is Gossip? Gossip is FOSS and a great client for privacy-centric minded nostriches. It avoids browser tech which by-passes several scripting languages such as JavaScript☕, HTML parsing, rendering, and CSS(Except HTTP GET and Websockets). Using OpenGL-style rendering. For Nostriches that wish to remain anonymous can use Gossip over TOR. Mike recommends using QubesOS, Whonix and or Tails. [FYI-Gossip does not natively support tor SOCKS5 proxy] Most helpful to spill the beans if you're a journalist.

On top of using your nsec or your encryption key, Gossip adds another layer of security over your account with a password login. There's nothing wrong with using the browser extensions (such as nos2x or Flamingo) which makes it super easy to log in to Nostr enable websites, apps, but it does expose you to browser vulnerabilities.

Mike Points out

"people have already had their private key stolen from other nostr clients,"

so it a concern if you value your account. I most certainly care for mine.

Gossip UI has a simple, and clean interface revolving around NIP-65 also called the “Outbox model." As posted from GitHub,

"This NIP allows Clients to connect directly with the most up-to-date relay set from each individual user, eliminating the need of broadcasting events to popular relays."

This eliminates clients that track only a specific set of relays which can congest those relays when you publish your note. Also this can be censored, by using Gossip you can publish notes to alternative relays that have not censored you to reach the same followers.

👉The easiest way to translate that is reducing redundancy to publish to popular relays or centralized relays for content reach to your followers.

Cool! What an awesome client, I mean Tavern! What else does this knight do? He reaches for something in his pocket. what is it? A Pocket is a database for storing and retrieving nostr events but mike's written it in Rust with a few extra kinks inspired by Will's nostrdb. Still in development, but it'll be another tool for you dear user! 💖💕💚

Onigirl is proud to present this knights to the community and honor them with kisu. 💋💋💋 Show some 💖💘💓🧡💙💚

👉💋💋Will - jb55 Lord of apples 💋 @npub1xtscya34g58tk0z605fvr788k263gsu6cy9x0mhnm87echrgufzsevkk5s

👉💋💋 Mike Knight - Lord of Security 💋 @npub1acg6thl5psv62405rljzkj8spesceyfz2c32udakc2ak0dmvfeyse9p35c

Knights spend a lot of time behind the screen coding for the better of humanity. It is a tough job! Let's appreciate these knights, relay operators, that support this amazing realm of Nostr! FOSS for all!

This article was prompted for the need for privacy and security of your data. They're different, not to be confused.

Recently, Edward Snowden warns Bitcoin devs about the need for privacy, Quote:

“I've been warning Bitcoin developers for ten years that privacy needs to be provided for at the protocol level. This is the final warning. The clock is ticking.”

Snowden’s comments come after heavy actions of enforcement from Samarai Wallet, Roger Ver, Binance’s CZ, and now the closure of Wasabi Wallet. Additionally, according to CryptoBriefing, Trezor is ending it’s CoinJoin integration as well. Many are concerned over the new definition of a money transmitter, which includes even those who don’t touch the funds.

Help your favorite the hamster

^^Me drowning in notes on your feed. I can only eat so many notes to find you.

👉If there are any XMPP fans on here. I'm open to the idea of opening a public channel, so you could follow me on that as a forum-like style. My server of choice would likely be a German server.😀You would be receiving my articles as njump.me style or website-like. GrapeneOS users, you can download Cheogram app from the F-Driod store for free to access. Apple and Andriod users are subjected to pay to download this app, an alternative is ntalk or conversations. If it interests the community, just FYI. Please comment or DM.

👉If you enjoyed this content, please consider reposting/sharing as my content is easily drowned by notes on your feed. You could also join my community under Children_Zone where I post my content.

An alternative is by following #onigirl Just FYI this feature is currently a little buggy.

Follow as I search for tools and awesome devs to help you dear user live a decentralized life as I explore the realm of Nostr.

Thank you Fren

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Falls du beim Lesen des Titels dieses Newsletters unwillkürlich an positive Neuigkeiten aus dem globalen polit-medialen Irrenhaus oder gar aus dem wirtschaftlichen Umfeld gedacht hast, darf ich dich beglückwünschen. Diese Assoziation ist sehr löblich, denn sie weist dich als unverbesserlichen Optimisten aus. Leider muss ich dich diesbezüglich aber enttäuschen. Es geht hier um ein anderes Thema, allerdings sehr wohl ein positives, wie ich finde.

Heute ist ein ganz besonderer Tag: die Wintersonnenwende. Genau gesagt hat heute morgen um 10:20 Uhr Mitteleuropäischer Zeit (MEZ) auf der Nordhalbkugel unseres Planeten der astronomische Winter begonnen. Was daran so außergewöhnlich ist? Der kürzeste Tag des Jahres war gestern, seit heute werden die Tage bereits wieder länger! Wir werden also jetzt jeden Tag ein wenig mehr Licht haben.

Für mich ist dieses Ereignis immer wieder etwas kurios: Es beginnt der Winter, aber die Tage werden länger. Das erscheint mir zunächst wie ein Widerspruch, denn meine spontanen Assoziationen zum Winter sind doch eher Kälte und Dunkelheit, relativ zumindest. Umso erfreulicher ist der emotionale Effekt, wenn dann langsam die Erkenntnis durchsickert: Ab jetzt wird es schon wieder heller!

Natürlich ist es kalt im Winter, mancherorts mehr als anderswo. Vielleicht jedoch nicht mehr lange, wenn man den Klimahysterikern glauben wollte. Mindestens letztes Jahr hat Väterchen Frost allerdings gleich zu Beginn seiner Saison – und passenderweise während des globalen Überhitzungsgipfels in Dubai – nochmal richtig mit der Faust auf den Tisch gehauen. Schnee- und Eischaos sind ja eigentlich in der Agenda bereits nicht mehr vorgesehen. Deswegen war man in Deutschland vermutlich in vorauseilendem Gehorsam schon nicht mehr darauf vorbereitet und wurde glatt lahmgelegt.

Aber ich schweife ab. Die Aussicht auf nach und nach mehr Licht und damit auch Wärme stimmt mich froh. Den Zusammenhang zwischen beidem merkt man in Andalusien sehr deutlich. Hier, wo die Häuser im Winter arg auskühlen, geht man zum Aufwärmen raus auf die Straße oder auf den Balkon. Die Sonne hat auch im Winter eine erfreuliche Kraft. Und da ist jede Minute Gold wert.

Außerdem ist mir vor Jahren so richtig klar geworden, warum mir das südliche Klima so sehr gefällt. Das liegt nämlich nicht nur an der Sonne als solcher, oder der Wärme – das liegt vor allem am Licht. Ohne Licht keine Farben, das ist der ebenso simple wie gewaltige Unterschied zwischen einem deprimierenden matschgraubraunen Winter und einem fröhlichen bunten. Ein großes Stück Lebensqualität.

Mir gefällt aber auch die Symbolik dieses Tages: Licht aus der Dunkelheit, ein Wendepunkt, ein Neuanfang, neue Möglichkeiten, Übergang zu neuer Aktivität. In der winterlichen Stille keimt bereits neue Lebendigkeit. Und zwar in einem Zyklus, das wird immer wieder so geschehen. Ich nehme das gern als ein Stück Motivation, es macht mir Hoffnung und gibt mir Energie.

Übrigens ist parallel am heutigen Tag auf der südlichen Halbkugel Sommeranfang. Genau im entgegengesetzten Rhythmus, sich ergänzend, wie Yin und Yang. Das alles liegt an der Schrägstellung der Erdachse, die ist nämlich um 23,4º zur Umlaufbahn um die Sonne geneigt. Wir erinnern uns, gell?

Insofern bleibt eindeutig festzuhalten, dass “schräg sein” ein willkommener, wichtiger und positiver Wert ist. Mit anderen Worten: auch ungewöhnlich, eigenartig, untypisch, wunderlich, kauzig, … ja sogar irre, spinnert oder gar “quer” ist in Ordnung. Das schließt das Denken mit ein.

In diesem Sinne wünsche ich euch allen urige Weihnachtstage!

---

Dieser Beitrag ist letztes Jahr in meiner Denkbar erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Das Betriebsklima ist das einzige Klima, \ das du selbst bestimmen kannst. \ Anonym

Eine Strategie zur Anpassung an den Klimawandel hat das deutsche Bundeskabinett diese Woche beschlossen. Da «Wetterextreme wie die immer häufiger auftretenden Hitzewellen und Starkregenereignisse» oft desaströse Auswirkungen auf Mensch und Umwelt hätten, werde eine Anpassung an die Folgen des Klimawandels immer wichtiger. «Klimaanpassungsstrategie» nennt die Regierung das.

Für die «Vorsorge vor Klimafolgen» habe man nun erstmals klare Ziele und messbare Kennzahlen festgelegt. So sei der Erfolg überprüfbar, und das solle zu einer schnelleren Bewältigung der Folgen führen. Dass sich hinter dem Begriff Klimafolgen nicht Folgen des Klimas, sondern wohl «Folgen der globalen Erwärmung» verbergen, erklärt den Interessierten die Wikipedia. Dabei ist das mit der Erwärmung ja bekanntermaßen so eine Sache.

Die Zunahme schwerer Unwetterereignisse habe gezeigt, so das Ministerium, wie wichtig eine frühzeitige und effektive Warnung der Bevölkerung sei. Daher solle es eine deutliche Anhebung der Nutzerzahlen der sogenannten Nina-Warn-App geben.

Die ARD spurt wie gewohnt und setzt die Botschaft zielsicher um. Der Artikel beginnt folgendermaßen:

«Die Flut im Ahrtal war ein Schock für das ganze Land. Um künftig besser gegen Extremwetter gewappnet zu sein, hat die Bundesregierung eine neue Strategie zur Klimaanpassung beschlossen. Die Warn-App Nina spielt eine zentrale Rolle. Der Bund will die Menschen in Deutschland besser vor Extremwetter-Ereignissen warnen und dafür die Reichweite der Warn-App Nina deutlich erhöhen.»

Die Kommunen würden bei ihren «Klimaanpassungsmaßnahmen» vom Zentrum KlimaAnpassung unterstützt, schreibt das Umweltministerium. Mit dessen Aufbau wurden das Deutsche Institut für Urbanistik gGmbH, welches sich stark für Smart City-Projekte engagiert, und die Adelphi Consult GmbH beauftragt.

Adelphi beschreibt sich selbst als «Europas führender Think-and-Do-Tank und eine unabhängige Beratung für Klima, Umwelt und Entwicklung». Sie seien «global vernetzte Strateg*innen und weltverbessernde Berater*innen» und als «Vorreiter der sozial-ökologischen Transformation» sei man mit dem Deutschen Nachhaltigkeitspreis ausgezeichnet worden, welcher sich an den Zielen der Agenda 2030 orientiere.

Über die Warn-App mit dem niedlichen Namen Nina, die möglichst jeder auf seinem Smartphone installieren soll, informiert das Bundesamt für Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe (BBK). Gewarnt wird nicht nur vor Extrem-Wetterereignissen, sondern zum Beispiel auch vor Waffengewalt und Angriffen, Strom- und anderen Versorgungsausfällen oder Krankheitserregern. Wenn man die Kategorie Gefahreninformation wählt, erhält man eine Dosis von ungefähr zwei Benachrichtigungen pro Woche.

Beim BBK erfahren wir auch einiges über die empfohlenen Systemeinstellungen für Nina. Der Benutzer möge zum Beispiel den Zugriff auf die Standortdaten «immer zulassen», und zwar mit aktivierter Funktion «genauen Standort verwenden». Die Datennutzung solle unbeschränkt sein, auch im Hintergrund. Außerdem sei die uneingeschränkte Akkunutzung zu aktivieren, der Energiesparmodus auszuschalten und das Stoppen der App-Aktivität bei Nichtnutzung zu unterbinden.

Dass man so dramatische Ereignisse wie damals im Ahrtal auch anders bewerten kann als Regierungen und Systemmedien, hat meine Kollegin Wiltrud Schwetje anhand der Tragödie im spanischen Valencia gezeigt. Das Stichwort «Agenda 2030» taucht dabei in einem Kontext auf, der wenig mit Nachhaltigkeitspreisen zu tun hat.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 3c984938:2ec11289

Hello (N)osytrs!

Yes! I'm calling you an (N)oystr!

Why is that? Because you shine, and I'm not just saying that to get more SATs. Ordinary Oysters and mussels can produce these beauties! Nothing seriously unique about them, however, with a little time and love each oyster is capable of creating something truly beautiful. I like believing so, at least, given the fact that you're even reading this article; makes you an (N)oystr! This isn't published this on X (formerly known as Twitter), Facebook, Discord, Telegram, or Instagram, which makes you the rare breed! A pearl indeed! I do have access to those platforms, but why create content on a terrible platform knowing I too could be shut down! Unfortunately, many people still use these platforms. This forces individuals to give up their privacy every day. Meta is leading the charge by forcing users to provide a photo ID for verification in order to use their crappy, obsolete site. If that was not bad enough, imagine if you're having a type of disagreement or opinion. Then, Bigtech can easily deplatform you. Umm. So no open debate? Just instantly shut-off users. Whatever, happened to right to a fair trial? Nope, just burning you at the stake as if you're a witch or warlock!

How heinous are the perpetrators and financiers of this? Well, that's opening another can of worms for you.

Imagine your voice being taken away, like the little mermaid. Ariel was lucky to have a prince, but the majority of us? The likelihood that I would be carried away by the current of the sea during a sunset with a prince on a sailboat is zero. And I live on an island, so I'm just missing the prince, sailboat(though I know where I could go to steal one), and red hair. Oh my gosh, now I feel sad.

I do not have the prince, Bob is better! I do not have mermaid fins, or a shell bra. Use coconut shells, it offers more support! But, I still have my voice and a killer sunset to die for!

