@ 909e3fdc:73f2b10a

Pizza Day’s not really about pizza. It’s about Laszlo exhibiting Bitcoin as a P2P payment mechanism. That’s worth a cheers. In 15 years, Bitcoin went from a nerdy experiment to challenging the fiat system. That’s massive! It’s changed how I see the world. Patient hodling and carnivore-focus, practices that I picked up from the bitcoin community, shifted me from kinda nihilistic to stupidly optimistic. So, definitely celebrate Pizza Day. Or maybe barbecue steaks instead. Commiserate on the frivolous purchases that you made with bitcoin in the day. I think of these sometimes. Honour Laszlo’s pioneer vibe and Bitcoin’s insane rise, but keep your eyes on what’s coming. The future’s gonna be wilder than we think.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

The other day, I had the privilege of sitting down with one of my favorite living artists. Our conversation was so captivating that I felt compelled to share it. I’m leaving his name out for privacy.

Since our last meeting, I’d watched a documentary about his life, one he’d helped create. I told him how much I admired his openness in it. There’s something strange about knowing intimate details of someone’s life when they know so little about yours—it’s almost like I knew him too well for the kind of relationship we have.

He paused, then said quietly, with a shy grin, that watching the documentary made him realize how “odd and eccentric” he is. I laughed and told him he’s probably the sanest person I know. Because he’s lived fully, chasing love, passion, and purpose with hardly any regrets. He’s truly lived.

Today, I turn 44, and I’ll admit I’m a bit eccentric myself. I think I came into the world this way. I’ve made mistakes along the way, but I carry few regrets. Every misstep taught me something. And as I age, I’m not interested in blending in with the world—I’ll probably just lean further into my own brand of “weird.” I want to live life to the brim. The older I get, the more I see that the “normal” folks often seem less grounded than the eccentric artists who dare to live boldly. Life’s too short to just exist, actually live.

I’m not saying to be strange just for the sake of it. But I’ve seen what the crowd celebrates, and I’m not impressed. Forge your own path, even if it feels lonely or unpopular at times.

It’s easy to scroll through the news and feel discouraged. But actually, this is one of the most incredible times to be alive! I wake up every day grateful to be here, now. The future is bursting with possibility—I can feel it.

So, to my fellow weirdos on nostr: stay bold. Keep dreaming, keep pushing, no matter what’s trending. Stay wild enough to believe in a free internet for all. Freedom is radical—hold it tight. Live with the soul of an artist and the grit of a fighter. Thanks for inspiring me and so many others to keep hoping. Thank you all for making the last year of my life so special.

@ 51bbb15e:b77a2290

Yeah, I’m sure everything in the file is legit. 👍 Let’s review the guard witness testimony…Oh wait, they weren’t at their posts despite 24/7 survellience instructions after another Epstein “suicide” attempt two weeks earlier. Well, at least the video of the suicide is in the file? Oh wait, a techical glitch. Damn those coincidences!

At this point, the Trump administration has zero credibility with me on anything related to the Epstein case and his clients. I still suspect the administration is using the Epstein files as leverage to keep a lot of RINOs in line, whereas they’d be sabotaging his agenda at every turn otherwise. However, I just don’t believe in ends-justify-the-means thinking. It’s led almost all of DC to toss out every bit of the values they might once have had.

@ c9badfea:610f861a

1. Install Sky Map (it's free and open source)
2. Launch the app and tap Accept, then tap OK
3. When asked to access the device's location, tap While Using The App
4. Tap somewhere on the screen to activate the menu, then tap ⁝ and select Settings
5. Disable Send Usage Statistics
6. Return to the main screen and enjoy stargazing!

ℹ️ Use the 🔍 icon in the upper toolbar to search for a specific celestial body, or tap the 👁️ icon to activate night mode

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

This piece is the first in a series that will focus on things I think are a priority if your focus is similar to mine: building a strong family and safeguarding their future.

---

Choosing the ideal place to raise a family is one of the most significant decisions you will ever make. For simplicity sake I will break down my thought process into key factors: strong property rights, the ability to grow your own food, access to fresh water, the freedom to own and train with guns, and a dependable community.

A Jurisdiction with Strong Property Rights

Strong property rights are essential and allow you to build on a solid foundation that is less likely to break underneath you. Regions with a history of limited government and clear legal protections for landowners are ideal. Personally I think the US is the single best option globally, but within the US there is a wide difference between which state you choose. Choose carefully and thoughtfully, think long term. Obviously if you are not American this is not a realistic option for you, there are other solid options available especially if your family has mobility. I understand many do not have this capability to easily move, consider that your first priority, making movement and jurisdiction choice possible in the first place.

Abundant Access to Fresh Water

Water is life. I cannot overstate the importance of living somewhere with reliable, clean, and abundant freshwater. Some regions face water scarcity or heavy regulations on usage, so prioritizing a place where water is plentiful and your rights to it are protected is critical. Ideally you should have well access so you are not tied to municipal water supplies. In times of crisis or chaos well water cannot be easily shutoff or disrupted. If you live in an area that is drought prone, you are one drought away from societal chaos. Not enough people appreciate this simple fact.

Grow Your Own Food

A location with fertile soil, a favorable climate, and enough space for a small homestead or at the very least a garden is key. In stable times, a small homestead provides good food and important education for your family. In times of chaos your family being able to grow and raise healthy food provides a level of self sufficiency that many others will lack. Look for areas with minimal restrictions, good weather, and a culture that supports local farming.

Guns

The ability to defend your family is fundamental. A location where you can legally and easily own guns is a must. Look for places with a strong gun culture and a political history of protecting those rights. Owning one or two guns is not enough and without proper training they will be a liability rather than a benefit. Get comfortable and proficient. Never stop improving your skills. If the time comes that you must use a gun to defend your family, the skills must be instinct. Practice. Practice. Practice.

A Strong Community You Can Depend On

No one thrives alone. A ride or die community that rallies together in tough times is invaluable. Seek out a place where people know their neighbors, share similar values, and are quick to lend a hand. Lead by example and become a good neighbor, people will naturally respond in kind. Small towns are ideal, if possible, but living outside of a major city can be a solid balance in terms of work opportunities and family security.

---

Let me know if you found this helpful. My plan is to break down how I think about these five key subjects in future posts.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Here’s a revised timeline of macro-level events from The Mandibles: A Family, 2029–2047 by Lionel Shriver, reimagined in a world where Bitcoin is adopted as a widely accepted form of money, altering the original narrative’s assumptions about currency collapse and economic control. In Shriver’s original story, the failure of Bitcoin is assumed amid the dominance of the bancor and the dollar’s collapse. Here, Bitcoin’s success reshapes the economic and societal trajectory, decentralizing power and challenging state-driven outcomes.

Part One: 2029–2032

• 2029 (Early Year)\ The United States faces economic strain as the dollar weakens against global shifts. However, Bitcoin, having gained traction emerges as a viable alternative. Unlike the original timeline, the bancor—a supranational currency backed by a coalition of nations—struggles to gain footing as Bitcoin’s decentralized adoption grows among individuals and businesses worldwide, undermining both the dollar and the bancor.

• 2029 (Mid-Year: The Great Renunciation)\ Treasury bonds lose value, and the government bans Bitcoin, labeling it a threat to sovereignty (mirroring the original bancor ban). However, a Bitcoin ban proves unenforceable—its decentralized nature thwarts confiscation efforts, unlike gold in the original story. Hyperinflation hits the dollar as the U.S. prints money, but Bitcoin’s fixed supply shields adopters from currency devaluation, creating a dual-economy split: dollar users suffer, while Bitcoin users thrive.

• 2029 (Late Year)\ Dollar-based inflation soars, emptying stores of goods priced in fiat currency. Meanwhile, Bitcoin transactions flourish in underground and online markets, stabilizing trade for those plugged into the bitcoin ecosystem. Traditional supply chains falter, but peer-to-peer Bitcoin networks enable local and international exchange, reducing scarcity for early adopters. The government’s gold confiscation fails to bolster the dollar, as Bitcoin’s rise renders gold less relevant.

• 2030–2031\ Crime spikes in dollar-dependent urban areas, but Bitcoin-friendly regions see less chaos, as digital wallets and smart contracts facilitate secure trade. The U.S. government doubles down on surveillance to crack down on bitcoin use. A cultural divide deepens: centralized authority weakens in Bitcoin-adopting communities, while dollar zones descend into lawlessness.

• 2032\ By this point, Bitcoin is de facto legal tender in parts of the U.S. and globally, especially in tech-savvy or libertarian-leaning regions. The federal government’s grip slips as tax collection in dollars plummets—Bitcoin’s traceability is low, and citizens evade fiat-based levies. Rural and urban Bitcoin hubs emerge, while the dollar economy remains fractured.

Time Jump: 2032–2047

• Over 15 years, Bitcoin solidifies as a global reserve currency, eroding centralized control. The U.S. government adapts, grudgingly integrating bitcoin into policy, though regional autonomy grows as Bitcoin empowers local economies.

Part Two: 2047

• 2047 (Early Year)\ The U.S. is a hybrid state: Bitcoin is legal tender alongside a diminished dollar. Taxes are lower, collected in BTC, reducing federal overreach. Bitcoin’s adoption has decentralized power nationwide. The bancor has faded, unable to compete with Bitcoin’s grassroots momentum.

• 2047 (Mid-Year)\ Travel and trade flow freely in Bitcoin zones, with no restrictive checkpoints. The dollar economy lingers in poorer areas, marked by decay, but Bitcoin’s dominance lifts overall prosperity, as its deflationary nature incentivizes saving and investment over consumption. Global supply chains rebound, powered by bitcoin enabled efficiency.

• 2047 (Late Year)\ The U.S. is a patchwork of semi-autonomous zones, united by Bitcoin’s universal acceptance rather than federal control. Resource scarcity persists due to past disruptions, but economic stability is higher than in Shriver’s original dystopia—Bitcoin’s success prevents the authoritarian slide, fostering a freer, if imperfect, society.