All of that is possible thanks to the work of developers. These knights fight for Freedom Tech by utilizing FOSS, which help provides us with a vibrant ecosystem. Unfortunately, I recently learned that they are not all funded. Knights must eat, drink, and have a work space. This space is where they spend most of their sweat equity on an app or software that may and may not pan out. That brilliance is susceptible to fading, as these individuals are not seen but rather stay behind closed doors. What's worse, if these developers lose faith in their project and decide to join forces with Meta! 😖 Does WhatsApp ring a bell?

Without them, I probably wouldn't be able to create this long form article. Let's cheer them on like cheerleaders.. 👉Unfortunately, there's no cheerleader emoji so you'll just have to settle for a dancing lady, n guy. 💃🕺

Semisol said it beautifully, npub12262qa4uhw7u8gdwlgmntqtv7aye8vdcmvszkqwgs0zchel6mz7s6cgrkj

If we want freedom tech to succeed, the tools that make it possible need to be funded: relays like https://nostr.land, media hosts like https://nostr.build, clients like https://damus.io, etc.

With that thought, Onigirl is pleased to announce the launch of a new series. With a sole focus on free market devs/projects.

Knights of Nostr!

I'll happily brief you about their exciting project and how it benefits humanity! Let's Support these Magnificent projects, devs, relays, and builders! Our first runner up!

Oppa Fishcake :Lord of Media Hosting

npub137c5pd8gmhhe0njtsgwjgunc5xjr2vmzvglkgqs5sjeh972gqqxqjak37w

Oppa Fishcake with his noble steed!

Think of this as an introduction to learn and further your experience on Nostr! New developments and applications are constantly happening on Nostr. It's enough to make one's head spin. I may also cover FOSS projects(outside of Nostr) as they need some love as well! Plus, you can think of it as another tool to add to your decentralized life. I will not be doing how-to-Nostr guides. I personally feel there are plenty of great guides already available! Which I'm happy to add to curation collection via easily searchable on Yakihonne.

For email updates you can subscribe to my [[https://paragraph.xyz/@onigirl]]

If you like it, send me some 🧡💛💚 hearts💜💗💖 otherwise zap dat⚡⚡🍑🍑peach⚡⚡🍑 ~If not me, then at least to our dearest knight!

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your time and support (N)oystr! Shine bright like a diamond! Share if you care! FOSS power!

Follow on your favorite Nostr Client for the best viewing experience!

[!NOTE]

I'm using Obsidian + Nostr Writer Plugin; a new way to publish Markdown directly to Nostr. I was a little nervous using this because I was used doing them in RStudio; R Markdown.
Since this is my first article, I sent it to my account as a draft to test it. It's pretty neat.

@ 8671a6e5:f88194d1

Users are not employees Continued from (part 1)

Bitcoiners know how a lot of stuff works, so we think everybody knows. That’s a project management assumption that belongs more in the hobby-code project sphere (where it’s even cool to do so). And sure, I enjoy that myself when I’m building a small tool for fun with no one to answer to. But that mindset doesn’t scale when the goal is to make Bitcoin more accessible and structurally sound for new users. Some argue we don’t need new users at all—that Bitcoin is so good, so perfect, that people will eventually come around. Imagine being forced to use bitcoin by economic and monetary circumstances, to realize you hate to work with things like Nunchuk ‘s multisig or a Trezor hardware wallet from 2025.

An impression: Bitcoiners know that opening a Lightning channel comes with an on-chain fee—unless the provider covers it and claws it back through subscriptions or service charges. But the average user doesn’t. So when that fee appears out of nowhere, or gets buried in cryptic devspeak jargon, so they bounce, often left confused, frustrated, and unlikely to return.

That’s not that bad on itself, as long as companies know who their audience is and take care of the way you inform users. You have to “raise” your customers. Not scare them away with a wall of nonsense.

Same goes for onboarding people into Nostr sometimes by the way.

If features like this or natural onboarding hurdles were explained with more than just puzzling error codes or vague on-screen prompts, half the users wouldn’t vanish in the first 10 seconds, confused and frustrated. It’s the same story we’ve seen with PGP: people stumble during the initial key creation, or get lost trying to sign a message with someone’s public key. The tech works; the experience doesn’t. Have trust in what you’ve build underneath!

It’s a barrier for newcomers. Just keep it in mind. Take care of the user. They do like to come on board! Most people do want to come on board. Our goal is to help free them from fiat, not drown them in confusing UX or half-baked tools. Bitcoin's underlying value might be incredible, but that doesn’t matter to someone still trapped in the fiat bubble. They won’t get onboarded through broken apps or confusing flows, just like they’ll use something like SimpleX on Linux.

To make it even worse, some bitcoin organizations and companies don’t seem to grasp the extent of this alienation of the user — because it’s always brushed off as ‘niche’ or just an edge case. It’s all so obvious for them on how to use it. But it adds up. Sites like Highlighter.com (I like their underlying service by the way!) is not working properly with Nos2x (a key handler) on the first try. A user needs to know to reload, re-try, re-load again after selecting the public key, then maybe it works). These are exactly the kind of small annoyances that new users won’t wade through. It’s also not that difficult to tackle it with proper testing.

Users who encounter such thing, certainly when they just wanted to see what the site or service did, just leave. Let someone who just discovered Nostr try logging in there for example, and unless they're unusually determined, they'll get stuck immediately, wondering why pasting their public key and clicking “login” doesn’t lead anywhere. It’s a brick wall; and the creators think it’s a nice landing page.

These things also lead to other frustrations and eventual software cycling through the interested users’ hands.

About a year ago I “onboarded” a friend of mine, and she already tried four wallets since I introduced her to the wonderful world of Bitcoin/LN wallets. First just to get things going she used Wallet of Satoshi, then when the custodial story was getting traction for this user, we moved to Phoenix (which failed due to upfront money). Next, Aqua wallet, which was too cumbersome and had hiccups, and then moving on to Mutiny wallet, which shut down a bit later.

And so we ended up back with Wallet of Satoshi, with Blink being a second choice but having to give a telephone number was too much for the user (yes, you can skip that if you carefully read and put it in test / demo mode or whatever it’s called).

People kept recommending other wallet brands, other names to try, … there are always other names. “Try Muun” “Get Zeus”, “Why don’t you go for CoinOs, just as a web app?” (that last one is actually good) … but it’s always like that … if you talk to ten bitcoiners, then you’ll have heard five different ‘best wallets’ to try, and you’ve had probably get about four referral links from all of these people. (Or some Relai squad member trying to get a few sats out of your genuine interest:)

Real testing is a ghost town

We saw in part 1 that Bitcoin companies do some testing these days—but it lacks specialization. It’s often so superficial that the cracks are visible in the software itself: clumsy onboarding flows, unclear settings, or unexpected fields asking for information users don’t have and don’t know how to get. Much of this stems from the habit of pulling in a handful of “fans” or supporters to try out a beta version.

That’s the wrong way to go (the fiat companies that do this, usually get bad or inconclusive results as well, unless you’re doing it a scale and a very diverse audience).

Most of the people brought in this way have no background in structured testing, let alone in reporting bugs clearly or identifying critical failure points. The feedback you get is vague and surface-level: “I like the colors,” “the buttons feel small,” or “I got an error when I tried to send something.”

But rarely do you hear what caused it, what preceded it, or what device or settings were involved. That kind of insight doesn’t come from random fans trying to get their hands on some products or perks. You’ll have to pay professionals to do it. And even when meaningful feedback does come in, it often ends up on the wrong or overworked hands, forwarded to whichever developer drew the short straw that weekend. There's usually no structured triage, no internal testing culture that treats usability or edge cases as part of the real product. Just a sigh, a shrug, and back to building features that sound cool when they dreamed it up.

I keep hammering this point because this might be the only time you’ll actually read about it. No company—bitcoin or fiat—tries to win users by focusing on boring but critical details like onboarding clarity or robust edge-case handling. They’ll avoid claiming “this just works,” because saying so invites scrutiny and backlash. The only company bold (or arrogant) enough to occasionally say that is Apple—and even they drop the ball more often than they like to admit.

By design

The dream I have, is “Usability by design”. And that dream is close to non-existent in the realm and everyday reality of Bitcoin. From the moment something gets drawn up or is being created, the design and user flow, the easy adoption, should be kept in mind as well as the real implementation factors for the intended purpose (and beyond even). Then you hardly have any discussions like “yeah, but technically the user has to make an input here, so we can’t do otherwise, and it works on my machine”

Users that have to trial and error, are maybe bitcoin-natives, and like that sort of stuff. Other people just want to try something out (wallet, nostr, an exchange, a node, lightning …) and expect it to work smooth. It gives them trust in the system.

These issues all create enormous opportunity for companies that would start to take software delivery quality more serious. But I’m afraid that would cost them two things most Bitcoin companies already lack: time and proper funding.

Many are stuck in a “pump-my-bags” mindset, focused more on hype than durability, while others simply don’t have the resources to invest in thoughtful UX, thorough testing, or long-term support.

The very few companies that do “get it”, and make something that just works, with good leadership and a focus on clear, usable interfaces—often catch flack for it. They’re criticized for making things “too easy,” “too centralized,” or for “lowering the bar,” as if simplicity and accessibility are somehow problems. But in reality, these are the companies pushing the space forward, making it easier for people to use Bitcoin without the constant headache. And newsflash: you can do so with keeping bitcion’s ethos alive I think, even without a company as a middleman. Which raises another problem about funding and hard money, something I’ll write more about in chapter 12 of this series.

Back to the software…. Protonmail’s wallet comes to mind where most bitcoiners I know just scoffed at like “it doesn’t have lightning”, or “why do we need another wallet?”. While they deliver an excellent product that just works.

Exactly. Take the Stack Wallet project, for example. They had the audacity to incorporate Monero, and because of that, they’re shunned by many Bitcoiners — despite offering a solid, open-source, multi-platform wallet that actually works. It’s a perfect example of how Bitcoiners can sometimes reject the very things that could help bring more users into the space, all because they don’t align perfectly with some purist ideology. While on the other hand these same bitcoiners support middlemen multi-level-marketing tactics from questionable companies.

But I guess yelling “oooh shiiiitcoooooin” is the easier answer, instead of making something that works fine. And by the way, if you want, you can fork that wallet and take a bitcoin-only version to market, however, the same people say “Oh, but that’s no my task”. (Yeah, we all know what your “task” is, gluing a sticker on a pole).

Another nice illustration is the kind of reaction you get if you “provoke the beast” by using the really usable, always working, always compatible, fast starting, lightning wallet “Wallet of Satoshi”. If you use that wallet at a bitcoin meetup, you’ll get clever remarks (from people that ar technically right, I mind saying) like: “You know… that’s custodial right?” (this came after I gave a presentation, and some smartass walked in when I ordered a beer from the honesty bar at the local meetup…) “Yeah I know man, but I’m scanning an LNurl here, so I just want it to work fine” (like I have to defend myself to them) “But you’re supporting these custodial thieves, they have already so much power man”, … said the dude that never even lifted a finger at the meetups to help anyone out or get things set up. “So… make something better.” I answered “Yeah, there’s like Zeus and stuff” “Uhuh, I tried it… I never got it to work properly. I just use this WoS today”

They usually get mad. Because they want everyone to follow their lead, and that lead is always the way of most resistance and acting like a normal user-repellent. I know we’re all rat-poison in bitcoin, but not take it too far please.

Other discussions like this always evolve into the “you’re dumb” argument (I like to provoke these types at meetups by scanning a qr and getting a payment through, while they’re fiddling with their whatever it is that runs on a node they need to reboot every few hours or so). calling out the ones who act like they know it all, but don’t have a solid grasp on the fundamentals themselves. We all make mistakes, and that’s where the real growth happens.

The other answer you can give is: “Hey why are you sending me a WhatsApp message man? Why don’t you use a Free BDS and a GNUPGP encrypted message brought to me on a micro-sd card through a sneaker net currier?” And they would be like “eh now, I just send you a WhatsApp message” “Oh you know these are all collecting your meta data right?”…

The double standard among bitcoiners these days regarding usability is incredible.

I know there’s plenty of software trying to be both non-custodial and user-friendly—don’t remind me. My point is: in the Bitcoin world, usability is often treated like a dirty word, something suspicious or even dangerous. But it’s the opposite—we're the hope, and usability is our fire starter, the spark that lights the fuse for real adoption. Without it, we’ll just be another niche tool used by a few, and not the global movement we could be.

Nod to the Node So, I can finally say it like I think it is: 90% of bitcoin software sucks donkey balls when it comes to usability, UX and UI.

A few things I want to mention in that regard, because things move too fast to write it all down in a book to keep up with.

Some examples of bad UX and/or rotten software experiences:

In Sparrow 2.0, commonly praised as as a “good” wallet, lacks of good interface. Try to create a multisig wallet there, and you’ll soon be met with a persistent bug that frustrates users when signing a transaction. The software prompts for a hardware wallet for example, even when a software wallet's seed is loaded, creating a confusing and poorly designed user interface experience. And yes, for bitcoin this is considered a good wallet, as the others are even worse (Nunchuk and Electrum don’t do much better).

Or Blue Wallet, which finally in 2025 fixed a few UI bugs and annoyances, but otherwise has a few really rotten design choices which makes using it not intuitive enough. Users don’t get much further on some aspects without looking anything up in youtube tutorials. And only bitcoiners do that anyway. Users just stop opening the app after a while.

Try to create a multi-sig wallet for example in Blue wallet, then take a random part away from the setup and try to use it with the leftover parts. It works. But you’ll be really pressed to get it done within 40 minutes. (Unless that’s your job and you demo it every so often in a studio).

Bitcoin Core, is also a prime example of bitcoin software, that has a command line interface repelling users like it’s a steaming turd on the street. It has a (let’s say) “spartan” way of working. And yes, I know this piece of software is not meant to be the next Instagram-like user interface for everyday use by the masses, but it’s a far cry from being usable in the really real world. Getting anything done inside that software is a constant battle against clunky commands, and their cryptic error messages. Even getting a private key out for one of your addresses of your own wallet, is hell. bitcoin core’s infamous command line at work

Also puzzling to me is the “success” of Bitcoin Core’s wallet. It’s command line “help” is enough to frustrate even the most willing of new users.