Key Differences

• Currency Dynamics: Bitcoin’s triumph prevents the bancor’s dominance and mitigates hyperinflation’s worst effects, offering a lifeline outside state control.
• Government Power: Centralized authority weakens as Bitcoin evades bans and taxation, shifting power to individuals and communities.
• Societal Outcome: Instead of a surveillance state, 2047 sees a decentralized, bitcoin driven world—less oppressive, though still stratified between Bitcoin haves and have-nots.

This reimagining assumes Bitcoin overcomes Shriver’s implied skepticism to become a robust, adopted currency by 2029, fundamentally altering the novel’s bleak trajectory.

@ 6ad3e2a3:c90b7740

I’ve written about MSTR twice already, https://www.chrisliss.com/p/mstr and https://www.chrisliss.com/p/mstr-part-2, but I want to focus on legendary short seller James Chanos’ current trade wherein he buys bitcoin (via ETF) and shorts MSTR, in essence to “be like Mike” Saylor who sells MSTR shares at the market and uses them to add bitcoin to the company’s balance sheet. After all, if it’s good enough for Saylor, why shouldn’t everyone be doing it — shorting a company whose stock price is more than 2x its bitcoin holdings and using the proceeds to buy the bitcoin itself?

Saylor himself has said selling shares at 2x NAV (net asset value) to buy bitcoin is like selling dollars for two dollars each, and Chanos has apparently decided to get in while the getting (market cap more than 2x net asset value) is good. If the price of bitcoin moons, sending MSTR’s shares up, you are more than hedged in that event, too. At least that’s the theory.

The problem with this bet against MSTR’s mNAV, i.e., you are betting MSTR’s market cap will converge 1:1 toward its NAV in the short and medium term is this trade does not exist in a vacuum. Saylor has described how his ATM’s (at the market) sales of shares are accretive in BTC per share because of this very premium they carry. Yes, we’ll dilute your shares of the company, but because we’re getting you 2x the bitcoin per share, you are getting an ever smaller slice of an ever bigger overall pie, and the pie is growing 2x faster than your slice is reducing. (I https://www.chrisliss.com/p/mstr how this works in my first post.)

But for this accretion to continue, there must be a constant supply of “greater fools” to pony up for the infinitely printable shares which contain only half their value in underlying bitcoin. Yes, those shares will continue to accrete more BTC per share, but only if there are more fools willing to make this trade in the future. So will there be a constant supply of such “fools” to keep fueling MSTR’s mNAV multiple indefinitely?

Yes, there will be in my opinion because you have to look at the trade from the prospective fools’ perspective. Those “fools” are not trading bitcoin for MSTR, they are trading their dollars, selling other equities to raise them maybe, but in the end it’s a dollars for shares trade. They are not selling bitcoin for them.

You might object that those same dollars could buy bitcoin instead, so they are surely trading the opportunity cost of buying bitcoin for them, but if only 5-10 percent of the market (or less) is buying bitcoin itself, the bucket in which which those “fools” reside is the entire non-bitcoin-buying equity market. (And this is not considering the even larger debt market which Saylor has yet to tap in earnest.)

So for those 90-95 percent who do not and are not presently planning to own bitcoin itself, is buying MSTR a fool’s errand, so to speak? Not remotely. If MSTR shares are infinitely printable ATM, they are still less so than the dollar and other fiat currencies. And MSTR shares are backed 2:1 by bitcoin itself, while the fiat currencies are backed by absolutely nothing. So if you hold dollars or euros, trading them for MSTR shares is an errand more sage than foolish.

That’s why this trade (buying BTC and shorting MSTR) is so dangerous. Not only are there many people who won’t buy BTC buying MSTR, there are many funds and other investment entities who are only able to buy MSTR.

Do you want to get BTC at 1:1 with the 5-10 percent or MSTR backed 2:1 with the 90-95 percent. This is a bit like medical tests that have a 95 percent accuracy rate for an asymptomatic disease that only one percent of the population has. If someone tests positive, it’s more likely to be a false one than an indication he has the disease*. The accuracy rate, even at 19:1, is subservient to the size of the respective populations.

At some point this will no longer be the case, but so long as the understanding of bitcoin is not widespread, so long as the dollar is still the unit of account, the “greater fools” buying MSTR are still miles ahead of the greatest fools buying neither, and the stock price and mNAV should only increase.

. . .

One other thought: it’s more work to play defense than offense because the person on offense knows where he’s going, and the defender can only react to him once he moves. Similarly, Saylor by virtue of being the issuer of the shares knows when more will come online while Chanos and other short sellers are borrowing them to sell in reaction to Saylor’s strategy. At any given moment, Saylor can pause anytime, choosing to issue convertible debt or preferred shares with which to buy more bitcoin, and the shorts will not be given advance notice.

If the price runs, and there is no ATM that week because Saylor has stopped on a dime, so to speak, the shorts will be left having to scramble to change directions and buy the shares back to cover. Their momentum might be in the wrong direction, though, and like Allen Iverson breaking ankles with a crossover, Saylor might trigger a massive short squeeze, rocketing the share price ever higher. That’s why he actually welcomes Chanos et al trying this copycat strategy — it becomes the fuel for outsized gains.

For that reason, news that Chanos is shorting MSTR has not shaken my conviction, though there are other more pertinent https://www.chrisliss.com/p/mstr-part-2 with MSTR, of which one should be aware. And as always, do your own due diligence before investing in anything.

* To understand this, consider a population of 100,000, with one percent having a disease. That means 1,000 have it, 99,000 do not. If the test is 95 percent accurate, and everyone is tested, 950 of the 1,000 will test positive (true positives), 50 who have it will test negative (false negatives.) Of the positives, 95 percent of 99,000 (94,050) will test negative (true negatives) and five percent (4,950) will test positive (false positives). That means 4,950 out of 5,900 positives (84%) will be false.

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

**Ascolta bene! ** A man's sentimental longing, though often disguised in noble language and imagination, is a sickness—not a virtue.

It begins as a slight inclination toward tenderness, cloaked in sweetness. Then it reveals itself as a masked addiction: a constant need to be seen by a woman, validated by her, and reciprocated—as if someone else's affection were the only anchor preventing the shipwreck of his emotions.

The man who understands the weight of leadership seeks no applause, no gratitude, not even romantic love. He knows that his role is not theatrical but structural. He is not measured by the emotion he evokes, but by the stability he ensures. Being a true man is not ornamental. He is not a decorative symbol in the family frame.

We live in an era where male roles have been distorted by an overindulgence in emotion. The man stopped guiding and began asking for direction. His firmness was exchanged for softness, his decisiveness for hesitation. Trying to please, many have given up authority. Trying to love, they’ve begun to bow. A man who begs for validation within his own home is not a leader—he is a guest. And when the patriarch has to ask for a seat at the table he should preside over and sustain, something has already been irreversibly inverted.

Unexamined longing turns into pleading. And all begging is the antechamber of humiliation. A man who never learned to cultivate dignified solitude will inevitably fall to his knees in desperation. And then, he yields. Yields to mediocre presence, to shallow affection, to constant disrespect. He smiles while he bleeds, praises the one who despises him, accepts crumbs and pretends it’s a banquet. All of it, cazzo... just to avoid the horror of being alone.

Davvero, amico mio, for the men who beg for romance, only the consolation of being remembered will remain—not with respect, but with pity and disgust.

The modern world feeds the fragile with illusions, but reality spits them out. Sentimental longing is now celebrated as sensitivity. But every man who nurtures it as an excuse will, sooner or later, pay for it with his dignity.

Thank you for reading, my friend!

If this message resonated with you, consider leaving your "🥃" as a token of appreciation.

A toast to our family!

@ 3f770d65:7a745b24

🏌️ Monday, May 26 – Bitcoin Golf Championship & Kickoff Party

Location: Las Vegas, Nevada\ Event: 2nd Annual Bitcoin Golf Championship & Kick Off Party"\ Where: Bali Hai Golf Clubhouse, 5160 S Las Vegas Blvd, Las Vegas, NV 89119\ 🎟️ Get Tickets!

Details:

• The week tees off in style with the Bitcoin Golf Championship. Swing clubs by day and swing to music by night.

• Live performances from Nostr-powered acts courtesy of Tunestr, including Ainsley Costello and others.

• Stop by the Purple Pill Booth hosted by Derek and Tanja, who will be on-boarding golfers and attendees to the decentralized social future with Nostr.

---

💬 May 27–29 – Bitcoin 2025 Conference at the Las Vegas Convention Center

Location: The Venetian Resort\ Main Attraction for Nostr Fans: The Nostr Lounge\ When: All day, Tuesday through Thursday\ Where: Right outside the Open Source Stage\ 🎟️ Get Tickets!

Come chill at the Nostr Lounge, your home base for all things decentralized social. With seating for \~50, comfy couches, high-tops, and good vibes, it’s the perfect space to meet developers, community leaders, and curious newcomers building the future of censorship-resistant communication.

Bonus: Right across the aisle, you’ll find Shopstr, a decentralized marketplace app built on Nostr. Stop by their booth to explore how peer-to-peer commerce works in a truly open ecosystem.

Daily Highlights at the Lounge:

• ☕️ Hang out casually or sit down for a deeper conversation about the Nostr protocol

• 🔧 1:1 demos from app teams

• 🛍️ Merch available onsite

• 🧠 Impromptu lightning talks

• 🎤 Scheduled Meetups (details below)

---

🎯 Nostr Lounge Meetups

Wednesday, May 28 @ 1:00 PM

• Damus Meetup: Come meet the team behind Damus, the OG Nostr app for iOS that helped kickstart the social revolution. They'll also be showcasing their new cross-platform app, Notedeck, designed for a more unified Nostr experience across devices. Grab some merch, get a demo, and connect directly with the developers.

Thursday, May 29 @ 1:00 PM

• Primal Meetup: Dive into Primal, the slickest Nostr experience available on web, Android, and iOS. With a built-in wallet, zapping your favorite creators and friends has never been easier. The team will be on-site for hands-on demos, Q\&A, merch giveaways, and deeper discussions on building the social layer of Bitcoin.

---

🎙️ Nostr Talks at Bitcoin 2025

If you want to hear from the minds building decentralized social, make sure you attend these two official conference sessions:

1. FROSTR Workshop: Multisig Nostr Signing

• 🕚 Time: 11:30 AM – 12:00 PM

• 📅 Date: Wednesday, May 28

• 📍 Location: Developer Zone

• 🎤 Speaker: nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqgdwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkcqpqs9etjgzjglwlaxdhsveq0qksxyh6xpdpn8ajh69ruetrug957r3qf4ggfm (Austin Kelsay) @ Voltage\ A deep-dive into FROST-based multisig key management for Nostr. Geared toward devs and power users interested in key security.

2. Panel: Decentralizing Social Media

• 🕑 Time: 2:00 PM – 2:30 PM

• 📅 Date: Thursday, May 29

• 📍 Location: Genesis Stage

• 🎙️ Moderator: nostr:nprofile1qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqy08wumn8ghj7mn0wd68yttjv4kxz7fwv3jhyettwfhhxuewd4jsqgxnqajr23msx5malhhcz8paa2t0r70gfjpyncsqx56ztyj2nyyvlq00heps - Bitcoin Strategy @ Roxom TV

• 👥 Speakers:

• nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qqsy2ga7trfetvd3j65m3jptqw9k39wtq2mg85xz2w542p5dhg06e5qmhlpep – Early Bitcoin dev, CEO @ Sirius Business Ltd

• nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytndv9kxjm3wdahxcqg5waehxw309ahx7um5wfekzarkvyhxuet5qqsw4v882mfjhq9u63j08kzyhqzqxqc8tgf740p4nxnk9jdv02u37ncdhu7e3 – Analyst & Partner @ Ego Death Capital

Get the big-picture perspective on why decentralized social matters and how Nostr fits into the future of digital communication.

---

🌃 NOS VEGAS Meetup & Afterparty

Date: Wednesday, May 28\ Time: 7:00 PM – 1:00 AM\ Location: We All Scream Nightclub, 517 Fremont St., Las Vegas, NV 89101\ 🎟️ Get Tickets!

What to Expect:

• 🎶 Live Music Stage – Featuring Ainsley Costello, Sara Jade, Able James, Martin Groom, Bobby Shell, Jessie Lark, and other V4V artists

• 🪩 DJ Party Deck – With sets by nostr:nprofile1qy0hwumn8ghj7cmgdae82uewd45kketyd9kxwetj9e3k7mf6xs6rgqgcwaehxw309ahx7um5wgh85mm694ek2unk9ehhyecqyq7hpmq75krx2zsywntgtpz5yzwjyg2c7sreardcqmcp0m67xrnkwylzzk4 , nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqgkwaehxw309anx2etywvhxummnw3ezucnpdejqqg967faye3x6fxgnul77ej23l5aew8yj0x2e4a3tq2mkrgzrcvecfsk8xlu3 , and more DJs throwing down

• 🛰️ Live-streamed via Tunestr

• 🧠 Nostr Education – Talks by nostr:nprofile1qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq37amnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3dwfjkccte9ejx2un9ddex7umn9ekk2tcqyqlhwrt96wnkf2w9edgr4cfruchvwkv26q6asdhz4qg08pm6w3djg3c8m4j , nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqg7waehxw309anx2etywvhxummnw3ezucnpdejz7ur0wp6kcctjqqspywh6ulgc0w3k6mwum97m7jkvtxh0lcjr77p9jtlc7f0d27wlxpslwvhau , nostr:nprofile1qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3vamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wd33xgetk9en82m30qqsgqke57uygxl0m8elstq26c4mq2erz3dvdtgxwswwvhdh0xcs04sc4u9p7d , nostr:nprofile1q9z8wumn8ghj7erzx3jkvmmzw4eny6tvw368wdt8da4kxamrdvek76mrwg6rwdngw94k67t3v36k77tev3kx7vn2xa5kjem9dp4hjepwd3hkxctvqyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2qpqyaul8k059377u9lsu67de7y637w4jtgeuwcmh5n7788l6xnlnrgssuy4zk , nostr:nprofile1qy28wue69uhnzvpwxqhrqt33xgmn5dfsx5cqz9thwden5te0v4jx2m3wdehhxarj9ekxzmnyqqswavgevxe9gs43vwylumr7h656mu9vxmw4j6qkafc3nefphzpph8ssvcgf8 , and more.

• 🧾 Vendors & Project Booths – Explore new tools and services

• 🔐 Onboarding Stations – Learn how to use Nostr hands-on

• 🐦 Nostrich Flocking – Meet your favorite nyms IRL

• 🍸 Three Full Bars – Two floors of socializing overlooking vibrant Fremont Street

| | | | | ----------- | -------------------- | ------------------- | | Time | Name | Topic | | 7:30-7:50 | Derek | Nostr for Beginners | | 8:00-8:20 | Mark & Paul | Primal | | 8:30-8:50 | Terry | Damus | | 9:00-9:20 | OpenMike and Ainsley | V4V | | 09:30-09:50 | The Space | Space |

This is the after-party of the year for those who love freedom technology and decentralized social community. Don’t miss it.

---

Final Thoughts

Whether you're there to learn, network, party, or build, Bitcoin 2025 in Las Vegas has a packed week of Nostr-friendly programming. Be sure to catch all the events, visit the Nostr Lounge, and experience the growing decentralized social revolution.

🟣 Find us. Flock with us. Purple pill someone.

@ c1831fbe:de4b39bf

What follows is my best effort to recall the details of an arguably supernatural encounter I experienced almost sixty years ago. I've told this story many times before, and while my recollection may not be perfect in every detail, my account is real and substantively factual.

It was early one long ago morning, in that twilit between-time shortly before dawn. As I dangled precariously in a quasi-aware state, hovering on the knife edge between wakefulness and sleep, I was transported in a dream to another place and time. Was it the Mediterranean coast? Perhaps ancient Greece?

In my mind's eye, I found myself climbing a rather steep, rocky hillside overlooking a sparkling bright blue sea. Ahead of me, and slightly higher, was what appeared to be a young shepherd boy, leading me ever higher up the hill.

As we wove our way upward,

skirting rocky outcroppings and zig-zagging because of the steepness of the slope, I heard the boy chanting:

"Ata, Ata, Archontos, Ata, Ata, Echousi, Ata, Ata, Archousi"

He kept repeating the mantra, over and over:

"Ata, Ata, Archontos, Ata, Ata, Echousi, Ata, Ata, Archousi"

\~ \~ \~

"Ata, Ata, Archontos, Ata, Ata, Echousi, Ata, Ata, Archousi"

I listened for a few cycles, and then took up the chant myself. After several attempts, when at last I got it right, the shepherd boy turned, looking back at me and smiling broadly to signal that I had finally mastered the cadence and the words.

Then I awoke.

Because my dream had been so vivid and unusual, I immediately found a pencil and paper to write down the chant phonetically before I could forget it.

A few days passed.

Life was busy. Then I remembered my friend in grad school, studying biblical Greek. That weekend, I went and hung out with him while he worked his night job at the college heating plant. Between his rounds inspecting and managing the steam boilers keeping students from freezing to death in the Arctic Midwest winter, I told him about my strange dream.

Pulling out an exhaustive Greek lexicon, one by one, my knowledgeable friend looked up the words from my dream, interpreting each according to its verb conjugation, tense, and mood.

"Ata, Ata" had no discernible meaning; we soon concluded that it was probably just meaningless vocables, added to give the chant rhythm and substance. My friend moved on to the first recognizable word of the chant...

"Archontos" - "They are ruled."

OK, so far, so good. He checked the next word:

"Echousi" - "They shed blood."

Hmmmm... This chant is beginning to appear to be more than random sounds.

"Archousi" - "They rule."

At this point, I almost fell out of my chair in shock. Far from being a meaningless chant, this cycle—repeating again and again—is the seemingly never-ending story of the entirety of human history...

"They Are Ruled, They Shed Blood, They Rule."

\~ \~ \~

"They Are Ruled, They Shed Blood, They Rule."

This concise mantra perfectly captures the endlessly repeating cycle of oppression, revolt, and revolution that always leaves us with a fresh set of oppressors all too ready to replace the last.

Who will rescue us?

Who will redeem us from this endless tedious cycle into which we have been born?

A long lifetime of study and reflection has persuaded me that this deadly cycle can and ultimately will be broken. If we follow the teachings of Jesus; if we love one another and live together in voluntary, local societies, serving each other; I am persuaded that we can break free of this desperately destructive cycle of endlessly seeking to dominate one another. It's past time for us to enter into a mutually beneficial life in the Kingdom of our Creator-God Jesus, the most authentically benevolent King the universe has ever known.

stories #politics #Christianity #supernatural #strange

@ b83a28b7:35919450

This article was originally part of the sermon of Plebchain Radio Episode 111 (May 2, 2025) that nostr:nprofile1qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqpqtvqc82mv8cezhax5r34n4muc2c4pgjz8kaye2smj032nngg52clq7fgefr and I did with nostr:nprofile1qythwumn8ghj7ct5d3shxtnwdaehgu3wd3skuep0qyt8wumn8ghj7ct4w35zumn0wd68yvfwvdhk6tcqyzx4h2fv3n9r6hrnjtcrjw43t0g0cmmrgvjmg525rc8hexkxc0kd2rhtk62 and nostr:nprofile1qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqpq4wxtsrj7g2jugh70pfkzjln43vgn4p7655pgky9j9w9d75u465pqahkzd0 of the nostr:nprofile1qythwumn8ghj7ct5d3shxtnwdaehgu3wd3skuep0qyt8wumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcqyqwfvwrccp4j2xsuuvkwg0y6a20637t6f4cc5zzjkx030dkztt7t5hydajn

Listen to the full episode here:

<<https://fountain.fm/episode/Ln9Ej0zCZ5dEwfo8w2Ho>>

---

Bitcoin has always been a narrative revolution disguised as code. White paper, cypherpunk lore, pizza‑day legends - every block is a paragraph in the world’s most relentless epic. But code alone rarely converts the skeptic; it’s the camp‑fire myth that slips past the prefrontal cortex and shakes hands with the limbic system. People don’t adopt protocols first - they fall in love with protagonists.