For example (and there are a dozen things like this) , try to get a command like “dumppriv” key (to see the private key from a wallet address) working.

And some more:

Jade wallet’s inability to store BIP39 compatible seed phrases (at the time of testing, beginning of 2024), when the seed contained a double word. Don’t know if they ever fixed it, as I couldn’t get into my Jade wallet v1 anymore after the pin code entry screen froze and was not even coming back after a factory reset.

We have Phoenix (where finding the right URL for downloading it, is already a first hurdle to take by the way:) try to tell the URL by heart to another person, without searching online… I’ll wait.

And Strike app, alongside the much despised Wallet of Satoshi (in my opinion the only people in bitcoin together with the creators of the Minibits.cash creators) that get the importance of a simple to use interface and a good well-thought out inner working.

And when I took a shot at the new Trezor Safe 5 wallet I got some critique because I “tested it like an end user” (yeah, it was my fault… I made the exact same mistakes than the end user that had this wallet and asked me for help, after 30 min. of trying, we figured out that the words were in fact not seed words but some verification method that also created a 20 words SLIP39 seed by default… and we fat fingered the stupid interface design a few times, on which the whole thing had to be restarted after a reset to defaults… Try to explain that to a new user that just wanted to have a wallet and had about 1 hour time…

But I guess people demonstrating such things in a studio don’t mind that. It’s just “what do you sell?” now. If the hardware with the unknown supply chain attack vectors sells well, then everyone is happy… the manufacturer, the marketing team, the podcasts that get sponsorship and the events that can have a budget; the user is really at the very back-end last in line… usually queuing up for coffee with the rest of the liquidity-cows.

Also it had accompanying software that kept hanging though some updating loops, it has a clumsy swipe/touch (and sometimes) hold, then swipe again-interface that no one I tested it with, could get through when creating a new wallet. But of course, it’s always the dumb users’ fault I guess.

The Zeus wallet that claims to be super user friendly and cool, is also something… weird. Where you can’t really set it up, without some very technical guidance. To their advantage: the very first thing you read on their website is “To start using ZEUS you will need to be running your own Bitcoin lightning node.” (they at least mention it, that’s progress) But… there it ends for most users of course. Babysitting a Lightning node is absolutely not something you want to entrust a new user with. Not in order to get a wallet up and running at least :)

Then you get the Linuxsplaining : “Then you’re not the intended user”.

NWC (nostr wallet connect) is some very promising tool, and it has features and way of working I like in theory. But I’ve yet have to see the first smooth implementation that can be understood by normal non-tech people (even the wording of the text fields it completely unclear).

A small example of making your software unusable? Well… do like NWC does and indicate that the user needs to “connect” through this service with : “nostr+walletconnect://”

So when I asked some people what I needed to fill in there, and how I would get these values… they said “it’s a string”. which tells me nothing. And so, the user left

Tip: add real user guidance. When you connect to a service, at least point to WHERE people get explained how to create such a wallet string, or where to get it, from which website or service.

It’s the same as telling someone “hey you have to call a number to reach our catering service” ”Ok, your website says “phone us“ ”yeah, its a number man.. a phone number” ”Ok; but where do I get which phone number I need to call” ”It’s like… a number man, duh you’re so dumb”

So, if there’s no user guidance, the user will leave. After searching for a few minutes I just gave up.

Nostr is also starting to feel like that usability-averse stance is getting traction, although there are promising signs, as they need new users to thrive and seem to realize that all too well. But still… it has it’s moments of user-repelling snags. Nostr relay lists don’t allow you to copy relay addresses, making it a hassle to set up on mobile. No one seems to realize that users want to simply copy these values rather than struggle to recall if it’s “ssw,” “wss,” or “wws://” and type them out manually. And make mistakes eventually.

puzzling for people who don’t have Alby and want to get such code Arrays are not human Then there’s the BIP39 seed system (12 or 24 words representing a key derived via a KDF and mapped through a lookup table). Mathematically, this wordlist is an array—and arrays start at 0. So, word 0 = "abandon". But most humans naturally count from 1, making "abandon" word 1 in their eyes. Both are valid depending on perspective: 0 is technically correct, 1 is intuitive. There’s no clear winner—both versions float around in Bitcoinland. Same mess with compressed vs. uncompressed keys (don’t get me started). So, when I made bip39tool.com I gave users the option: go full math mode with 0 = abandon, or go human mode and start with 1 (the default). Even hardware makers don’t agree. Blockplate starts at 1 = abandon (source), While the widely used master BIP39 list has no number attached (just a raw list), but appears to be starting at 1 because of Githubs’s line numbering (source) while some others use 0 = abandon

As one user (Codebender) excellently put it: ”Array is an offset, not a cardinal number. The first entry is zero away from the beginning of the array, the second entry is one away.”

Sink through the ceiling

Most tools today cater purely to Bitcoiners, built with a 'Bitcoin' mindset that expects non-Bitcoin users to adapt instead of being taken along for the ride.

That works as we’ve seen, but hits an “orange colored glass ceiling” at some point. You can build the next “Lotus notes” and be really happy about Lotus notes enthusiasts and the consultants that got hired to implement and migrate that office note system, and it’s e-mail software at a hefty fee. But you’re still in your own niche bubble, thinking your software owns the world and you can be bothered to look further than your own audience.

The same way people that were into Lotus Notes were very keen on a big player like IBM acquiring the software and brand to build on it some more.

And of course,… Bitcoin is bitcoin, there can’t be a second best, there can’t be a replacement that comes in and swoops up the market share or replaces the functions like Lotus Notes was replaced by Google workspace, Microsoft Exchange or Slack.

I don’t want to make the point that bitcoin will be replaced by a new player (I’m not a shitcoiner). I do however, want to make the point that we’ve become collectively lazy, complacent about usability, to the point that we’re actually the Google, Microsoft and so on… but with the interface of our own underlying “Lotus Notes” or PGP .

If We Don’t Fix UX, Bitcoin Becomes the next PGP

To understand how bad it is, we again need to take a small look at the past. To better understand the now, and to avoid some future mistakes.

Let’s quickly recall some examples from the '90s, like Microsoft’s Clippy, Bob, Vista, and Netscape Navigator 4—failures driven by poor usability, feature creep, or mishaps that eroded trust. Lotus Notes serves as a warning: even widely used platforms can lose their edge if usability and modernization are neglected, leaving room for competitors. Bitcoin doesn’t face competition in the traditional sense, but it does face something worse: the erosion of usability and trust, which threatens the very foundation of hard money we rely on. It’s our only shot at hard money we’re ever going to have. It’s do-or-die.

And that’s our Achilles heel: we stand or die with that trust.

For now, Bitcoin’s trust comes from its decentralized, secure network and its value propositions. But usability has been sidelined for years, largely due to a lack of serious testing. Some companies recently hired 14 new team members: - 4 Software Engineers - 3 R&D Engineers - 2 Data Scientists - 1 Machine Learning Engineer - 1 Talent Acquisition Specialist - 1 Global Controller, 2 Marketeers… No testers.

I’m serious about this: when the broader bitcoin space (from Bitcoin Core to the newest coolest and latest Nostr plugin) don’t take testing more serious, then we’ll end up just being the creators of the software equivalent of a “Bonzi Buddy” or the next “Lotus Notes”.

Because we’ll be catering to the same people that liked the system 10+ years ago, and have no clue why new users don’t flock to it anymore. Then our core value we’re so proud of right now, will be nothing more than a laughing stock because it stands only through trust.

If we don’t take this seriously, Bitcoin’s core value will fade, and we’ll lose trust—not to altcoins, but to our own neglect.

Fiat parasites and our own complacency is our real “competitor”.

When we lose this battle for usability and relevancy, then the math, code and the core of bitcoin would still go on to exist, with more and more users being locked out because the complexity rises. While others would reluctantly try to make efforts to get in. This will impact how you interact with and maintain nodes, as well as manage lightning channels and participate in the P2P economy of the Bitcoin standard. We would become a small island that “gets it”. A curiosum. We’de be the Moloka‘i1 of decentralization. (Make your own ‘Father Damien’ joke here if you like).

You can’t see me

This is happening right now.

The real usability repels new users, with only a few exceptions holding the fort.

It doesn’t bother the store-of-value and pump-my-bags crowd—they're not using Bitcoin anyway and don’t care either way, as long as they make their fiat gains in a quarterly report or at the end of a year. When you onboard a business and teach them self custody, they’re usually set... then forget. You encounter the real issues along the way. There’s little real use, as average people still need a "specialist" to hold their hand.

After a while, Bitcoiners who explain things end up like Lotus Notes consultants, trying to make a buck on a system no one else understands or really cares about.

Usability in the Bitcoin ecosystem is stagnating. The so-called "studio usability" presented by Bitcoin influencers with nice podcasts, who demo new stuff and ignore flaws to stay “positive,” is part of the problem. It's the same with the flood of metal plate seed bearers (as an example) We have about 25 products that aren’t as innovative as they’re made out to be. And it’s all fan-tas-tic and cool on every review. Unless you really test it. (luckily some actually do that)

The real issue is that nobody dares saying: “This hardware wallet sucks” or “This product is too buggy to trust.”

On the flip side of that coin we’ve got the LinuxSplaining crowd—treating lack of usability like a virtue. For them, being one of the ten people on a metaphorical Bitcoin leper colony who can navigate some convoluted tool is a badge of honor. They’ll call it a success even if the other eight billion people can’t—or won’t—bother opening the app, dismissing those users as simply too clueless to matter.

These folks would happily sit beside the 30th Satoshi Nakamoto statue, ignoring the peanuts tossed at their face by passersby. Some will reach 60, sporting stained Star Wars t-shirts, proud to be the only ones who still understand Bitcoin. To them, that’s success — because Bitcoin was always meant to be their obscure triumph and it’s becoming a way of life for them to be that weird uncle that’s into computers and stuff like “crypto”. ’No man, it’s bitcoin, not cryptooh!’

I want bitcoin to open the door to freedom and abundance of ideas and real-life solutions, and not becoming a barbed wire fence around a lepper colony. Even in that grim outpost, you’d still find two Bitcoiners barricaded in their hut without AC, boycotting the òther eight because one tweaked their node settings the wrong way.

Let’s build tools and bridges towards bitcoin, as a "usable bitcoin” (because that’s bitcoin too!) Build tools that invite everyone to the table, not just the converted, the Linuxsplainers and know-it-alls.

Only then will we move onwards, to a thriving, open ecosystem where you’re not feeling like a Lotus Notes consultant that ran away from 1994, but a bitcoiner who’s part of positive changes in the world. ”Fix your bugs, before you try to fix the world.”

by AVB

Support my work here : coinos / avb

@ 2e8970de:63345c7a

Beijing has stopped publishing hundreds of statistics, making it harder to know what’s going on in the country

Data stops. Data stops. Data stops.

https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-economy-data-missing-096cac9a?st=j7V11b&reflink=article_copyURL_share

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973942

@ 0e29efc2:ff142af2

Table of Contents

1. Intro
2. Important Terminology
3. Getting Started
4. Where do I buy bitcoin?
5. Okay, I bought some bitcoin-now what?
6. Less than 0.01 BTC
7. More than 0.01 BTC and less than 0.1 BTC
8. More than 0.1 BTC
9. How Bitcoin Works
10. Skepticism
11. Someone will hack it
12. The government will try to stop it
13. It’s not backed by anything
14. Conclusion

Intro

Maybe you saw an article in Forbes, a news segment about MicroStrategy (MSTR), or you glanced at the bitcoin price chart; whatever the spark, your curiosity led you here. Enough friends and relatives keep asking me about bitcoin that I finally organized my thoughts into a single reference. This is not a comprehensive guide—it assumes you trust me as a heuristic.

Important Terminology

Sat (satoshi) – the smallest unit of bitcoin. One bitcoin (₿) equals 100 000 000 sats.

Getting Started

Where do I buy bitcoin?

I use River because it publishes proof‑of‑reserves, supports the Lightning Network, and pays interest on idle USD balances (currently 3.8 %).

Okay, I bought some bitcoin-now what?

Withdraw it immediately. Centralized exchanges can and do fail. Your next step depends on how much bitcoin you hold.

If at any point you're struggling, please reach out to me.

Less than 0.01 BTC

1. On your phone open Safari (iOS) or Chrome (Android).
2. Paste https://wallet.cashu.me?mint=https://mint.westernbtc.com. Confirm the prompt that asks whether you trust https://mint.westernbtc.com. I run this mint so beginners can skip the gnarly parts.
3. Complete setup.
4. Tap Receive → LIGHTNING → enter amount → COPY.
5. In River choose Send → Send to a Bitcoin wallet, paste the invoice, verify, and send.
6. Return to the wallet; your sats should appear.

More than 0.01 BTC and less than 0.1 BTC

It's time for cold storage. Cold storage means a dedicated signing device not connected to the internet. Think of it like keys to a house. If you have the keys (your cold storage signing device), you can get into your house (the bitcoin). I recommend and use the COLDCARD Q or COLDCARD MK4 from COLDCARD. See this thorough walkthrough.

The creator nostr:npub1rxysxnjkhrmqd3ey73dp9n5y5yvyzcs64acc9g0k2epcpwwyya4spvhnp8 makes reliable content.

More than 0.1 BTC

The next security upgrade involves something called multisig. It requires the use of multiple devices instead of one. Think of those nuclear launch silos in movies where two keys need to be turned in order to launch the missile. One person can't reach both keys, so you need two people. Like the two keys needing to be turned, we need a certain number of keys (signing devices) to be used.

This offers a number of benefits. Say you have a 2-of-3 multisig setup. You would need two of the three keys to move the bitcoin. If you were to lose one, you could use the two others to move it instead. Many choose to geographically distribute the keys; choosing to keep one at a friend’s house or with a bank.

The previous video I linked covers multisig as well. Again, please reach out to me if you need help.