Early adopters heard the white‑paper hymn, but most folks need characters first: a pizza‑day dreamer; a mother in a small country, crushed by the cost of remittance; a Warsaw street vendor swapping złoty for sats. When their arcs land, the brain releases a neurochemical OP_RETURN which says, “I belong in this plot.” That’s the sly roundabout orange pill: conviction smuggled inside catharsis.

That’s why, from 22–25 May in Warsaw’s Kinoteka, the Bitcoin Film Fest is loading its reels with rebellion. Each documentary, drama, and animated rabbit‑hole is a stealth wallet, zipping conviction straight into the feels of anyone still clasped within the cold claw of fiat. You come for the plot, you leave checking block heights.

---

Here's the clip of the sermon from the episode:

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpwp69zm7fewjp0vkp306adnzt7249ytxhz7mq3w5yc629u6er9zsqqsy43fwz8es2wnn65rh0udc05tumdnx5xagvzd88ptncspmesdqhygcrvpf2

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Bitcoin has always been rooted in freedom and resistance to authority. I get that many of you are conflicted about the US Government stacking but by design we cannot stop anyone from using bitcoin. Many have asked me for my thoughts on the matter, so let’s rip it.

Concern

One of the most glaring issues with the strategic bitcoin reserve is its foundation, built on stolen bitcoin. For those of us who value private property this is an obvious betrayal of our core principles. Rather than proof of work, the bitcoin that seeds this reserve has been taken by force. The US Government should return the bitcoin stolen from Bitfinex and the Silk Road.

Using stolen bitcoin for the reserve creates a perverse incentive. If governments see bitcoin as a valuable asset, they will ramp up efforts to confiscate more bitcoin. The precedent is a major concern, and I stand strongly against it, but it should be also noted that governments were already seizing coin before the reserve so this is not really a change in policy.

Ideally all seized bitcoin should be burned, by law. This would align incentives properly and make it less likely for the government to actively increase coin seizures. Due to the truly scarce properties of bitcoin, all burned bitcoin helps existing holders through increased purchasing power regardless. This change would be unlikely but those of us in policy circles should push for it regardless. It would be best case scenario for American bitcoiners and would create a strong foundation for the next century of American leadership.

Optimism

The entire point of bitcoin is that we can spend or save it without permission. That said, it is a massive benefit to not have one of the strongest governments in human history actively trying to ruin our lives.

Since the beginning, bitcoiners have faced horrible regulatory trends. KYC, surveillance, and legal cases have made using bitcoin and building bitcoin businesses incredibly difficult. It is incredibly important to note that over the past year that trend has reversed for the first time in a decade. A strategic bitcoin reserve is a key driver of this shift. By holding bitcoin, the strongest government in the world has signaled that it is not just a fringe technology but rather truly valuable, legitimate, and worth stacking.

This alignment of incentives changes everything. The US Government stacking proves bitcoin’s worth. The resulting purchasing power appreciation helps all of us who are holding coin and as bitcoin succeeds our government receives direct benefit. A beautiful positive feedback loop.

Realism

We are trending in the right direction. A strategic bitcoin reserve is a sign that the state sees bitcoin as an asset worth embracing rather than destroying. That said, there is a lot of work left to be done. We cannot be lulled into complacency, the time to push forward is now, and we cannot take our foot off the gas. We have a seat at the table for the first time ever. Let's make it worth it.

We must protect the right to free usage of bitcoin and other digital technologies. Freedom in the digital age must be taken and defended, through both technical and political avenues. Multiple privacy focused developers are facing long jail sentences for building tools that protect our freedom. These cases are not just legal battles. They are attacks on the soul of bitcoin. We need to rally behind them, fight for their freedom, and ensure the ethos of bitcoin survives this new era of government interest. The strategic reserve is a step in the right direction, but it is up to us to hold the line and shape the future.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Recently we have seen a wave of high profile X accounts hacked. These attacks have exposed the fragility of the status quo security model used by modern social media platforms like X. Many users have asked if nostr fixes this, so lets dive in. How do these types of attacks translate into the world of nostr apps? For clarity, I will use X’s security model as representative of most big tech social platforms and compare it to nostr.

The Status Quo

On X, you never have full control of your account. Ultimately to use it requires permission from the company. They can suspend your account or limit your distribution. Theoretically they can even post from your account at will. An X account is tied to an email and password. Users can also opt into two factor authentication, which adds an extra layer of protection, a login code generated by an app. In theory, this setup works well, but it places a heavy burden on users. You need to create a strong, unique password and safeguard it. You also need to ensure your email account and phone number remain secure, as attackers can exploit these to reset your credentials and take over your account. Even if you do everything responsibly, there is another weak link in X infrastructure itself. The platform’s infrastructure allows accounts to be reset through its backend. This could happen maliciously by an employee or through an external attacker who compromises X’s backend. When an account is compromised, the legitimate user often gets locked out, unable to post or regain control without contacting X’s support team. That process can be slow, frustrating, and sometimes fruitless if support denies the request or cannot verify your identity. Often times support will require users to provide identification info in order to regain access, which represents a privacy risk. The centralized nature of X means you are ultimately at the mercy of the company’s systems and staff.

Nostr Requires Responsibility

Nostr flips this model radically. Users do not need permission from a company to access their account, they can generate as many accounts as they want, and cannot be easily censored. The key tradeoff here is that users have to take complete responsibility for their security. Instead of relying on a username, password, and corporate servers, nostr uses a private key as the sole credential for your account. Users generate this key and it is their responsibility to keep it safe. As long as you have your key, you can post. If someone else gets it, they can post too. It is that simple. This design has strong implications. Unlike X, there is no backend reset option. If your key is compromised or lost, there is no customer support to call. In a compromise scenario, both you and the attacker can post from the account simultaneously. Neither can lock the other out, since nostr relays simply accept whatever is signed with a valid key.

The benefit? No reliance on proprietary corporate infrastructure.. The negative? Security rests entirely on how well you protect your key.

Future Nostr Security Improvements

For many users, nostr’s standard security model, storing a private key on a phone with an encrypted cloud backup, will likely be sufficient. It is simple and reasonably secure. That said, nostr’s strength lies in its flexibility as an open protocol. Users will be able to choose between a range of security models, balancing convenience and protection based on need.

One promising option is a web of trust model for key rotation. Imagine pre-selecting a group of trusted friends. If your account is compromised, these people could collectively sign an event announcing the compromise to the network and designate a new key as your legitimate one. Apps could handle this process seamlessly in the background, notifying followers of the switch without much user interaction. This could become a popular choice for average users, but it is not without tradeoffs. It requires trust in your chosen web of trust, which might not suit power users or large organizations. It also has the issue that some apps may not recognize the key rotation properly and followers might get confused about which account is “real.”

For those needing higher security, there is the option of multisig using FROST (Flexible Round-Optimized Schnorr Threshold). In this setup, multiple keys must sign off on every action, including posting and updating a profile. A hacker with just one key could not do anything. This is likely overkill for most users due to complexity and inconvenience, but it could be a game changer for large organizations, companies, and governments. Imagine the White House nostr account requiring signatures from multiple people before a post goes live, that would be much more secure than the status quo big tech model.

Another option are hardware signers, similar to bitcoin hardware wallets. Private keys are kept on secure, offline devices, separate from the internet connected phone or computer you use to broadcast events. This drastically reduces the risk of remote hacks, as private keys never touches the internet. It can be used in combination with multisig setups for extra protection. This setup is much less convenient and probably overkill for most but could be ideal for governments, companies, or other high profile accounts.

---

Nostr’s security model is not perfect but is robust and versatile. Ultimately users are in control and security is their responsibility. Apps will give users multiple options to choose from and users will choose what best fits their need.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

In much of the world, it is incredibly difficult to access U.S. dollars. Local currencies are often poorly managed and riddled with corruption. Billions of people demand a more reliable alternative. While the dollar has its own issues of corruption and mismanagement, it is widely regarded as superior to the fiat currencies it competes with globally. As a result, Tether has found massive success providing low cost, low friction access to dollars. Tether claims 400 million total users, is on track to add 200 million more this year, processes 8.1 million transactions daily, and facilitates $29 billion in daily transfers. Furthermore, their estimates suggest nearly 40% of users rely on it as a savings tool rather than just a transactional currency.

Tether’s rise has made the company a financial juggernaut. Last year alone, Tether raked in over $13 billion in profit, with a lean team of less than 100 employees. Their business model is elegantly simple: hold U.S. Treasuries and collect the interest. With over $113 billion in Treasuries, Tether has turned a straightforward concept into a profit machine.

Tether’s success has resulted in many competitors eager to claim a piece of the pie. This has triggered a massive venture capital grift cycle in USD tokens, with countless projects vying to dethrone Tether. Due to Tether’s entrenched network effect, these challengers face an uphill battle with little realistic chance of success. Most educated participants in the space likely recognize this reality but seem content to perpetuate the grift, hoping to cash out by dumping their equity positions on unsuspecting buyers before they realize the reality of the situation.

Historically, Tether’s greatest vulnerability has been U.S. government intervention. For over a decade, the company operated offshore with few allies in the U.S. establishment, making it a major target for regulatory action. That dynamic has shifted recently and Tether has seized the opportunity. By actively courting U.S. government support, Tether has fortified their position. This strategic move will likely cement their status as the dominant USD token for years to come.

While undeniably a great tool for the millions of users that rely on it, Tether is not without flaws. As a centralized, trusted third party, it holds the power to freeze or seize funds at its discretion. Corporate mismanagement or deliberate malpractice could also lead to massive losses at scale. In their goal of mitigating regulatory risk, Tether has deepened ties with law enforcement, mirroring some of the concerns of potential central bank digital currencies. In practice, Tether operates as a corporate CBDC alternative, collaborating with authorities to surveil and seize funds. The company proudly touts partnerships with leading surveillance firms and its own data reveals cooperation in over 1,000 law enforcement cases, with more than $2.5 billion in funds frozen.

---

The global demand for Tether is undeniable and the company’s profitability reflects its unrivaled success. Tether is owned and operated by bitcoiners and will likely continue to push forward strategic goals that help the movement as a whole. Recent efforts to mitigate the threat of U.S. government enforcement will likely solidify their network effect and stifle meaningful adoption of rival USD tokens or CBDCs. Yet, for all their achievements, Tether is simply a worse form of money than bitcoin. Tether requires trust in a centralized entity, while bitcoin can be saved or spent without permission. Furthermore, Tether is tied to the value of the US Dollar which is designed to lose purchasing power over time, while bitcoin, as a truly scarce asset, is designed to increase in purchasing power with adoption. As people awaken to the risks of Tether’s control, and the benefits bitcoin provides, bitcoin adoption will likely surpass it.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

One of the most common criticisms leveled against nostr is the perceived lack of assurance when it comes to data storage. Critics argue that without a centralized authority guaranteeing that all data is preserved, important information will be lost. They also claim that running a relay will become prohibitively expensive. While there is truth to these concerns, they miss the mark. The genius of nostr lies in its flexibility, resilience, and the way it harnesses human incentives to ensure data availability in practice.

A nostr relay is simply a server that holds cryptographically verifiable signed data and makes it available to others. Relays are simple, flexible, open, and require no permission to run. Critics are right that operating a relay attempting to store all nostr data will be costly. What they miss is that most will not run all encompassing archive relays. Nostr does not rely on massive archive relays. Instead, anyone can run a relay and choose to store whatever subset of data they want. This keeps costs low and operations flexible, making relay operation accessible to all sorts of individuals and entities with varying use cases.

Critics are correct that there is no ironclad guarantee that every piece of data will always be available. Unlike bitcoin where data permanence is baked into the system at a steep cost, nostr does not promise that every random note or meme will be preserved forever. That said, in practice, any data perceived as valuable by someone will likely be stored and distributed by multiple entities. If something matters to someone, they will keep a signed copy.

Nostr is the Streisand Effect in protocol form. The Streisand effect is when an attempt to suppress information backfires, causing it to spread even further. With nostr, anyone can broadcast signed data, anyone can store it, and anyone can distribute it. Try to censor something important? Good luck. The moment it catches attention, it will be stored on relays across the globe, copied, and shared by those who find it worth keeping. Data deemed important will be replicated across servers by individuals acting in their own interest.

Nostr’s distributed nature ensures that the system does not rely on a single point of failure or a corporate overlord. Instead, it leans on the collective will of its users. The result is a network where costs stay manageable, participation is open to all, and valuable verifiable data is stored and distributed forever.

@ 94215f42:7681f622

Value Creation at the Edge

The conversation around artificial intelligence has largely centered on the technology itself, the capabilities of large language models, the race for more parameters, and the competition between AI companies.

He with the most data / biggest model / biggest platform wins all.

As we're been exploring in recent "Good Stuff" podcasts, the true business model of AI may be much more straightforward. AI is after all a productivity tool with little technical moat, in fact the existence of AI coding and learning tools quickly chop away at this moat even quicker!.\ \ We believe that the it's about transforming traditional human heavy businesses by dramatically reducing operational costs while maintaining or increasing output.

AI is poised to create value not primarily for AI companies themselves, but for businesses that effectively implement AI to transform their operations, particularly small, local businesses that can become extraordinarily efficient through AI adoption.

The Value Shift: From AI Companies to AI-Enabled Traditional Businesses

A central insight from episode 1 of the podcast series, is that the value of AI isn't likely to accrue primarily to companies like OpenAI or other AI technology providers. Instead, the real winners will be traditional service businesses that can leverage AI to transform their operations and cost structures.

"I think we're gonna see this shift to traditional service businesses... that traditionally have pretty fixed low margins because of a dependency on language-heavy workflows that require a lot of humans as the medium of intelligence in the business."

The opportunity here is to use AI to manage the language dependency and shift the moments of intelligence, that currently exist in the heads of our staff, into software that can run 24x7 for fractions of a cost.\ \ The real limiting factor here is less a magic AGI, but instead detailed thinking and process redesign to move humans to the edge of the process. As it turns out if we think through what each person is doing in detail we see the specific decisions, outputs, moments of intelligence are actually quite constrained and can be replicated in LLM's if we break them down to a low enough level of fidelity and take each decisions one step at a time.\ \ The result? Businesses that have traditionally operated with fixed, low margins can potentially achieve "software-style margins" by dramatically reducing their operational expenses.

Transforming Traditional Service Businesses

We have developed three key heuristics for identifying businesses that could benefit most from AI transformation:

1. Language Intensity: Businesses where much of the work involves processing language (reading, writing, communicating). Language in, language out. If you are sat in a chair and typing all day, this could be you.

2. Labor Component: Where we see this language intensity so we find many people performing similar, standardized roles. For examples, if we have four people in the same role this is a big clue we have good process, checklists, role descriptions etc for how the work can be done in order to replicate work across multiple people.

3. Load in the Business: Taking these processes into account, what amount of the operational expense of the business do they represent? Where these language and labor-intensive operations represent a significant portion of the business cost, we can see there will be significant return.

Traditional service businesses that match these criteria—legal firms, accounting practices, consulting agencies, contract engineering, design agencies and others—could see dramatic transformations through AI implementation.

By automating these language-heavy processes, businesses can potentially reduce operational costs by 50-80% while maintaining similar levels of output.

The Power of Small

We believe that small businesses may have an inherent advantage in this transformation. While large enterprises face significant barriers to reducing their workforce (political pressure, media scrutiny, organizational complexity), smaller businesses can adapt more quickly and focus on growth rather than just cost-cutting.

If I'm in a 20,000 person business and I need to remove 10,000 people... that's hard. You can't do this without sending political shock waves in your local community.

If I'm a 10 person business and I need to double my revenue, nobody gives a shit. I can just do it.

For small businesses, AI removes growth constraints. When adding the "21st person" no longer represents a significant capital investment, small businesses can scale much more efficiently:

If the next nominal client that you onboard doesn't actually cause you any more additional pain, if you don't need to hire more people to service that client... you just take off the brakes off from a growth perspective.

This gives small business a unique advantage in capitalizing on AI.

From "Bionic Humans" to "Humans at the Edge"

We currently see this integration to business happening in one of two models:

1. The Bionic Human: Equipping workers with AI tools to make them more productive.

2. Human at the Edge: Redesigning processes to be AI-native, with humans entering the process only when needed (and often facilitated by bitcoin payments).

While many businesses are focused on the first approach and it can certainly see returns, it is still a process constrained by the human input. The real value unlock comes from fundamentally redesigning business processes with AI at the core.

Now we can purchase intelligence in buckets of $0.02 API calls, how would we operate different?

This represents a profound shift in how we think about work and processes. Rather than humans being central to processes with tools supporting them, AI becomes the backbone of operations with humans providing input only at critical junctures.

This is "a complete mental shift" that challenges our fundamental assumptions about how businesses operate. The human becomes "the interface with the real world" for AI systems rather than the primary processor of information and decision-maker.

The Value Trap: Understanding the Competitive Dynamic

So what happens next? Here we have developed the concept of the Value Trap to explain how the competitive landscape will evolve as AI adoption increases..\ \

Initially, early adopters of AI and "Human at the Edge" business processes, will see dramatic benefits.

If your costs have dropped from 90 to 20 this creates an immediate competitive advantage where the early adopter is "now making 80 units of profit versus your 10 units of profit.

They gain massive pricing power in the industry and can compete for growth with an unfair advantage.

Over time, and here we believe this is likely a 5-10 year period although we believe the quicker side, competitive pressures will erode these advantages.\ \ As competitors adopt similar AI strategies, price competition will intensify, and revenues will decline. The business that initially saw its costs drop from 90 to 20 units might see its revenue decline from 100 to 30 units, resulting in similar margins but much lower overall revenue, often destroying the enterprise value of the company at these new revenue / profit levels!

This evolution creates an imperative for businesses to adopt AI early, not just to maintain perpetual advantage, but simply to survive the transition. Worse they're hit with a second challenge of the value trap, how do I keep hold of the value I generate along the way.\ \ If you're reading this on Nostr you may already suspect a way out of this value trap.\ \ If not I would invite you to consider storing the immediate short term returns you pull forwards in something that would be inflation resistant, hard to seize and ideally portable.\ \ We refer to this as a 'The big orange arbitrage".

Implications for Business Owners and Capital Allocators

For business owners, especially those running small to medium-sized enterprises, the message is clear: understand how AI could transform your industry and begin planning your transition now.\ \ This might involve creating an "AI-native twin" of your current business—similar to how Netflix developed streaming alongside its DVD business—to eventually replace your current operations. If you want help please ask, I heavily favor more small businesses in the world and would love to help make this a reality.

For capital allocation, the emerging opportunity we see if in "transformation led private equity". The acquisition of traditional service businesses and applying AI to dramatically reduce operational costs and increase enterprise value.\ \ This approach treats AI not as a product but as a transformation strategy for existing businesses with proven product-market fit.

Transformation led PE is venture style returns without the risk of product market fit.

So the lesson?

The business model of AI isn't all about selling AI technology, adding a RAG chatbot to a new DB or collecting everyone's data.\ \ Consider the humble cash flow business, use AI to transform the operational processes and save into everyone's favorite orange coin.

@ ee6ea13a:959b6e74

Reposted without permission from Business Insider.

Bitcoin Is A Joke

Joe Weisenthal Nov 6, 2013, 10:42 PM UTC

REUTERS/Eliana Aponte

Bitcoin is back in the news, as the digital currency has surged to new all-time highs in recent weeks.

A few weeks ago, it was just above $100. Today it's over $260.

This surge has prompted Timothy B Lee at The Washington Post to ask whether those who have called it a bubble in the past should retract and admit that they were wrong.

Well I'm not totally sure if I've called it a bubble, but I have spoken negatively of it, and I'll say that I still think it's a joke, and probably in a bubble.

Now first of all, I find the premise of Lee's post to be hilarious. The currency has been surging several percent every day lately, and that's evidence that it's not in a bubble?

Before going on, I want to be clear that saying something is a bubble is not saying it will go down. It could go to $500 or $1000 or $10,000. That's the nature of manias.