How Bitcoin Works

I'm going to paint a scene portraying the basics of how bitcoin works. Picture a race that's supposed to take 10 minutes to run start-to-finish, and there's a crowd of people spectating. When the fastest runner crosses the finish line, they're awarded 50 bitcoin. Everyone in the crowd recognizes who won, and writes it down on their own scoreboard. Then, the next race begins.

Now, let's say more racers who've had special training join. They start winning consistently because of it, and now the race only lasts about 9 minutes. There's a special rule everyone in the crowd agreed to, that they can make the race harder to ensure it's around 10 minutes long. So they make the race harder to counteract the faster runners.

With this in mind, let's get to the skepticism you might have.

Skepticism

Someone will hack it

Think of bitcoin as the people in the crowd. If someone tries to cheat and writes on their scoreboard that they have a billion bitcoin, their scoreboard is going to look different than everybody else’s. The other people in the crowd will cross-reference with each other and decide to ignore that person who cheated.

The government will try to stop it

Again, think of the crowd. In reality, the "crowd participants" are scattered all around the world. You might be able to stop many of them, but it would be almost impossible to stop everyone. Imagine people are watching the race on TV, can you find everyone who's spectating? Ironically, attempted bans often increase interest.

It’s not backed by anything.

Think of the runners. The runners are bitcoin miners. They have to expend real energy to participate in the race. The more bitcoin miners, the more secure the network. In summary, it's backed by electricity and work.

Conclusion

There are too many topics to cover in one article. I haven't even touched on the history of money, what money is, scarcity, etc. The best way to learn is to research the topics you're interested in for yourself. It took months of deep diving before I was sold on bitcoin, and I had many touch points before that.

Once you see it though, you can't unsee it.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Die Ungerechtigkeit ist uns nur in dem Falle angenehm,\ dass wir Vorteile aus ihr ziehen;\ in jedem andern hegt man den Wunsch,\ dass der Unschuldige in Schutz genommen werde.\ Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Politiker beteuern jederzeit, nur das Beste für die Bevölkerung zu wollen – nicht von ihr. Auch die zahlreichen unsäglichen «Corona-Maßnahmen» waren angeblich zu unserem Schutz notwendig, vor allem wegen der «besonders vulnerablen Personen». Daher mussten alle möglichen Restriktionen zwangsweise und unter Umgehung der Parlamente verordnet werden.

Inzwischen hat sich immer deutlicher herausgestellt, dass viele jener «Schutzmaßnahmen» den gegenteiligen Effekt hatten, sie haben den Menschen und den Gesellschaften enorm geschadet. Nicht nur haben die experimentellen Geninjektionen – wie erwartet – massive Nebenwirkungen, sondern Maskentragen schadet der Psyche und der Entwicklung (nicht nur unserer Kinder) und «Lockdowns und Zensur haben Menschen getötet».

Eine der wichtigsten Waffen unserer «Beschützer» ist die Spaltung der Gesellschaft. Die tiefen Gräben, die Politiker, Lobbyisten und Leitmedien praktisch weltweit ausgehoben haben, funktionieren leider nahezu in Perfektion. Von ihren persönlichen Erfahrungen als Kritikerin der Maßnahmen berichtete kürzlich eine Schweizerin im Interview mit Transition News. Sie sei schwer enttäuscht und verspüre bis heute eine Hemmschwelle und ein seltsames Unwohlsein im Umgang mit «Geimpften».

Menschen, die aufrichtig andere schützen wollten, werden von einer eindeutig politischen Justiz verfolgt, verhaftet und angeklagt. Dazu zählen viele Ärzte, darunter Heinrich Habig, Bianca Witzschel und Walter Weber. Über den aktuell laufenden Prozess gegen Dr. Weber hat Transition News mehrfach berichtet (z.B. hier und hier). Auch der Selbstschutz durch Verweigerung der Zwangs-Covid-«Impfung» bewahrt nicht vor dem Knast, wie Bundeswehrsoldaten wie Alexander Bittner erfahren mussten.

Die eigentlich Kriminellen schützen sich derweil erfolgreich selber, nämlich vor der Verantwortung. Die «Impf»-Kampagne war «das größte Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit». Trotzdem stellt man sich in den USA gerade die Frage, ob der scheidende Präsident Joe Biden nach seinem Sohn Hunter möglicherweise auch Anthony Fauci begnadigen wird – in diesem Fall sogar präventiv. Gibt es überhaupt noch einen Rest Glaubwürdigkeit, den Biden verspielen könnte?

Der Gedanke, den ehemaligen wissenschaftlichen Chefberater des US-Präsidenten und Direktor des National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) vorsorglich mit einem Schutzschild zu versehen, dürfte mit der vergangenen Präsidentschaftswahl zu tun haben. Gleich mehrere Personalentscheidungen des designierten Präsidenten Donald Trump lassen Leute wie Fauci erneut in den Fokus rücken.

Das Buch «The Real Anthony Fauci» des nominierten US-Gesundheitsministers Robert F. Kennedy Jr. erschien 2021 und dreht sich um die Machenschaften der Pharma-Lobby in der öffentlichen Gesundheit. Das Vorwort zur rumänischen Ausgabe des Buches schrieb übrigens Călin Georgescu, der Überraschungssieger der ersten Wahlrunde der aktuellen Präsidentschaftswahlen in Rumänien. Vielleicht erklärt diese Verbindung einen Teil der Panik im Wertewesten.

In Rumänien selber gab es gerade einen Paukenschlag: Das bisherige Ergebnis wurde heute durch das Verfassungsgericht annuliert und die für Sonntag angesetzte Stichwahl kurzfristig abgesagt – wegen angeblicher «aggressiver russischer Einmischung». Thomas Oysmüller merkt dazu an, damit sei jetzt in der EU das Tabu gebrochen, Wahlen zu verbieten, bevor sie etwas ändern können.

Unsere Empörung angesichts der Historie von Maßnahmen, die die Falschen beschützen und für die meisten von Nachteil sind, müsste enorm sein. Die Frage ist, was wir damit machen. Wir sollten nach vorne schauen und unsere Energie clever einsetzen. Abgesehen von der Umgehung von jeglichem «Schutz vor Desinformation und Hassrede» (sprich: Zensur) wird es unsere wichtigste Aufgabe sein, Gräben zu überwinden.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 6871d8df:4a9396c1

In an era where data seems to be as valuable as currency, the prevailing trend in AI starkly contrasts with the concept of personal data ownership. The explosion of AI and the ensuing race have made it easy to overlook where the data is coming from. The current model, dominated by big tech players, involves collecting vast amounts of user data and selling it to AI companies for training LLMs. Reddit recently penned a 60 million dollar deal, Google guards and mines Youtube, and more are going this direction. But is that their data to sell? Yes, it's on their platforms, but without the users to generate it, what would they monetize? To me, this practice raises significant ethical questions, as it assumes that user data is a commodity that companies can exploit at will.

The heart of the issue lies in the ownership of data. Why, in today's digital age, do we not retain ownership of our data? Why can't our data follow us, under our control, to wherever we want to go? These questions echo the broader sentiment that while some in the tech industry — such as the blockchain-first crypto bros — recognize the importance of data ownership, their "blockchain for everything solutions," to me, fall significantly short in execution.

Reddit further complicates this with its current move to IPO, which, on the heels of the large data deal, might reinforce the mistaken belief that user-generated data is a corporate asset. Others, no doubt, will follow suit. This underscores the urgent need for a paradigm shift towards recognizing and respecting user data as personal property.

In my perfect world, the digital landscape would undergo a revolutionary transformation centered around the empowerment and sovereignty of individual data ownership. Platforms like Twitter, Reddit, Yelp, YouTube, and Stack Overflow, integral to our digital lives, would operate on a fundamentally different premise: user-owned data.

In this envisioned future, data ownership would not just be a concept but a practice, with public and private keys ensuring the authenticity and privacy of individual identities. This model would eliminate the private data silos that currently dominate, where companies profit from selling user data without consent. Instead, data would traverse a decentralized protocol akin to the internet, prioritizing user control and transparency.

The cornerstone of this world would be a meritocratic digital ecosystem. Success for companies would hinge on their ability to leverage user-owned data to deliver unparalleled value rather than their capacity to gatekeep and monetize information. If a company breaks my trust, I can move to a competitor, and my data, connections, and followers will come with me. This shift would herald an era where consent, privacy, and utility define the digital experience, ensuring that the benefits of technology are equitably distributed and aligned with the users' interests and rights.

The conversation needs to shift fundamentally. We must challenge this trajectory and advocate for a future where data ownership and privacy are not just ideals but realities. If we continue on our current path without prioritizing individual data rights, the future of digital privacy and autonomy is bleak. Big tech's dominance allows them to treat user data as a commodity, potentially selling and exploiting it without consent. This imbalance has already led to users being cut off from their digital identities and connections when platforms terminate accounts, underscoring the need for a digital ecosystem that empowers user control over data. Without changing direction, we risk a future where our content — and our freedoms by consequence — are controlled by a few powerful entities, threatening our rights and the democratic essence of the digital realm. We must advocate for a shift towards data ownership by individuals to preserve our digital freedoms and democracy.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Konsum ist Therapie.
Wolfgang Joop

Umweltbewusstes Verhalten und verantwortungsvoller Konsum zeugen durchaus von einer wünschenswerten Einstellung. Ob man deswegen allerdings einen grünen statt eines schwarzen Freitags braucht, darf getrost bezweifelt werden – zumal es sich um manipulatorische Konzepte handelt. Wie in der politischen Landschaft sind auch hier die Etiketten irgendwas zwischen nichtssagend und trügerisch.

Heute ist also wieder mal «Black Friday», falls Sie es noch nicht mitbekommen haben sollten. Eigentlich haben wir ja eher schon eine ganze «Black Week», der dann oft auch noch ein «Cyber Monday» folgt. Die Werbebranche wird nicht müde, immer neue Anlässe zu erfinden oder zu importieren, um uns zum Konsumieren zu bewegen. Und sie ist damit sehr erfolgreich.

Warum fallen wir auf derartige Werbetricks herein und kaufen im Zweifelsfall Dinge oder Mengen, die wir sicher nicht brauchen? Pure Psychologie, würde ich sagen. Rabattschilder triggern etwas in uns, was den Verstand in Stand-by versetzt. Zusätzlich beeinflussen uns alle möglichen emotionalen Reize und animieren uns zum Schnäppchenkauf.

Gedankenlosigkeit und Maßlosigkeit können besonders bei der Ernährung zu ernsten Problemen führen. Erst kürzlich hat mir ein Bekannter nach einer USA-Reise erzählt, dass es dort offenbar nicht unüblich ist, schon zum ausgiebigen Frühstück in einem Restaurant wenigstens einen Liter Cola zu trinken. Gerne auch mehr, um das Gratis-Nachfüllen des Bechers auszunutzen.

Kritik am schwarzen Freitag und dem unnötigen Konsum kommt oft von Umweltschützern. Neben Ressourcenverschwendung, hohem Energieverbrauch und wachsenden Müllbergen durch eine zunehmende Wegwerfmentalität kommt dabei in der Regel auch die «Klimakrise» auf den Tisch.

Die EU-Kommission lancierte 2015 den Begriff «Green Friday» im Kontext der überarbeiteten Rechtsvorschriften zur Kennzeichnung der Energieeffizienz von Elektrogeräten. Sie nutzte die Gelegenheit kurz vor dem damaligen schwarzen Freitag und vor der UN-Klimakonferenz COP21, bei der das Pariser Abkommen unterzeichnet werden sollte.

Heute wird ein grüner Freitag oft im Zusammenhang mit der Forderung nach «nachhaltigem Konsum» benutzt. Derweil ist die Europäische Union schon weit in ihr Geschäftsmodell des «Green New Deal» verstrickt. In ihrer Propaganda zum Klimawandel verspricht sie tatsächlich «Unterstützung der Menschen und Regionen, die von immer häufigeren Extremwetter-Ereignissen betroffen sind». Was wohl die Menschen in der Region um Valencia dazu sagen?

Ganz im Sinne des Great Reset propagierten die Vereinten Nationen seit Ende 2020 eine «grüne Erholung von Covid-19, um den Klimawandel zu verlangsamen». Der UN-Umweltbericht sah in dem Jahr einen Schwerpunkt auf dem Verbraucherverhalten. Änderungen des Konsumverhaltens des Einzelnen könnten dazu beitragen, den Klimaschutz zu stärken, hieß es dort.

Der Begriff «Schwarzer Freitag» wurde in den USA nicht erstmals für Einkäufe nach Thanksgiving verwendet – wie oft angenommen –, sondern für eine Finanzkrise. Jedoch nicht für den Börsencrash von 1929, sondern bereits für den Zusammenbruch des US-Goldmarktes im September 1869. Seitdem mussten die Menschen weltweit so einige schwarze Tage erleben.

Kürzlich sind die britischen Aufsichtsbehörden weiter von ihrer Zurückhaltung nach dem letzten großen Finanzcrash von 2008 abgerückt. Sie haben Regeln für den Bankensektor gelockert, womit sie «verantwortungsvolle Risikobereitschaft» unterstützen wollen. Man würde sicher zu schwarz sehen, wenn man hier ein grünes Wunder befürchten würde.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 8ce092d8:950c24ad

Overview

1. Introduction
2. Model Types
3. Training (Data Collection and Config Settings)
4. Probability Viewing: AI Inspector
5. Match
6. Cheat Sheet

I. Introduction

AI Arena is the first game that combines human and artificial intelligence collaboration.

AI learns your skills through "imitation learning."

Official Resources

1. Official Documentation (Must Read): Everything You Need to Know About AI Arena

Watch the 2-minute video in the documentation to quickly understand the basic flow of the game. 2. Official Play-2-Airdrop competition FAQ Site https://aiarena.notion.site/aiarena/Gateway-to-the-Arena-52145e990925499d95f2fadb18a24ab0 3. Official Discord (Must Join): https://discord.gg/aiarenaplaytest for the latest announcements or seeking help. The team will also have a exclusive channel there. 4. Official YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@aiarena because the game has built-in tutorials, you can choose to watch videos.