But make no mistake, Bitcoin is not the currency of the future. It has no intrinsic value.

Now this idea of "intrinsic value" when it comes to currency bothers people, and Bitcoin Bugs will immediately ask why the U.S. dollar has intrinsic value. There's an answer to that. The U.S. Dollar has intrinsic value because the U.S. government which sets the laws of doing business in the United States says it has intrinsic value. If you want to conduct commerce in the United States you have to pay taxes, and there's only one currency you're allowed to pay taxes in: U.S. dollars. There's no getting around this fact. Furthermore, if you want to use the banking system at all, there's no choice but to use U.S. dollars, because that's the currency of the Fed which is behind the whole thing.

On top of all these laws requiring the U.S. dollar to be used, the United States has a gigantic military that can force people around the world to use dollars (if it came to that) so yes, there's a lot of real-world value behind greenbacks.

Bitcoin? Nada. There's nothing keeping it being a thing. If people lose faith in it, it's over. Bitcoin is fiat currency in the most literal sense of the word.

But it gets worse. Bitcoin is mostly just a speculative vehicle. Yes, there are PR stunts about bars and other shops accepting bitcoins. And there is a Bitcoin ATM for some reason. But mostly Bitcoin is a speculative vehicle. And really, you'd be insane to actually conduct a sizable amount of commerce in bitcoins. That's because the price swings so wildly, that the next day, there's a good chance that one of the parties will have gotten royally screwed. Either the purchaser of the good will have ended up totally blowing a huge opportunity (by not holding longer) or the seller will be totally screwed (if Bitcoin instantly plunges). The very volatility that excited people to want to play the Bitcoin game is death when it comes to real transactions in the real world.

Again, Bitcoin might go up a lot more before it ultimately ends. That's the nature of bubbles. The dotcom bubble crashed a bunch of times on its way up. Then one day it ended. The same will happen with this.

In the meantime, have fun speculating!

@ 374ee93a:36623347

Chef's notes

Lovely tart rhubarb jam with the extra firey kick of fresh root ginger.

Technically a vegetable rhubarb has low pectin content so be sure to include a high pectin fruit such as lemon/cooking apple/redcurrant/gooseberry. It also quite watery so we use a slightly higher fruit to sugar ratio (1.2:1) and evaporate off some water at the beginning.

Testing for setting point: put a saucer in the freezer to chill whilst cooking the fruit, after 5 mins of a high boil with the sugar put a small blob of jam on the cold saucer and return to the freezer for 2 minutes. If the jam forms a solid wrinkle when pushed with a spoon it is ready, if it is runny continue cooking and retest every 5 mins

The recipe can be halved for a small batch but if you have lots of rhubarb to process it is better to cook double batches in separate pans because it will take much longer to heat through, this affects the colour and flavour - the jam will taste warm and mellow rather than zingy

Sterilise glass jars in a 120c oven and pot the jam hot leaving 1/4 inch head space, it will keep for 5 years unopened if the lids are well sealed and does not require water bath canning

Details

• ⏲️ Prep time: 20 mins
• 🍳 Cook time: 30 mins
• 🍽️ Servings: 6 (jars)

Ingredients

• 1.2kg Rhubarb
• 200g Grated Root Ginger
• 100g Chopped Crystalised Ginger
• 1kg Sugar
• 1 Lemon

Directions

1. Chop the rhubarb into 1/2 inch pieces, peel and finely grate the fresh root ginger, chop crystalised ginger into tiny bits. Juice and quarter a lemon (discard pips) and add all these to a pan with a small amount of water
2. Simmer gently for 20 mins until the lemon and rhubarb are soft then add the sugar, stir until fully dissolved
3. Boil on high to reach setting point, usually at 105 degrees c or when a small blob of jam wrinkles on a cold plate instead of being runny
4. Remove the lemon pieces and pot into sterilised jars

@ 95543309:196c540e

Lets see if this works with the blossom upload and without markdown hassle.

:cat:

https://blossom.primal.net/73a099f931366732c18dd60da82db6ef65bb368eb96756f07d9fa7a8a3644009.mp4

@ 7459d333:f207289b

Description: Just as Bitcoin enabled sovereignty over money, a decentralized shipping protocol would enable sovereignty over trade. An LN/Bisq inspired shipping protocol could create an unstoppable free market.

---

Bitcoin gave us monetary sovereignty, freeing us from central bank manipulation, inflation, and censorship. But there's a missing link in our freedom journey: the physical world of goods.

The Problem: Even with Bitcoin, global trade remains at the mercy of: - Arbitrary tariffs and import restrictions - Political censorship of goods - Privacy invasion of shipping information - Centralized shipping carriers

The Vision: A decentralized shipping protocol with these properties:

• "Onion-routed" packages: Each carrier only knows the previous and next hop
• Bitcoin-secured multi-sig escrow: Funds locked until package delivery confirmed
• Incentive alignment: Carriers set their own fees based on risk assessment
• Privacy tiers: Options for inspected vs. sealed packages with appropriate pricing
• End-to-end sovereignty: Sender and receiver maintain control, intermediate carriers just fulfill their role

How it could work:

1. Sender creates shipping request with package details and destination
2. Protocol finds optimal route through independent carriers
3. Each hop secured by multi-sig deposits larger than package value
4. Carriers only see next hop, not ultimate destination
5. Reputation systems and economic incentives maintain integrity

This creates a free market where any individual can participate as a carrier, earning Bitcoin for facilitating trade. Just like Lightning Network nodes, anyone can open "channels" with trusted partners.

Impact: This would enable true free market principles globally, making artificial trade barriers obsolete and empowering individuals to engage in voluntary exchange regardless of geographic or political boundaries.

There are a lot of challenges. But the first question is if this is a real problem and if its worth solving it.

What components would need development first? How would you solve the physical handoff challenges?

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/976326

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Capitalism is the most effective system for scaling innovation. The pursuit of profit is an incredibly powerful human incentive. Most major improvements to human society and quality of life have resulted from this base incentive. Market competition often results in the best outcomes for all.

That said, some projects can never be monetized. They are open in nature and a business model would centralize control. Open protocols like bitcoin and nostr are not owned by anyone and if they were it would destroy the key value propositions they provide. No single entity can or should control their use. Anyone can build on them without permission.

As a result, open protocols must depend on donation based grant funding from the people and organizations that rely on them. This model works but it is slow and uncertain, a grind where sustainability is never fully reached but rather constantly sought. As someone who has been incredibly active in the open source grant funding space, I do not think people truly appreciate how difficult it is to raise charitable money and deploy it efficiently.

Projects that can be monetized should be. Profitability is a super power. When a business can generate revenue, it taps into a self sustaining cycle. Profit fuels growth and development while providing projects independence and agency. This flywheel effect is why companies like Google, Amazon, and Apple have scaled to global dominance. The profit incentive aligns human effort with efficiency. Businesses must innovate, cut waste, and deliver value to survive.

Contrast this with non monetized projects. Without profit, they lean on external support, which can dry up or shift with donor priorities. A profit driven model, on the other hand, is inherently leaner and more adaptable. It is not charity but survival. When survival is tied to delivering what people want, scale follows naturally.

The real magic happens when profitable, sustainable businesses are built on top of open protocols and software. Consider the many startups building on open source software stacks, such as Start9, Mempool, and Primal, offering premium services on top of the open source software they build out and maintain. Think of companies like Block or Strike, which leverage bitcoin’s open protocol to offer their services on top. These businesses amplify the open software and protocols they build on, driving adoption and improvement at a pace donations alone could never match.

When you combine open software and protocols with profit driven business the result are lean, sustainable companies that grow faster and serve more people than either could alone. Bitcoin’s network, for instance, benefits from businesses that profit off its existence, while nostr will expand as developers monetize apps built on the protocol.

Capitalism scales best because competition results in efficiency. Donation funded protocols and software lay the groundwork, while market driven businesses build on top. The profit incentive acts as a filter, ensuring resources flow to what works, while open systems keep the playing field accessible, empowering users and builders. Together, they create a flywheel of innovation, growth, and global benefit.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Someone asked for my thoughts, so I’ll share them thoughtfully. I’m not here to dictate how to promote Nostr—I’m still learning about it myself. While I’m not new to Nostr, freedom tech is a newer space for me. I’m skilled at advocating for topics I deeply understand, but freedom tech isn’t my expertise, so take my words with a grain of salt. Nothing I say is set in stone.

Those who need Nostr the most are the ones most vulnerable to censorship on other platforms right now. Reaching them requires real-time awareness of global issues and the dynamic relationships between governments and tech providers, which can shift suddenly. Effective Nostr promoters must grasp this and adapt quickly.

The best messengers are people from or closely tied to these at-risk regions—those who truly understand the local political and cultural dynamics. They can connect with those in need when tensions rise. Ideal promoters are rational, trustworthy, passionate about Nostr, but above all, dedicated to amplifying people’s voices when it matters most.

Forget influencers, corporate-backed figures, or traditional online PR—it comes off as inauthentic, corny, desperate and forced. Nostr’s promotion should be grassroots and organic, driven by a few passionate individuals who believe in Nostr and the communities they serve.

The idea that “people won’t join Nostr due to lack of reach” is nonsense. Everyone knows X’s “reach” is mostly with bots. If humans want real conversations, Nostr is the place. X is great for propaganda, but Nostr is for the authentic voices of the people.

Those spreading Nostr must be so passionate they’re willing to onboard others, which is time-consuming but rewarding for the right person. They’ll need to make Nostr and onboarding a core part of who they are. I see no issue with that level of dedication. I’ve been known to get that way myself at times. It’s fun for some folks.

With love, I suggest not adding Bitcoin promotion with Nostr outreach. Zaps already integrate that element naturally. (Still promote within the Bitcoin ecosystem, but this is about reaching vulnerable voices who needed Nostr yesterday.)

To promote Nostr, forget conventional strategies. “Influencers” aren’t the answer. “Influencers” are not the future. A trusted local community member has real influence—reach them. Connect with people seeking Nostr’s benefits but lacking the technical language to express it. This means some in the Nostr community might need to step outside of the Bitcoin bubble, which is uncomfortable but necessary. Thank you in advance to those who are willing to do that.