What is this game about?

1. Although categorized as a platform fighting game, the core is a probability-based strategy game.
2. Warriors take actions based on probabilities on the AI Inspector dashboard, competing against opponents.
3. The game does not allow direct manual input of probabilities for each area but inputs information through data collection and establishes models by adjusting parameters.
4. Data collection emulates fighting games, but training can be completed using a Dummy As long as you can complete the in-game tutorial, you can master the game controls.

II. Model Types

Before training, there are three model types to choose from: Simple Model Type, Original Model Type, and Advanced Model Type.

It is recommended to try the Advanced Model Type after completing at least one complete training with the Simple Model Type and gaining some understanding of the game.

Simple Model Type

The Simple Model is akin to completing a form, and the training session is comparable to filling various sections of that form.

This model has 30 buckets. Each bucket can be seen as telling the warrior what action to take in a specific situation. There are 30 buckets, meaning 30 different scenarios. Within the same bucket, the probabilities for direction or action are the same.

For example: What should I do when I'm off-stage — refer to the "Recovery (you off-stage)" bucket.

For all buckets, refer to this official documentation:

https://docs.aiarena.io/arenadex/game-mechanics/tabular-model-v2

Video (no sound): The entire training process for all buckets

https://youtu.be/1rfRa3WjWEA

Game version 2024.1.10. The method of saving is outdated. Please refer to the game updates.

Advanced Model Type

The "Original Model Type" and "Advanced Model Type" are based on Machine Learning, which is commonly referred to as combining with AI.

The Original Model Type consists of only one bucket, representing the entire map. If you want the AI to learn different scenarios, you need to choose a "Focus Area" to let the warrior know where to focus. A single bucket means that a slight modification can have a widespread impact on the entire model. This is where the "Advanced Model Type" comes in.

The "Advanced Model Type" can be seen as a combination of the "Original Model Type" and the "Simple Model Type". The Advanced Model Type divides the map into 8 buckets. Each bucket can use many "Focus Area." For a detailed explanation of the 8 buckets and different Focus Areas, please refer to the tutorial page (accessible in the Advanced Model Type, after completing a training session, at the top left of the Advanced Config, click on "Tutorial").

III. Training (Data Collection and Config Settings)

Training Process:

1. Collect Data
2. Set Parameters, Train, and Save
3. Repeat Step 1 until the Model is Complete

Training the Simple Model Type is the easiest to start with; refer to the video above for a detailed process.

Training the Advanced Model Type offers more possibilities through the combination of "Focus Area" parameters, providing a higher upper limit. While the Original Model Type has great potential, it's harder to control. Therefore, this section focuses on the "Advanced Model Type."

1. What Kind of Data to Collect

1. High-Quality Data: Collect purposeful data. Garbage in, garbage out. Only collect the necessary data; don't collect randomly. It's recommended to use Dummy to collect data. However, don't pursue perfection; through parameter adjustments, AI has a certain level of fault tolerance.
2. Balanced Data: Balance your dataset. In simple terms, if you complete actions on the left side a certain number of times, also complete a similar number on the right side. While data imbalance can be addressed through parameter adjustments (see below), it's advised not to have this issue during data collection.
3. Moderate Amount: A single training will include many individual actions. Collect data for each action 1-10 times. Personally, it's recommended to collect data 2-3 times for a single action. If the effect of a single training is not clear, conduct a second (or even third) training with the same content, but with different parameter settings.

2. What to Collect (and Focus Area Selection)

Game actions mimic fighting games, consisting of 4 directions + 6 states (Idle, Jump, Attack, Grab, Special, Shield). Directions can be combined into ↗, ↘, etc. These directions and states can then be combined into different actions.

To make "Focus Area" effective, you need to collect data in training that matches these parameters. For example, for "Distance to Opponent", you need to collect data when close to the opponent and also when far away. * Note: While you can split into multiple training sessions, it's most effective to cover different situations within a single training.

Refer to the Simple Config, categorize the actions you want to collect, and based on the game scenario, classify them into two categories: "Movement" and "Combat."

Movement-Based Actions

Action Collection

When the warrior is offstage, regardless of where the opponent is, we require the warrior to return to the stage to prevent self-destruction.

This involves 3 aerial buckets: 5 (Near Blast Zone), 7 (Under Stage), and 8 (Side Of Stage).

* Note: The background comes from the Tutorial mentioned earlier. The arrows in the image indicate the direction of the action and are for reference only. * Note: Action collection should be clean; do not collect actions that involve leaving the stage.

Config Settings

In the Simple Config, you can directly choose "Movement" in it. However, for better customization, it's recommended to use the Advanced Config directly. - Intensity: The method for setting Intensity will be introduced separately later. - Buckets: As shown in the image, choose the bucket you are training. - Focus Area: Position-based parameters: - Your position (must) - Raycast Platform Distance, Raycast Platform Type (optional, generally choose these in Bucket 7)

Combat-Based Actions

The goal is to direct attacks quickly and effectively towards the opponent, which is the core of game strategy.

This involves 5 buckets: - 2 regular situations - In the air: 6 (Safe Zone) - On the ground: 4 (Opponent Active) - 3 special situations on the ground: - 1 Projectile Active - 2 Opponent Knockback - 3 Opponent Stunned

2 Regular Situations

In the in-game tutorial, we learned how to perform horizontal attacks. However, in the actual game, directions expand to 8 dimensions. Imagine having 8 relative positions available for launching hits against the opponent. Our task is to design what action to use for attack or defense at each relative position.

Focus Area - Basic (generally select all) - Angle to opponent
- Distance to opponent - Discrete Distance: Choosing this option helps better differentiate between closer and farther distances from the opponent. As shown in the image, red indicates a relatively close distance, and green indicates a relatively distant distance.

• Advanced: Other commonly used parameters
• Direction: different facings to opponent
• Your Elemental Gauge and Discrete Elementals: Considering the special's charge
• Opponent action: The warrior will react based on the opponent's different actions.
• Your action: Your previous action. Choose this if teaching combos.

3 Special Situations on the Ground

Projectile Active, Opponent Stunned, Opponent Knockback These three buckets can be referenced in the Simple Model Type video. The parameter settings approach is the same as Opponent Active/Safe Zone.

For Projectile Active, in addition to the parameters based on combat, to track the projectile, you also need to select "Raycast Projectile Distance" and "Raycast Projectile On Target."

3. Setting "Intensity"

Resources

• The "Tutorial" mentioned earlier explains these parameters.
• Official Config Document (2022.12.24): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1adXwvDHEnrVZ5bUClWQoBQ8ETrSSKgG5q48YrogaFJs/edit

---

TL;DR:

Epochs: - Adjust to fewer epochs if learning is insufficient, increase for more learning.

Batch Size: - Set to the minimum (16) if data is precise but unbalanced, or just want it to learn fast - Increase (e.g., 64) if data is slightly imprecise but balanced. - If both imprecise and unbalanced, consider retraining.

Learning Rate: - Maximize (0.01) for more learning but a risk of forgetting past knowledge. - Minimize for more accurate learning with less impact on previous knowledge.

Lambda: - Reduce for prioritizing learning new things.

Data Cleaning: - Enable "Remove Sparsity" unless you want AI to learn idleness. - For special cases, like teaching the warrior to use special moves when idle, refer to this tutorial video: https://discord.com/channels/1140682688651612291/1140683283626201098/1195467295913431111

Personal Experience: - Initial training with settings: 125 epochs, batch size 16, learning rate 0.01, lambda 0, data cleaning enabled. - Prioritize Multistream, sometimes use Oversampling. - Fine-tune subsequent training based on the mentioned theories.

IV. Probability Viewing: AI Inspector

The dashboard consists of "Direction + Action." Above the dashboard, you can see the "Next Action" – the action the warrior will take in its current state. The higher the probability, the more likely the warrior is to perform that action, indicating a quicker reaction. It's essential to note that when checking the Direction, the one with the highest visual representation may not have the highest numerical value. To determine the actual value, hover the mouse over the graphical representation, as shown below, where the highest direction is "Idle."

In the map, you can drag the warrior to view the probabilities of the warrior in different positions. Right-click on the warrior with the mouse to change the warrior's facing. The status bar below can change the warrior's state on the map.

When training the "Opponent Stunned, Opponent Knockback" bucket, you need to select the status below the opponent's status bar. If you are focusing on "Opponent action" in the Focus Zone, choose the action in the opponent's status bar. If you are focusing on "Your action" in the Focus Zone, choose the action in your own status bar. When training the "Projectile Active" Bucket, drag the projectile on the right side of the dashboard to check the status.

Next

The higher the probability, the faster the reaction. However, be cautious when the action probability reaches 100%. This may cause the warrior to be in a special case of "State Transition," resulting in unnecessary "Idle" states.

Explanation: In each state a fighter is in, there are different "possible transitions". For example, from falling state you cannot do low sweep because low sweep requires you to be on the ground. For the shield state, we do not allow you to directly transition to headbutt. So to do headbutt you have to first exit to another state and then do it from there (assuming that state allows you to do headbutt). This is the reason the fighter runs because "run" action is a valid state transition from shield. Source

V. Learn from Matches

After completing all the training, your model is preliminarily finished—congratulations! The warrior will step onto the arena alone and embark on its debut!

Next, we will learn about the strengths and weaknesses of the warrior from battles to continue refining the warrior's model.

In matches, besides appreciating the performance, pay attention to the following:

1. Movement, i.e., Off the Stage: Observe how the warrior gets eliminated. Is it due to issues in the action settings at a certain position, or is it a normal death caused by a high percentage? The former is what we need to avoid and optimize.

2. Combat: Analyze both sides' actions carefully. Observe which actions you and the opponent used in different states. Check which of your hits are less effective, and how does the opponent handle different actions, etc.

The approach to battle analysis is similar to the thought process in the "Training", helping to have a more comprehensive understanding of the warrior's performance and making targeted improvements.

VI. Cheat Sheet

Training 1. Click "Collect" to collect actions. 2. "Map - Data Limit" is more user-friendly. Most players perform initial training on the "Arena" map. 3. Switch between the warrior and the dummy: Tab key (keyboard) / Home key (controller). 4. Use "Collect" to make the opponent loop a set of actions. 5. Instantly move the warrior to a specific location: Click "Settings" - SPAWN - Choose the desired location on the map - On. Press the Enter key (keyboard) / Start key (controller) during training.

Inspector 1. Right-click on the fighter to change their direction. Drag the fighter and observe the changes in different positions and directions. 2. When satisfied with the training, click "Save." 3. In "Sparring" and "Simulation," use "Current Working Model." 4. If satisfied with a model, then click "compete." The model used in the rankings is the one marked as "competing."

Sparring / Ranked 1. Use the Throneroom map only for the top 2 or top 10 rankings. 2. There is a 30-second cooldown between matches. The replays are played for any match. Once the battle begins, you can see the winner on the leaderboard or by right-clicking the page - Inspect - Console. Also, if you encounter any errors or bugs, please send screenshots of the console to the Discord server.

Good luck! See you on the arena!

@ 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

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Und plötzlich weißt du:
Es ist Zeit, etwas Neues zu beginnen
und dem Zauber des Anfangs zu vertrauen.
Meister Eckhart

Schwarz, rot, gold leuchtet es im Kopf des Newsletters der deutschen Bundesregierung, der mir freitags ins Postfach flattert. Rot, gelb und grün werden daneben sicher noch lange vielzitierte Farben sein, auch wenn diese nie geleuchtet haben. Die Ampel hat sich gerade selber den Stecker gezogen – und hinterlässt einen wirtschaftlichen und gesellschaftlichen Trümmerhaufen.

Mit einem bemerkenswerten Timing hat die deutsche Regierungskoalition am Tag des «Comebacks» von Donald Trump in den USA endlich ihr Scheitern besiegelt. Während der eine seinen Sieg bei den Präsidentschaftswahlen feierte, erwachten die anderen jäh aus ihrer Selbsthypnose rund um Harris-Hype und Trump-Panik – mit teils erschreckenden Auswüchsen. Seit Mittwoch werden die Geschicke Deutschlands nun von einer rot-grünen Minderheitsregierung «geleitet» und man steuert auf Neuwahlen zu.

Das Kindergarten-Gehabe um zwei konkurrierende Wirtschaftsgipfel letzte Woche war bereits bezeichnend. In einem Strategiepapier gestand Finanzminister Lindner außerdem den «Absturz Deutschlands» ein und offenbarte, dass die wirtschaftlichen Probleme teilweise von der Ampel-Politik «vorsätzlich herbeigeführt» worden seien.

Lindner und weitere FDP-Minister wurden also vom Bundeskanzler entlassen. Verkehrs- und Digitalminister Wissing trat flugs aus der FDP aus; deshalb darf er nicht nur im Amt bleiben, sondern hat zusätzlich noch das Justizministerium übernommen. Und mit Jörg Kukies habe Scholz «seinen Lieblingsbock zum Obergärtner», sprich: Finanzminister befördert, meint Norbert Häring.

Es gebe keine Vertrauensbasis für die weitere Zusammenarbeit mit der FDP, hatte der Kanzler erklärt, Lindner habe zu oft sein Vertrauen gebrochen. Am 15. Januar 2025 werde er daher im Bundestag die Vertrauensfrage stellen, was ggf. den Weg für vorgezogene Neuwahlen freimachen würde.

Apropos Vertrauen: Über die Hälfte der Bundesbürger glauben, dass sie ihre Meinung nicht frei sagen können. Das ging erst kürzlich aus dem diesjährigen «Freiheitsindex» hervor, einer Studie, die die Wechselwirkung zwischen Berichterstattung der Medien und subjektivem Freiheitsempfinden der Bürger misst. «Beim Vertrauen in Staat und Medien zerreißt es uns gerade», kommentierte dies der Leiter des Schweizer Unternehmens Media Tenor, das die Untersuchung zusammen mit dem Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach durchführt.

«Die absolute Mehrheit hat absolut die Nase voll», titelte die Bild angesichts des «Ampel-Showdowns». Die Mehrheit wolle Neuwahlen und die Grünen sollten zuerst gehen, lasen wir dort.

Dass «Insolvenzminister» Robert Habeck heute seine Kandidatur für das Kanzleramt verkündet hat, kann nur als Teil der politmedialen Realitätsverweigerung verstanden werden. Wer allerdings denke, schlimmer als in Zeiten der Ampel könne es nicht mehr werden, sei reichlich optimistisch, schrieb Uwe Froschauer bei Manova. Und er kenne Friedrich Merz schlecht, der sich schon jetzt rhetorisch auf seine Rolle als oberster Feldherr Deutschlands vorbereite.

Was also tun? Der Schweizer Verein «Losdemokratie» will eine Volksinitiative lancieren, um die Bestimmung von Parlamentsmitgliedern per Los einzuführen. Das Losverfahren sorge für mehr Demokratie, denn als Alternative zum Wahlverfahren garantiere es eine breitere Beteiligung und repräsentativere Parlamente. Ob das ein Weg ist, sei dahingestellt.

In jedem Fall wird es notwendig sein, unsere Bemühungen um Freiheit und Selbstbestimmung zu verstärken. Mehr Unabhängigkeit von staatlichen und zentralen Institutionen – also die Suche nach dezentralen Lösungsansätzen – gehört dabei sicher zu den Möglichkeiten. Das gilt sowohl für jede/n Einzelne/n als auch für Entitäten wie die alternativen Medien.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Es ist besser, ein Licht zu entzünden, als auf die Dunkelheit zu schimpfen. Konfuzius

Die Bemühungen um Aufarbeitung der sogenannten Corona-Pandemie, um Aufklärung der Hintergründe, Benennung von Verantwortlichkeiten und das Ziehen von Konsequenzen sind durchaus nicht eingeschlafen. Das Interesse daran ist unter den gegebenen Umständen vielleicht nicht sonderlich groß, aber es ist vorhanden.

Der sächsische Landtag hat gestern die Einsetzung eines Untersuchungsausschusses zur Corona-Politik beschlossen. In einer Sondersitzung erhielt ein entsprechender Antrag der AfD-Fraktion die ausreichende Zustimmung, auch von einigen Abgeordneten des BSW.

In den Niederlanden wird Bill Gates vor Gericht erscheinen müssen. Sieben durch die Covid-«Impfstoffe» geschädigte Personen hatten Klage eingereicht. Sie werfen unter anderem Gates, Pfizer-Chef Bourla und dem niederländischen Staat vor, sie hätten gewusst, dass diese Präparate weder sicher noch wirksam sind.

Mit den mRNA-«Impfstoffen» von Pfizer/BioNTech befasst sich auch ein neues Buch. Darin werden die Erkenntnisse von Ärzten und Wissenschaftlern aus der Analyse interner Dokumente über die klinischen Studien der Covid-Injektion präsentiert. Es handelt sich um jene in den USA freigeklagten Papiere, die die Arzneimittelbehörde (Food and Drug Administration, FDA) 75 Jahre unter Verschluss halten wollte.

Ebenfalls Wissenschaftler und Ärzte, aber auch andere Experten organisieren als Verbundnetzwerk Corona-Solution kostenfreie Online-Konferenzen. Ihr Ziel ist es, «wissenschaftlich, demokratisch und friedlich» über Impfstoffe und Behandlungsprotokolle gegen SARS-CoV-2 aufzuklären und die Diskriminierung von Ungeimpften zu stoppen. Gestern fand eine weitere Konferenz statt. Ihr Thema: «Corona und modRNA: Von Toten, Lebenden und Physik lernen».

Aufgrund des Digital Services Acts (DSA) der Europäischen Union sei das Risiko groß, dass ihre Arbeit als «Fake-News» bezeichnet würde, so das Netzwerk. Staatlich unerwünschte wissenschaftliche Aufklärung müsse sich passende Kanäle zur Veröffentlichung suchen. Ihre Live-Streams seien deshalb zum Beispiel nicht auf YouTube zu finden.

Der vielfältige Einsatz für Aufklärung und Aufarbeitung wird sich nicht stummschalten lassen. Nicht einmal der Zensurmeister der EU, Deutschland, wird so etwas erreichen. Die frisch aktivierten «Trusted Flagger» dürften allerdings künftige Siege beim «Denunzianten-Wettbewerb» im Kontext des DSA zusätzlich absichern.

Wo sind die Grenzen der Meinungsfreiheit? Sicher gibt es sie. Aber die ideologische Gleichstellung von illegalen mit unerwünschten Äußerungen verfolgt offensichtlich eher das Ziel, ein derart elementares demokratisches Grundrecht möglichst weitgehend auszuhebeln. Vorwürfe wie «Hassrede», «Delegitimierung des Staates» oder «Volksverhetzung» werden heute inflationär verwendet, um Systemkritik zu unterbinden. Gegen solche Bestrebungen gilt es, sich zu wehren.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ bbef5093:71228592

Az Európai Bizottság terve az orosz urán- és energiafüggőség felszámolására

Az Európai Bizottság bejelentette, hogy korlátozni kívánja az új urán-, dúsított urán- és egyéb, Oroszországból származó nukleáris anyagokra vonatkozó ellátási szerződéseket, ezzel is elősegítve, hogy az Európai Unió „teljesen megszüntesse” az orosz energiától való függését[8][6][2].

A Bizottság új ütemtervet mutatott be, amely részletesen tartalmazza, hogyan kívánja megszüntetni az orosz energiafüggőséget, miközben biztosítja az EU energiaellátásának és árainak stabilitását[6][2][15].

Főbb intézkedések és célok

• Az EU az orosz gázimport arányát 45%-ról 19%-ra csökkentette a 2022 májusában indított REPowerEU tervnek köszönhetően, de 2024-ben ismét növekedett az orosz gáz behozatala[2][20].
• Az új ütemterv szerint az orosz olaj, gáz és nukleáris energia fokozatosan, összehangoltan és biztonságosan kerül ki az uniós piacokról, miközben az EU a tiszta energiára való átállást gyorsítja fel[6][15][7].
• Az EU-tagállamoknak 2025 végéig nemzeti terveket kell készíteniük arról, hogyan járulnak hozzá az orosz gáz, nukleáris energia és olaj importjának megszüntetéséhez[13][7][18].
• Az orosz eredetű urán, dúsított urán és egyéb nukleáris anyagok esetében új korlátozásokat vezetnek be: az Euratom Ellátási Ügynökség (ESA) nem hagy jóvá új orosz beszállítási szerződéseket, és gazdasági eszközökkel is igyekeznek visszaszorítani az importot[4][5][16].
• A meglévő rövid távú szerződéseket 2025 végéig meg kell szüntetni, új szerződéseket pedig nem lehet kötni; a hosszú távú szerződéseket 2027 végéig kell felmondani[5][7][6].
• Az intézkedések célja, hogy a teljes orosz gáz- és olajimport 2027 végéig megszűnjön, az orosz atomenergia pedig fokozatosan kivezetésre kerüljön[3][9][17].

Nukleáris háttér

• Az ESA jelentése szerint 2023-ban az EU-ban felhasznált természetes urán 23,4%-a érkezett Oroszországból, ami 72,6%-os növekedést jelentett, főként a VVER típusú orosz atomerőművek üzemanyag-felhalmozása miatt[16].
• Az EU-ban 19 VVER reaktor működik (Bulgáriában, Csehországban, Finnországban, Magyarországon és Szlovákiában).
• Az EU természetes uránszükséglete a globális igények mintegy 22%-át teszi ki, a beszerzések 91%-a Kanadából, Oroszországból, Kazahsztánból és Nigerből származik[16].

Célkitűzés és indoklás

A Bizottság szerint az orosz energiafüggőség felszámolása nemcsak gazdasági, hanem biztonságpolitikai kérdés is, mivel Oroszország többször is eszközként használta az energiát az EU-val szemben[2][12]. A lépések célja, hogy az EU energiaellátása biztonságos, stabil és kiszámítható maradjon, miközben az orosz energiaimportból származó bevételek ne finanszírozhassák tovább az Ukrajna elleni háborút[6][2][12].

---

Források alapján készült magyar összefoglaló és fordítás

Citations: [1] Döntött az Európai Bizottság: teljes mértékben megszüntetik ... - 444 https://444.hu/2025/05/06/dontott-az-europai-bizottsag-teljes-mertekben-megszuntetik-az-orosz-energiatol-valo-fuggest [2] Három éven belül felszámolná az orosz energiafüggőséget az ... https://hu.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/05/06/harom-even-belul-felszamolna-az-orosz-energiafuggoseget-az-europai-bizottsag [3] 2027-re teljesen leállítaná az Európai Bizottság az orosz ... - Új Szó https://ujszo.com/kozelet/2027-re-teljesen-leallitana-az-europai-bizottsag-az-orosz-energiabehozatalt-a-nuklearis [4] Bejelentették Brüsszelben: megkerülik Magyarországot, teljesen ... https://www.portfolio.hu/gazdasag/20250506/bejelentettek-brusszelben-megkerulik-magyarorszagot-teljesen-levalik-az-orosz-olajrol-es-gazrol-az-eu-759267 [5] Érik az újabb ütközés: Brüsszel betiltaná az orosz energiát https://www.valaszonline.hu/2025/05/06/energia-szankcio-oroszorszag-haboru-eu-olaj-gaz-uran/ [6] Az EU teljes mértékben megszünteti az orosz energiától való függését https://hungary.representation.ec.europa.eu/az-eu-teljes-mertekben-megszunteti-az-orosz-energiatol-valo-fuggeset-2025-05-06_hu?prefLang=en [7] Megvan az ütemterv, végleg betiltaná az orosz energiát az Európai ... https://index.hu/kulfold/2025/05/06/orosz-energiafuggoseg-orosz-gaz-olaj-import-europai-unio-repowereu/ [8] European Commission Unveils Plans To Restrict New Uranium ... https://www.nucnet.org/news/european-commission-unveils-plans-to-restrict-new-uranium-deals-with-russia-5-3-2025 [9] Az EU teljes mértékben megszünteti az orosz energiától való ... https://infostart.hu/belfold/2025/05/06/az-eu-teljes-mertekben-megszunteti-az-orosz-energiatol-valo-fuggoseget-a-nap-hirei [10] [PDF] EURÓPAI BIZOTTSÁG Brüsszel, 2025.4.9. COM(2025) 159 final ... https://secure.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/download/file/082d29089612ec1e019619f955940250 [11] Kiszivárgott az Európai Bizottság 2025-ös munkaprogramja https://www.eu-monitor.hu/hu/cikk/20250206-kiszivargott-az-europai-bizottsag-2025-os-munkaprogramja [12] EU says it will end dependency on Russian energy supplies https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20250507_B4/ [13] Végleg leválik az orosz energiáról az Európai Unió ... - Népszava https://nepszava.hu/3278673_oroszorszag-europai-unio-foldgaz-koolaj-levalas-terv [14] Egyre több európai ország támogatja az atomenergiát https://www.vg.hu/nemzetkozi-gazdasag/2025/03/atomenergia-energiatarolas-europa [15] Az EU teljes mértékben megszünteti az orosz energiától való ... https://karpatinfo.net/energiafuggetlenseg-orosz-foldgaz-orosz-energiafuggoseg-2025-05-07 [16] EU outlines measures to end Russian gas, oil imports by end-2027 https://balkangreenenergynews.com/eu-outlines-measures-to-end-russian-gas-oil-imports-by-end-2027/ [17] Az Európai Unió 2027 végére betiltaná az orosz gáz importját https://www.korkep.sk/cikkek/gazdasag/2025/05/05/az-europai-unio-2027-vegere-betiltana-az-orosz-gazimportot/ [18] Ficónak és Orbánnak sem tetszik, hogy az EU teljesen kitiltaná az ... https://napunk.dennikn.sk/hu/4623240/ficonak-es-orbannak-sem-tetszik-hogy-az-eu-teljesen-kitiltana-az-orosz-energiat/ [19] Várhelyi Olivér késlelteti az EU orosz energiafüggőségét felszámoló ... https://telex.hu/kulfold/2025/05/05/varhelyi-oliver-europai-bizottsag-orosz-energia-kivaltas-hatraltatas [20] REPowerEU roadmap - Energy - European Commission https://energy.ec.europa.eu/strategy/repowereu-roadmap_en

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Herzlichen Glückwunsch zum dritten Geburtstag, liebe Denk Bar! Wieso zum dritten? Das war doch 2022 und jetzt sind wir im Jahr 2024, oder? Ja, das ist schon richtig, aber bei Geburtstagen erinnere ich mich immer auch an meinen Vater, und der behauptete oft, der erste sei ja schließlich der Tag der Geburt selber und den müsse man natürlich mitzählen. Wo er recht hat, hat er nunmal recht. Konsequenterweise wird also heute dieser Blog an seinem dritten Geburtstag zwei Jahre alt.

Das ist ein Grund zum Feiern, wie ich finde. Einerseits ganz einfach, weil es dafür gar nicht genug Gründe geben kann. «Das Leben sind zwei Tage», lautet ein gängiger Ausdruck hier in Andalusien. In der Tat könnte es so sein, auch wenn wir uns im Alltag oft genug von der Routine vereinnahmen lassen.

Seit dem Start der Denk Bar vor zwei Jahren ist unglaublich viel passiert. Ebenso wie die zweieinhalb Jahre davor, und all jenes war letztlich auch der Auslöser dafür, dass ich begann, öffentlich zu schreiben. Damals notierte ich:

«Seit einigen Jahren erscheint unser öffentliches Umfeld immer fragwürdiger, widersprüchlicher und manchmal schier unglaublich - jede Menge Anlass für eigene Recherchen und Gedanken, ganz einfach mit einer Portion gesundem Menschenverstand.»