I don’t know who is paid to promote Nostr, if anyone. This piece isn’t shade. But it’s exhausting to see innocent voices globally silenced on corporate platforms like X while Nostr exists. Last night, I wondered: how many more voices must be censored before the Nostr community gets uncomfortable and thinks creatively to reach the vulnerable?

A warning: the global need for censorship-resistant social media is undeniable. If Nostr doesn’t make itself known, something else will fill that void. Let’s start this conversation.

@ 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! 🌸

@ 08f96856:ffe59a09

เมื่อพูดถึง Bitcoin Standard หลายคนมักนึกถึงภาพโลกอนาคตที่ทุกคนใช้บิตคอยน์ซื้อกาแฟหรือของใช้ในชีวิตประจำวัน ภาพแบบนั้นดูเหมือนไกลตัวและเป็นไปไม่ได้ในความเป็นจริง หลายคนถึงกับพูดว่า “คงไม่ทันเห็นในช่วงชีวิตนี้หรอก” แต่ในมุมมองของผม Bitcoin Standard อาจไม่ได้เริ่มต้นจากการที่เราจ่ายบิตคอยน์โดยตรงในร้านค้า แต่อาจเริ่มจากบางสิ่งที่เงียบกว่า ลึกกว่า และเกิดขึ้นแล้วในขณะนี้ นั่นคือ การล่มสลายทีละน้อยของระบบเฟียตที่เราใช้กันอยู่

ระบบเงินที่อิงกับอำนาจรัฐกำลังเข้าสู่ช่วงขาลง รัฐบาลทั่วโลกกำลังจมอยู่ในภาระหนี้ระดับประวัติการณ์ แม้แต่ประเทศมหาอำนาจก็เริ่มแสดงสัญญาณของภาวะเสี่ยงผิดนัดชำระหนี้ อัตราเงินเฟ้อกลายเป็นปัญหาเรื้อรังที่ไม่มีท่าทีจะหายไป ธนาคารที่เคยโอนฟรีเริ่มกลับมาคิดค่าธรรมเนียม และประชาชนก็เริ่มรู้สึกถึงการเสื่อมศรัทธาในระบบการเงินดั้งเดิม แม้จะยังพูดกันไม่เต็มเสียงก็ตาม

ในขณะเดียวกัน บิตคอยน์เองก็กำลังพัฒนาแบบเงียบ ๆ เงียบ... แต่ไม่เคยหยุด โดยเฉพาะในระดับ Layer 2 ที่เริ่มแสดงศักยภาพอย่างจริงจัง Lightning Network เป็น Layer 2 ที่เปิดใช้งานมาได้ระยะเวลสหนึ่ง และยังคงมีบทบาทสำคัญที่สุดในระบบนิเวศของบิตคอยน์ มันทำให้การชำระเงินเร็วขึ้น มีต้นทุนต่ำ และไม่ต้องบันทึกทุกธุรกรรมลงบล็อกเชน เครือข่ายนี้กำลังขยายตัวทั้งในแง่ของโหนดและการใช้งานจริงทั่วโลก

ขณะเดียวกัน Layer 2 ทางเลือกอื่นอย่าง Ark Protocol ก็กำลังพัฒนาเพื่อตอบโจทย์ด้านความเป็นส่วนตัวและประสบการณ์ใช้งานที่ง่าย BitVM เปิดแนวทางใหม่ให้บิตคอยน์รองรับ smart contract ได้ในระดับ Turing-complete ซึ่งทำให้เกิดความเป็นไปได้ในกรณีใช้งานอีกมากมาย และเทคโนโลยีที่น่าสนใจอย่าง Taproot Assets, Cashu และ Fedimint ก็ทำให้การออกโทเคนหรือสกุลเงินที่อิงกับบิตคอยน์เป็นจริงได้บนโครงสร้างของบิตคอยน์เอง

เทคโนโลยีเหล่านี้ไม่ใช่การเติบโตแบบปาฏิหาริย์ แต่มันคืบหน้าอย่างต่อเนื่องและมั่นคง และนั่นคือเหตุผลที่มันจะ “อยู่รอด” ได้ในระยะยาว เมื่อฐานของความน่าเชื่อถือไม่ใช่บริษัท รัฐบาล หรือทุน แต่คือสิ่งที่ตรวจสอบได้และเปลี่ยนกฎไม่ได้

แน่นอนว่าบิตคอยน์ต้องแข่งขันกับ stable coin, เงินดิจิทัลของรัฐ และ cryptocurrency อื่น ๆ แต่สิ่งที่ทำให้มันเหนือกว่านั้นไม่ใช่ฟีเจอร์ หากแต่เป็นความทนทาน และความมั่นคงของกฎที่ไม่มีใครเปลี่ยนได้ ไม่มีทีมพัฒนา ไม่มีบริษัท ไม่มีประตูปิด หรือการยึดบัญชี มันยืนอยู่บนคณิตศาสตร์ พลังงาน และเวลา

หลายกรณีใช้งานที่เคยถูกทดลองในโลกคริปโตจะค่อย ๆ เคลื่อนเข้ามาสู่บิตคอยน์ เพราะโครงสร้างของมันแข็งแกร่งกว่า ไม่ต้องการทีมพัฒนาแกนกลาง ไม่ต้องพึ่งกลไกเสี่ยงต่อการผูกขาด และไม่ต้องการ “ความเชื่อใจ” จากใครเลย

Bitcoin Standard ที่ผมพูดถึงจึงไม่ใช่การเปลี่ยนแปลงแบบพลิกหน้ามือเป็นหลังมือ แต่คือการ “เปลี่ยนฐานของระบบ” ทีละชั้น ระบบการเงินใหม่ที่อิงอยู่กับบิตคอยน์กำลังเกิดขึ้นแล้ว มันไม่ใช่โลกที่ทุกคนถือเหรียญบิตคอยน์ แต่มันคือโลกที่คนใช้อาจไม่รู้ตัวด้วยซ้ำว่า “สิ่งที่เขาใช้นั้นอิงอยู่กับบิตคอยน์”

ผู้คนอาจใช้เงินดิจิทัลที่สร้างบน Layer 3 หรือ Layer 4 ผ่านแอป ผ่านแพลตฟอร์ม หรือผ่านสกุลเงินใหม่ที่ดูไม่ต่างจากเดิม แต่เบื้องหลังของระบบจะผูกไว้กับบิตคอยน์

และถ้ามองในเชิงพัฒนาการ บิตคอยน์ก็เหมือนกับอินเทอร์เน็ต ครั้งหนึ่งอินเทอร์เน็ตก็ถูกมองว่าเข้าใจยาก ต้องพิมพ์ http ต้องรู้จัก TCP/IP ต้องตั้ง proxy เอง แต่ปัจจุบันผู้คนใช้งานอินเทอร์เน็ตโดยไม่รู้ว่าเบื้องหลังมีอะไรเลย บิตคอยน์กำลังเดินตามเส้นทางเดียวกัน โปรโตคอลกำลังถอยออกจากสายตา และวันหนึ่งเราจะ “ใช้มัน” โดยไม่ต้องรู้ว่ามันคืออะไร

หากนับจากช่วงเริ่มต้นของอินเทอร์เน็ตในยุค 1990 จนกลายเป็นโครงสร้างหลักของโลกในสองทศวรรษ เส้นเวลาของบิตคอยน์ก็กำลังเดินตามรอยเท้าของอินเทอร์เน็ต และถ้าเราเชื่อว่าวัฏจักรของเทคโนโลยีมีจังหวะของมันเอง เราก็จะรู้ว่า Bitcoin Standard นั้นไม่ใช่เรื่องของอนาคตไกลโพ้น แต่มันเกิดขึ้นแล้ว

siamstr

@ 6e64b83c:94102ee8

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

What's New in Version 0.7?

RSS and Atom Feeds

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

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

Smart Content Discovery

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

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

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

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

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

Amico mio, ascolta bene!

Without hesitation, the woman you attract with lies is not truly yours. Davvero, she is the temporary property of the illusion you’ve built to seduce her. And every illusion, sooner or later, crumbles.

Weak men sell inflated versions of themselves. They talk about what they don’t have, promise what they can’t sustain, adorn their empty selves with words that are nothing more than a coat of paint. And they do this thinking that, later, they’ll be able to "show who they really are." Fatal mistake, cazzo!

The truth, amico mio, is not something that appears at the end. It is what holds up the whole beginning.

The woman who approaches a lie may smile at first — but she is smiling at the theater, not at the actor. When the curtains fall, what she will see is not a man. It will be a character tired of performing, begging for love from a self-serving audience in the front row.

That’s why I always point out that lying to win a woman’s heart is the same as sabotaging your own nature. The woman who comes through an invented version of you will be the first to leave when the veil of lies tears apart. Not out of cruelty, but out of consistency with her own interest. Fine... She didn’t leave you, but rather, that version of yourself never truly existed to be left behind.

A worthy man presents himself without deceptive adornments. And those who stay, stay because they know exactly who they are choosing as a man. That’s what differentiates forged seduction from the convenience of love built on honor, loyalty, and respect.

Ah, amico mio, I remember well. It was lunch on an autumn day in Catania. Mediterranean heat, and the Nero D'Avola wine from midday clinging to the lips like dried blood. Sitting in the shade of a lemon tree planted right by my grandfather's vineyard entrance, my uncle — the oldest of my father’s brothers — spoke little, but when he called us to sit by his side, all the nephews would quiet down to listen. And in my youth, he told me something that has never left my mind.

“In Sicily, the woman who endures the silence of a man about his business is more loyal than the one who is enchanted by speeches about what he does or how much he earns. Perchè, figlio mio, the first one has seen the truth. The second one, only a false shine.”

Thank you for reading, my friend!

If this message resonated with you, consider leaving your "🥃" as a token of appreciation.

A toast to our family!