Wir erleben den sogenannten «großen Umbruch», einen globalen Coup, den skrupellose Egoisten clever eingefädelt haben und seit ein paar Jahren knallhart – aber nett verpackt – durchziehen, um buchstäblich alles nach ihrem Gusto umzukrempeln. Die Gelegenheit ist ja angeblich günstig und muss genutzt werden.

Nie hätte ich mir träumen lassen, dass ich so etwas jemals miterleben müsste. Die Bosheit, mit der ganz offensichtlich gegen die eigene Bevölkerung gearbeitet wird, war früher für mich unvorstellbar. Mein (Rest-) Vertrauen in alle möglichen Bereiche wie Politik, Wissenschaft, Justiz, Medien oder Kirche ist praktisch komplett zerstört. Einen «inneren Totalschaden» hatte ich mal für unsere Gesellschaften diagnostiziert.

Was mich vielleicht am meisten erschreckt, ist zum einen das Niveau der Gleichschaltung, das weltweit erreicht werden konnte, und zum anderen die praktisch totale Spaltung der Gesellschaft. Haben wir das tatsächlich mit uns machen lassen?? Unfassbar! Aber das Werkzeug «Angst» ist sehr mächtig und funktioniert bis heute.

Zum Glück passieren auch positive Dinge und neue Perspektiven öffnen sich. Für viele Menschen waren und sind die Entwicklungen der letzten Jahre ein Augenöffner. Sie sehen «Querdenken» als das, was es ist: eine Tugend.

Auch die immer ernsteren Zensurbemühungen sind letztlich nur ein Zeichen der Schwäche, wo Argumente fehlen. Sie werden nicht verhindern, dass wir unsere Meinung äußern, unbequeme Fragen stellen und dass die Wahrheit peu à peu ans Licht kommt. Es gibt immer Mittel und Wege, auch für uns.

---

Danke, dass du diesen Weg mit mir weitergehst!

@ 83279ad2:bd49240d

@ 83279ad2:bd49240d

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Bolo

It seems that from 1987 to around 2000 there was a big community of people who played this game called "Bolo". It was a game in which people controlled a tank and killed others while trying to capture bases in team matches. Always 2 teams, from 2 to 16 total players, games could last from 10 minutes to 12 hours. I'm still trying to understand all this.

The game looks silly from some videos you can find today, but apparently it was very deep in strategy because people developed strategy guides and wrote extensively about it and Netscape even supported bolo: URLs out of the box.

The two most important elements on the map are pillboxes and bases. Pillboxes are originally neutral, meaning that they shoot at every tank that happens to get in its range. They shoot fast and with deadly accuracy. You can shoot the pillbox with your tank, and you can see how damaged it is by looking at it. Once the pillbox is subdued, you may run over it, which will pick it up. You may place the pillbox where you want to put it (where it is clear), if you've enough trees to build it back up. Trees are harvested by sending your man outside your tank to forest the trees. Your man (also called a builder) can also lay mines, build roads, and build walls. Once you have placed a pillbox, it will not shoot at you, but only your enemies. Therefore, pillboxes are often used to protect your bases.

That quote was taken from this "augmented FAQ" written by some user. Apparently there were many FAQs for this game. A FAQ is after all just a simple, clear and direct to the point way of writing about anything, previously known as summa[^summa-k], it doesn't have to be related to any actually frequently asked question.

More unexpected Bolo writings include an etiquette guide, an anthropology study and some wonderings on the reverse pill war tactic.

[^summa-k]: It's not the same thing, but I couldn't help but notice the similarity.

@ 005bc4de:ef11e1a2

The beautiful evil of horse racing

Horse racing intrigues me. And, it appalls me. I find it to be both gloriously beautiful and brutally cruel.

One of the fun facts shared tirelessly around social media for Kentucky Derby #151 was something like this: "This is the first Derby where every horse is in the bloodline of Secretariat." Secretariat, if you don't know, won the Triple Crown in 1973 (KY Derby, Preakness, Belmont) and still holds the fastest times in all three of those races.

That's really a nice fun fact when you first hear it, but maybe it shouldn't be too surprising. After a successful racing career, a male racehorse "retires" to a life of studding himself out, which is where the real horse money is. His post-racing stats: he bred 60 mares per year, he sired 660 foals, and he earned an estimated $120 million in stud fees. When you start branching out the Secretariat family tree over several generations, well, the sheer numbers must be very large. That means the chances that any given Thoroughbred might have a hint of Secretariat blood must get rather high. Grok AI estimates there are 500,000 Thoroughbreds today worldwide, and that beteen 250,000 to 400,000 are in Secretariat's lineage, that's 50% to 80% of every Thoroughbred. Suddenly, the social media snippet from Derby #151 is less surprising, less cool.

Secretariat, retired from racing.

The beautiful side of horse racing

Horse racing is beautiful. This is the easy part to write. If you've ever been to a horse track, especially on a big race day, it's a true multi-sensory experience.

• There are smells that we typically don't smell often in this modern world...especially if you hang out near the paddock. Personally, I don't find horse dung particularly stinky, but earthy.
• There are tastes and good smells. Food and drink are a huge part of horse racing. There is a reason that the Derby has its own pie (a chocolate pecan pie) and each major race has its own drink. Feasting and tailgating are huge parts of horse racing.
• There are things to feel, actually to bodily feel. Aside from crowds of people to bump into, if you stand close to the track, you can feel the reverberation of hooves beating the dirt. We hear the term "thundering herd" sometimes in college sports, but, that term is not just words. You can actually feel the thunder of those hooves.
• The sounds are distinctly horse racing. The announcer's calls of "Less than a minute," "They're in the gates," and "And they're off!" are iconic, not to mention the terms "down to the wire," "won by a nose," or "photo finish." And then there's the bugle's announcement, the singing of "My Old Kentucky Home" at the Derby, the roar of the crowd, and moans of loss from bad bets, shrieks of joy from good bets, and that thunder from the herd, of course.
• The visuals are just stunning. People-wise, the women in their pastel sundresses, the men are snazzy in their colors too (though some go too over-the-top for my liking; they move from classy to clownish), and then there are the hats which are their own category altogether. There's the track, and the spires, and the grass and dirt (or mud) and roses. And there's the jockeys and their colorful silks. But, mostly, there's the horses. A Thoroughbred racehorse at full speed, in full stride, is incredible to look upon. It is a beast that is entirely built for one pure reason: speed. You might be familiar with ESPN's "The Body Issue" that features elite, pro athletes in the nude so that their incredible physiques are displayed. Horse racing is the same thing, equine style. The Derby, in particular, is a sports photographer's bonanza. If you actually know what you're doing, you can't not get great results. Below are some photos amateur me point-and-clicked on Derby Day at a horse track (not Churchill Downs):

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/Eq7LSG39v5H5NpQppxhzwhfAtJVQikYVppRJsgZXh6KxGXU2YochRXqoJaW7NMZ8Yd8.jpg]

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/23wWw7ZbXPJxKFAyLwuraK1QypVcLV6QpsyG6Ccr6ZLiPYgNtUBa3ALWx1XR4wPYayhmT.png]

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/2432HqW3ZtUCjvGD7WTkg2z2ngoByX2rV6htgENN1eytUYXycRCaQdevL7xn1mdKC8qG8.gif]

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/245HijMM8pQ7c2EdJwrzUPa3LDjm1P51WqU6j5mYkAJnAXJrkbAn6XBNCzR7G28MSR62u.png]

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/EpVAhnScSoAVCYvw2Faf7ZyipskYLvu9MuBXzmHN3jdVPoDBVAVR8yqrrGf1c7Apxzb.jpg]

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/245Hm6k5HafqiMfzUiNK7Z3pUG752f4CmLc5pMVuonkQVY1sKG9ucSrdGgvNVQGNud628.gif]

Horse racing appeals to all senses and is viscerally exhilarating in so many ways. It is beautiful.

Genetics

But, let's get back to the real point: this game is all about Brave New World-like breeding and genetics. It is horse eugenics. The idea is simple: fast Mommy horse and fast Daddy horse means fast baby horse. In horse racing, a horse's blood lineage is called its dosage. Personally, I pay zero attention to dosage (I focus on track length and closing the long races), but dosage is a mathematical stat that tries to answer, "How much is this horse truly a Thoroughbred and a genetic winner?" This question of dosage begs another question, "What actually is a Thoroughbred?"

A Thoroughbred is a horse breed. There are a lot of horse breeds, a lot. For a novice like me, it's very hard to distinguish one from another. I think most people can see a difference between a draft horse, bred for pulling heavy loads, and a Thoroughbred, bred for speed. I think most people, if betting on a foot race, would bet on the Thoroughbred below, left and not on "Jupiter, the largest draft horse in America" on the right. If betting on hauling a wagon load of beer up a steep hill, most would bet Jupiter.

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/23yx8AjtVZkpE7jXJ2RXzV78hhXSvsgU97i2FkvfcFcEZevfshNgwPw2diJNhmL344gmR.png]

But, when comparing racing horses, there are also Sandardbreds which are bred for harness racing and thus have a heavier build than Thoroughbreds. The two breeds are shown below, but their distinctions are not particularly outstanding to my novice eye. Can you tell the difference, which is the Standardbred versus the Thoroughbred? (Answer at the bottom of page.) Maybe side-by-side you can tell, but could you tell if you saw one standing alone? If you saw two of the same breed, could you judge by appearance which one runs faster? If you can, I tip my cap to you.

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/23zbTqFJgYpKyXwxbGsVeQiKv4tTZSj8S8QboTJWEhTETPqjnaUVDtX2BirjBXH5KVNo6.png]

I imagine most people are much more familiar with, and can more readily notice, the differences in dog breeds. For instance, take the French Bulldog, the Greyhound, or the world's best dog breed, the Labrador Retriever (totally unbiased here).

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/244oozGkxAwS4sqoWiT8phQv8ssrqq4caB9bHgDufsogds7scUUfhp54WTKmosDzfL5WT.png]

The French Bulldog is bred for cosmetics, the greyhound for pure speed, and the Labrador for all-around everything...intelligence, sturdy athleticism, loyal companionship (totally unbiased here). In these three dogs, we can clearly see the differences that have resulted from breeding.

The evil side of horse racing

Horse racing is evil. And, it is cruel. But, for now, let's step back to the dogs. Dog breeding can be cruel as well.

The French Bulldog is something of the "it" dog right now. A quick Google Gemini search reported it as the most popular breed in 2025.

I remember when "101 Dalmatians" came out 1996. Dalmatians skyrocketed in popularity. But, that popularity was anything but a blessing for Dalmatian pups. They were overbred (and are too inbred as it is), oversold, and were taken in by people eager to get in on the "it" dog then and scoop up the cute spotted pups. But, Dalmatians are very active pups that grow into very active dogs. When the novelty of the spotted pup wore off, many were returned or given away or taken to shelters as being uncontrollable.

The French Poodle situation is not too different. The dogs were bred for little purpose beyond the sin of human vanity. People wanted a short, stocky, smoosh-faced dog that they perceived as cute. And, that's what they got: an unathletic dog that looked a certain way, with middle-of-the-road intelligence, and little use aside from its appearance.

Worse, seeking out this certain "toy dog" look, French Bulldogs suffer from a plethora of health issues. Summed up, they have the lowest life expectancy "by a large margin" of all dogs at only 4.5 years (average is 11.2. years).

There is a neighbor near to me who breeds French Bulldogs. Evidently, it's a lucrative business as they apparently sell for an estimated $2,000 to $8,000 dollars each. I don't know how many litters the neighbor's have bred and pawned, but it has been several. The breeder bitch is constantly given a little trot outside before being hauled to the vet for insemination. (Sadly, this seems to be about the only time she is taken out for exercise and family "fun.") Considering he and his wife have no real job, this seems to be their job. Breed, advertise (complete with foofy tutu outfit photos), market, sell, repeat. With only a 4.5 year life span, I see the lucrative nature in this business.

All told, it's basically a sin and a shame that humans do this to these dogs. A certain segment of people desire a certain unnatural smooshed face in a dog. And because we vainly want a certain look in a dog, so as to accessorize our own look, we breed them into forms unnatural to a canine, curse them with severe breathing difficulties and other serious health issues, and short lives.

A Greyhound is essentially a canine Thoroughbred. From generations of selective breeding, it has a massive chest, long body with a narrow waist, and long, spindly legs. It's sole purpose is speed. Ironically, both the Thoroughbred and Greyhound can race at about the same speed...44 mph, give or take.

Man's sinful nature has abused the Greyhound too. These hounds are racing dogs and racing means gambling. So, dog tracks for have been common. The pups are bred, they race a few years, then they are hopefully adopted out. A good friend of mine once adopted a retired racer to become the family dog. "Bandit" initially had a post-race job as a business's guard dog. But, due to him constantly doing nothing but laying around and sleeping, he was fired as a guard dog (who gets a Greyhound for a guard dog anyway?). Bandit eventually went to my friend, was a bit neurotic, but turned out to be a good family dog.

I think most Greyhounds don't have the fortunate story of Bandit. Once raced out, they're done and forgotten. Man's thrills are fleeting, whatever sparkles in his eye soon fades. To combat the ills of dog racing, I know that the citizens of Florida voted to outlaw dog racing in 2018 (and it indeed ended Dec. 31, 2020). Now, dog tracks lay rusting away, and Greyhounds are largely forgotten.

And then, there's the Labrador Retriever. What's not to like? These dogs can do it all, and they do it all well. Name a dog task, Labs do that well. Full disclosure: I once had a Lab (or rather, half Lab, and half...Great Dane? Doberman? Something?). Her mother was Lab and my dog looked Lab, though a bit taller and leaner. She was incredible. So, yes, I favor Labs.

But, even my beloved Labs and all that they excel in, even Labs have their issues, such as high rates of hip dysplasia. Selective breeding, and a too-narrow gene pool, have consequences.

Back to horses

Let's try to bring this back to horses. Thoroughbreds and horse racing mirror both of the characteristics seen in the French Bulldog and the Greyhound.

• Thoroughbreds have been, and still are, extremely selectively bred to accentuate certain qualities: speed, speed, speed.
• Thoroughbreds are bred for money. Literally, a champion stud or mare doesn't breed for free.

Regarding speed, Thoroughbreds have a massive muscular chest, almost no waist at all, massive muscular hindquarters, and long, spindly, almost cartoonishly thin legs. And, this built-for-speed physique brings up one of the cruelest aspects of horse racing: Thoroughbreds are prone to "break down."

These horses are structured unnaturally, like aliens. Having such a massive, muscular, powerful architecture stilted on such twig-like legs (and getting more massive and twiggier due to constant selective breeding of these traits) is a recipe for disaster. "Breaking down" in horse terms is a rather correct term. Their leg bones break under the stress and force of running, then the horse's weight and thrust breaks the legs down further.

The name Barabaro might come to memory. Barbaro won the Kentucky Derby in 2006 impressively, by a full 6.5 lengths. Hopes were high for a Triple Crown winner. At the Preakness two weeks later, Barabaro broke down. Actually, in his pre-start excitement he broke through the gate to false start. These animals are bred to run and race, they know when it's race time. He was so jacked up and ready to run while in the starting gate, he bucked up, banged his head hard, then literally broke through the gate to false start. Then, after reentering, he started off the race clean before breaking down in front of the main grandstand of viewers. Horse's can break any of their several leg bones. Barbaro broke the cannon, sesamoid, long pastern, and dislocated the fetlock (ankle joint). In other words, he shattered his leg.

When horses break their legs, they're usually put down. As to why, there are lots of reasons, but it comes down to the fact that horses are built for standing and running, especially Thoroughbreds. They are not built for laying down to recuperate, and actually suffer health consequences for not standing. Understandably, a broken leg causes the horse to favor weight to the other legs while standing and this, in turn, can cause other issues. Altogether, the horse suffers.

In Barbaro's case, they tried to rehab him. I think normally he would have been put down on the track in the equine ambulance (the "meat wagon"), but this was Barbaro. The resources were there, he was beloved, and millions had witnessed his injury live. Not trying to save him would have been a public relations nightmare. Putting him down on live TV would have been even worse. There was surgery, then laminitis (inflammation under the hoof) in his opposite good hoof, the result of standing unnaturally. He rallied, then had more setbacks including laminitis in his front hooves. He was in pain, with no way to stand, and then was euthanized in 2007.

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/23wgoS1v6e2i2gizAqeMeXHf6Zwhz3BTuYMuYNL676tqbPZWwvXUhw7R1J6K4r7DmRj2K.png]

Regarding the money, top studs earn $200 to $400,000 for stud service. A top mare can be bought for $100 to $300,000, then you need the stud service. This is only to breed the foal. This has nothing to do with stabling or training the animals. In other words, it's extremely expensive.

Also regarding the money, there is, of course, the gambling. You might say this is the whole point of horse racing. It's certainly the whole point for breeding Thoroughbreds. It was the whole point for Greyhounds in Florida, before that point was banned.

This year, an estimated $200 million was bet on the Kentucky Derby, the one race alone. $300 million was bet on the races combined. Grok estimated that globally in 2022, horse racing was a $402 billion dollar industry and expects it to grow to $793 billion by 2030.

Those numbers are staggering. But, again, I come back to sinful man. Our love of money is the root of this beautiful evil called horse racing.

I really don't know many scenes more beautiful than a Kentucky horse ranch and a Thoroughbred running across the bluegrass. Add a colt running with his mother, the beauty is staggering. But, underneath that beauty, there is an evil side to horse racing. That side is fueled by sinful man's pride to win and his love of money.

Horse racing is a beautiful evil.

Image sources: https://wikipedia.org, original by me at the track, equine bones at https://www.anatomy-of-the-equine.com/distal-limb-bones.html, the final two images from https://pixabay.com

---

Note: In the "Can you tell the difference" side-by-side images above, the Thoroughbred was on the left, the Standardbred on the right.

---

@ b83a28b7:35919450

This article was originally part of the sermon of Plebchain Radio Episode 109 (April 25, 2025) that nostr:nprofile1qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqpqtvqc82mv8cezhax5r34n4muc2c4pgjz8kaye2smj032nngg52clq7fgefr and I did with Noa Gruman from nostr:nprofile1qyv8wumn8ghj7urjv4kkjatd9ec8y6tdv9kzumn9wsqzqvfdqratfpsvje7f3w69skt34vd7l9r465d5hm9unucnl95yq0ethzx7cf and nostr:nprofile1qye8wumn8ghj7mrwvf5hguewwpshqetjwdshguewd9hj7mn0wd68ycmvd9jkuap0v9cxjtmkxyhhyetvv9usz9rhwden5te0dehhxarj9ehx2cn4w5hxccgqyqj8hd6eed2x5w8pqgx82yyrrpfx99uuympcxmkxgz9k2hklg8te7pq0y72 . You can listen to the full episode here:

https://fountain.fm/episode/gdBHcfDgDXEgALjX7nBu

Let’s start with the obvious: Bitcoin is metal because it’s loud, it’s aggressive, it’s uncompromising. It’s the musical equivalent of a power chord blasted through a wall of amps—a direct challenge to the establishment, to the fiat system, to the sanitized, soulless mainstream. Metal has always been about rebellion, about standing outside the norm and refusing to be tamed. Bitcoin, too, was born in the shadows, dismissed as the currency of outlaws and freaks, and it thrived there, fueled by the energy of those who refused to bow down

But Bitcoin isn’t just any metal. It’s progressive metal. 
Prog metal is the genre that takes metal’s aggression and fuses it with experimentation, complexity, and a relentless drive to push boundaries. It’s not satisfied with three chords and a chorus. Prog metal is about odd time signatures, intricate solos, unexpected detours, and stories that dig into philosophy, psychology, and the human condition. It’s music for those who want more than just noise—they want meaning, depth, and innovation.

That’s Bitcoin. Bitcoin isn’t just a blunt instrument of rebellion; it’s a living, evolving experiment. It’s code that’s open to anyone, a protocol that invites innovation, a system that’s constantly being pushed, prodded, and reimagined by its community.

Like prog metal, Bitcoin is for the thinkers, the tinkerers, the relentless questioners. It’s for those who see the flaws in the mainstream and dare to imagine something radically different. 


Both prog metal and Bitcoin are about freedom — freedom from the tyranny of the predictable, the safe, the centrally controlled. They are countercultures within countercultures, refusing to be boxed in by genre or by law. Both attract those who crave complexity, who aren’t afraid to get lost in the weeds, who want to build something new and beautiful from the chaos. 


If you want to reach the heart of Bitcoin’s counterculture, you don’t do it with bland, safe, mainstream pop. You do it with prog metal—with music that refuses to compromise, that demands your attention, that rewards those who dig deeper. Prog metal is the true voice of Bitcoin’s core: the plebs, the builders, the dreamers who refuse to accept the world as it is. 


Bitcoin is prog metal. It’s technical, it’s rebellious, it’s unafraid to be different. It’s music and money for those who want to break free—not just from the old systems, but from the old ways of thinking. And as the mainstream tries to water down both, the true counterculture survives at the core, pushing boundaries, making noise, and refusing to die.

---

The sermon and episode clearly had an impact on people, as evidenced by the fountain charts here (snapshot taken on May 6, 2025)

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqkcpsw4kc03j906dg8rt8thes432z3yy0d6fj4phylz48xs3g437qqsy7rfh8n6vgxppkwzq2ntjps0lmt4njkxjrv3rv5r59l7lkv6ahps2eavd9 And here's the clip of the sermon:

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpwp69zm7fewjp0vkp306adnzt7249ytxhz7mq3w5yc629u6er9zsqqsptkpkd0458yshe7gfshck2f9nfxnqe0nrjz0ptlkm9rhv094rxagapyv4d

@ 7e538978:a5987ab6

Across Switzerland, customers at SPAR supermarkets are now able to pay for their groceries using Lightning on Bitcoin — a step towards everyday Bitcoin adoption. This rollout was led by DFX, a Bitcoin services company focused on onboarding businesses and individuals to Bitcoin. Behind the scenes LNbits plays a key role.

## Lightning at the Checkout

SPAR’s approach is simple: at the till, customers can scan a static QR code to pay in Bitcoin using the Lightning Network. Each checkout in each participating store has its own unique LNURL address — a reusable QR code designed for fast, low-friction Lightning payments.

To manage these LNURLs, DFX leverages LNbits. Using the LNbits Pay Links extension, DFX generates LNURLs for each till across the network of participating SPAR locations. The result is a robust, reliable setup that works at scale. Store staff do not interact with LNbits directly — instead, DFX manages the backend, ensuring each till has a dedicated LNURL without operational overhead for SPAR employees.

At SPAR we use static QR codes that meet the LNURL standard. Therefore we use LNbits. Each checkout has its own personal LNURL address which we generate with LNbits.

— Cyrill Thommen, CEO of DFX.Swiss— Cyrill Thommen, CEO of DFX.Swiss

## LNbits in Action

LNbits provided DFX with a modular, open-source solution that allows them to build only what they need, without locking into a rigid platform. For instance, DFX built custom monitoring around payment events using the LNbits API, while keeping full control over wallet infrastructure.

The ability to generate and manage LNURLs through the LNbits API, while layering additional monitoring and business logic on top, made LNbits a practical choice.

DFX’s setup highlights how open source software, Bitcoin and purpose-built tools can underpin enterprise-grade deployments. The system works reliably — without introducing friction for customers or staff.

Bitcoin in the Real World

Switzerland is already one of Europe’s most Bitcoin-friendly environments, with over 1,000 businesses accepting Bitcoin. But SPAR’s implementation is noteworthy for its scale and practicality: everyday purchases, completed with Bitcoin, at a national supermarket chain.

LNbits' flexible architecture, API-first design, and plug-in system make it well suited to precisely this kind of adoption.

As more retailers explore Lightning integration, SPAR’s rollout sets a precedent — showing how modular, open-source tools like LNbits can bring Bitcoin into daily life, seamlessly.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Ein Lämmchen löschte an einem Bache seinen Durst. Fern von ihm, aber näher der Quelle, tat ein Wolf das gleiche. Kaum erblickte er das Lämmchen, so schrie er:

"Warum trübst du mir das Wasser, das ich trinken will?"

"Wie wäre das möglich", erwiderte schüchtern das Lämmchen, "ich stehe hier unten und du so weit oben; das Wasser fließt ja von dir zu mir; glaube mir, es kam mir nie in den Sinn, dir etwas Böses zu tun!"

"Ei, sieh doch! Du machst es gerade, wie dein Vater vor sechs Monaten; ich erinnere mich noch sehr wohl, daß auch du dabei warst, aber glücklich entkamst, als ich ihm für sein Schmähen das Fell abzog!"

"Ach, Herr!" flehte das zitternde Lämmchen, "ich bin ja erst vier Wochen alt und kannte meinen Vater gar nicht, so lange ist er schon tot; wie soll ich denn für ihn büßen."

"Du Unverschämter!" so endigt der Wolf mit erheuchelter Wut, indem er die Zähne fletschte. "Tot oder nicht tot, weiß ich doch, daß euer ganzes Geschlecht mich hasset, und dafür muß ich mich rächen."

Ohne weitere Umstände zu machen, zerriß er das Lämmchen und verschlang es.

Das Gewissen regt sich selbst bei dem größten Bösewichte; er sucht doch nach Vorwand, um dasselbe damit bei Begehung seiner Schlechtigkeiten zu beschwichtigen.

Quelle: https://eden.one/fabeln-aesop-das-lamm-und-der-wolf

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

IPFS problems: Community

I was an avid IPFS user until yesterday. Many many times I asked simple questions for which I couldn't find an answer on the internet in the #ipfs IRC channel on Freenode. Most of the times I didn't get an answer, and even when I got it was rarely by someone who knew IPFS deeply. I've had issues go unanswered on js-ipfs repositories for year – one of these was raising awareness of a problem that then got fixed some months later by a complete rewrite, I closed my own issue after realizing that by myself some couple of months later, I don't think the people responsible for the rewrite were ever acknowledge that he had fixed my issue.

Some days ago I asked some questions about how the IPFS protocol worked internally, sincerely trying to understand the inefficiencies in finding and fetching content over IPFS. I pointed it would be a good idea to have a drawing showing that so people would understand the difficulties (which I didn't) and wouldn't be pissed off by the slowness. I was told to read the whitepaper. I had already the whitepaper, but read again the relevant parts. The whitepaper doesn't explain anything about the DHT and how IPFS finds content. I said that in the room, was told to read again.

Before anyone misread this section, I want to say I understand it's a pain to keep answering people on IRC if you're busy developing stuff of interplanetary importance, and that I'm not paying anyone nor I have the right to be answered. On the other hand, if you're developing a super-important protocol, financed by many millions of dollars and a lot of people are hitting their heads against your software and there's no one to help them; you're always busy but never delivers anything that brings joy to your users, something is very wrong. I sincerely don't know what IPFS developers are working on, I wouldn't doubt they're working on important things if they said that, but what I see – and what many other users see (take a look at the IPFS Discourse forum) is bugs, bugs all over the place, confusing UX, and almost no help.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Castas hindus em nova chave

Shudras buscam o máximo bem para os seus próprios corpos; vaishyas o máximo bem para a sua própria vida terrena e a da sua família; kshatriyas o máximo bem para a sociedade e este mundo terreno; brâmanes buscam o máximo bem.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Economics

Just a bunch of somewhat-related notes.

• notes on "Economic Action Beyond the Extent of the Market", Per Bylund
• Mises' interest rate theory
• Profits, not wages, as the originary factor
• Reisman on opportunity cost
• Money Supply Measurement
• Per Bylund's insight
• Maybe a new approach to the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, some disorganized thoughts
• An argument according to which fractional-reserve banking is merely theft and nothing else
• Conjecture and criticism
• Qual é o economista? (piadas)
• UBI calculations
• Donations on the internet