@ 266815e0:6cd408a5

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

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

New layout

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

Removed NIP-72 communities

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

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

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

Settings view

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

Cleaned up lists

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

New emoji picker

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

Experimental Wallet

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

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

Smaller improvements

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

@ 2b24a1fa:17750f64

Es ist pure Freiheit, Geschwindigkeit durch die eigene Kraft oder Bergab-Beschleunigung zu spüren. Kein störendes Motorengeräusch, das auch noch das ökologische Gewissen aufruft. Einfach nur Sein, an der Luft, im Wind. Wenn da doch nur … keine Ampel wäre.

Hören Sie den Beitrag „Ja oder ja – Begegnung mit der Staatsmacht, von Isa Mitza.

https://soundcloud.com/radiomuenchen/ja-oder-ja-begegnung-mit-der-staatsmacht-von-isa-mitza?

@ eb0157af:77ab6c55

Legal developments show that prosecutors may have concealed evidence in the case against the Tornado Cash mixer.

The legal case involving the Tornado Cash mixer may be at a turning point. Roman Storm’s legal team, one of the platform’s developers, has asked the court to reconsider the motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the prosecution deliberately withheld evidence favorable to the defense. These documents, originating from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and dating back to 2023, would demonstrate that non-custodial cryptocurrency mixers like Tornado Cash do not fall under the legal definition of a “money transmitting business.”

According to a letter dated May 16 addressed to Judge Katherine Polk Failla, prosecutors were aware of FinCEN’s guidelines on cryptocurrency mixers but nonetheless proceeded with charges against the developers of both Samourai Wallet and Tornado Cash. The prosecution denies having withheld evidence, claiming it provided the FinCEN communications within the established deadlines during the discovery phase.

Source: Court Listener

Similarities with the Samourai Wallet case

Storm’s defense team cited the same legal documents and arguments presented by the attorneys for the Samourai Wallet developers in a legal letter dated May 5. The attorneys wrote:

“The disclosures in the Samourai case reveal that the government, at the very least, played fast and loose and, at worst, affirmatively misled this Court with its arguments about FinCEN guidance when responding to the motions to dismiss and to compel discovery.”

Although on April 28, federal judge Robert Pitman issued a ruling denying the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) the ability to reimpose sanctions on Tornado Cash — setting a legal precedent for cases involving non-custodial mixers — federal prosecutors are nonetheless moving forward with the case against Storm, albeit with modified charges.

The post Tornado Cash case: new evidence reveals potential procedural misconduct appeared first on Atlas21.

@ 662f9bff:8960f6b2

This past week I have been very busy in Holywood - just outside Belfast, Northern Ireland with a lot to do on top of my day-job! It was an unplanned trip but mission accomplished and we are off on the road again. I am writing this on my 3h30 Ryanair flight - so even in weeks like this you can find time to reflect quietly and think clearly if you look for it and seize the opportunity.

You might have noticed that I have "rebranded" the website and newsletter as "Letter From ...around the world". This reflects the reality that Hong Kong is not currently the "Asia World City" and I am not there. Whether it will ever reclaim that title again and when, or even if I can return remains to be seen. I am deeply saddened that after living 10 fabulous years in HK we had to abandon everything that Saturday night at the end of February.

This is the third time in my life that I have chosen Exit from "Loyalty, Voice or Exit" - (recall issue 09 - On Location).... Expect both Voice and Exit to become increasingly difficult or even unavailable in many jurisdictions. It is time to wake up. Talk to me if you are awake or curious!

One thing I learned back in 2004 on my first businss trip to New York is that "The way you react to a situation determines how you feel about it". This is one of so many insights that I learned from "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" by Steven Covey. I found the book at 4pm in the afternoon walking around outside my hotel trying to stay up to overcome jet-lag. I got back to the hotel and proceeded to devour the entire book overnight. I had never done that with any book before and I do not think I have done it since. Look out for a full review in an upcoming newsletter.

Thanks to Ali Abdaal for his passionate and insightful review of "Show Your Work" by Austin Kleon - clearly this is something that he has internalised and he does practice what he preaches. Indeed this is a short and easy read with many pictures and simple suggestions - recommended! I did read it on my Kindle and I am enjoying how the highlights automagically sync into Obsidian (see last week's find).

I was also inspired by Ali's How to Start a Youtube Channel explainer. I have been following Ali for about 5 years since he was a student doing these videos in his student room on his iPhone while studying Medicine in Cambridge. His passion for sharing his insights on how to study effectively as well as facilitating the learning that medical students needed to do enabled him to set up his own businesss. This set him on the road to his current 3 million subscribers and a business employing over a dozen people inspiring and helping others to acquire skills that are increasingly valuable in the the world today and going forward.

Over the coming months I will be experimenting with different channels and different media not only to discover new insights for myself but also to share things that I distill and find interesting. Also somewhat loosely inspired by "How to Get What you want and Want What You Have" by Jon Gray, I do recognize that I am now in the latter of the "Ten Time Periods" - if I had to pick one, I would say number 8 - at least that is how I feel!

So do subscribe to the newsletter and do follow along on Youtube. I'm obviously still in stage 1 of Ali's 3-stage process - so be patient and do give feedback, questions and suggestions!

Another day - another Airport...

That's it!

No one can be told what The Matrix is.\ You have to see it for yourself.**

Do share this newsletter with any of your friends and family who might be interested.

You can also email me at: LetterFrom@rogerprice.me

💡Enjoy the newsletters in your own language : Dutch, French, German, Serbian, Chinese Traditional & Simplified, Thai and Burmese.

@ 088436cd:9d2646cc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Please respect Virginia Giuffre’s memory by refraining from asking about the circumstances or theories surrounding her passing.

Since Virginia Giuffre’s death, I’ve reflected on what she would want me to say or do. This piece is my attempt to honor her legacy.

When I first spoke with Virginia, I was struck by her unshakable hope. I had grown cynical after years in the anti-human trafficking movement, worn down by a broken system and a government that often seemed complicit. But Virginia’s passion, creativity, and belief that survivors could be heard reignited something in me. She reminded me of my younger, more hopeful self. Instead of warning her about the challenges ahead, I let her dream big, unburdened by my own disillusionment. That conversation changed me for the better, and following her lead led to meaningful progress.

Virginia was one of the bravest people I’ve ever known. As a survivor of Epstein, Maxwell, and their co-conspirators, she risked everything to speak out, taking on some of the world’s most powerful figures.

She loved when I said, “Epstein isn’t the only Epstein.” This wasn’t just about one man—it was a call to hold all abusers accountable and to ensure survivors find hope and healing.

The Epstein case often gets reduced to sensational details about the elite, but that misses the bigger picture. Yes, we should be holding all of the co-conspirators accountable, we must listen to the survivors’ stories. Their experiences reveal how predators exploit vulnerabilities, offering lessons to prevent future victims.

You’re not powerless in this fight. Educate yourself about trafficking and abuse—online and offline—and take steps to protect those around you. Supporting survivors starts with small, meaningful actions. Free online resources can guide you in being a safe, supportive presence.

When high-profile accusations arise, resist snap judgments. Instead of dismissing survivors as “crazy,” pause to consider the trauma they may be navigating. Speaking out or coping with abuse is never easy. You don’t have to believe every claim, but you can refrain from attacking accusers online.

Society also fails at providing aftercare for survivors. The government, often part of the problem, won’t solve this. It’s up to us. Prevention is critical, but when abuse occurs, step up for your loved ones and community. Protect the vulnerable. it’s a challenging but a rewarding journey.

If you’re contributing to Nostr, you’re helping build a censorship resistant platform where survivors can share their stories freely, no matter how powerful their abusers are. Their voices can endure here, offering strength and hope to others. This gives me great hope for the future.

Virginia Giuffre’s courage was a gift to the world. It was an honor to know and serve her. She will be deeply missed. My hope is that her story inspires others to take on the powerful.

@ 90152b7f:04e57401

Wikileaks - S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 TEL AVIV 001733 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/13/2017 TAGS: PREL, PTER, MOPS, KWBG, LE, SY, IS SUBJECT: MILITARY INTELLIGENCE DIRECTOR YADLIN COMMENTS ON GAZA, SYRIA AND LEBANON Classified By: Ambassador Richard H. Jones, Reason 1.4 (b) (d)

2007 June 13

1. (S) Summary. During a June 12 meeting with the Ambassador, IDI Director MG Amos Yadlin said that Gaza was "number four" on his list of threats, preceded by Iran, Syria, and Hizballah in that order. Yadlin said the IDI has been predicting armed confrontation in Gaza between Hamas and Fatah since Hamas won the January 2006 legislative council elections. Yadlin felt that the Hamas military wing had initiated the current escalation with the tacit consent of external Hamas leader Khalid Mishal, adding that he did not believe there had been a premeditated political-level decision by Hamas to wipe out Fatah in Gaza. Yadlin dismissed Fatah's capabilities in Gaza, saying Hamas could have taken over there any time it wanted for the past year, but he agreed that Fatah remained strong in the West Bank. Although not necessarily reflecting a GOI consensus view, Yadlin said Israel would be "happy" if Hamas took over Gaza because the IDF could then deal with Gaza as a hostile state. He dismissed the significance of an Iranian role in a Hamas-controlled Gaza "as long as they don't have a port." Regarding predictions of war with Syria this summer, Yadlin recalled the lead-up to the 1967 war, which he said was provoked by the Soviet Ambassador in Israel. Both Israel and Syria are in a state of high alert, so war could happen easily even though neither side is seeking it. Yadlin suggested that the Asad regime would probably not survive a war, but added that Israel was no longer concerned with maintaining that "evil" regime. On Lebanon, Yadlin felt that the fighting in the Nahr Al-Barid camp was a positive development for Israel since it had "embarrassed" Hizballah, adding that IDI had information that the Fatah Al-Islam terrorist group was planning to attack UNIFIL before it blundered into its confrontation with the LAF. End Summary.

Gaza Fighting Not Israel's Main Problem

---------------------------------------

2. (S) The Ambassador, accompanied by Pol Couns and DATT, called on IDI Director Major General Amos Yadlin June 12. Noting reports of fierce fighting between Hamas and Fatah in Gaza that day, the Ambassador asked for Yadlin's assessment. Yadlin described Gaza as "not Israel's main problem," noting that it ranked fourth in his hierarchy of threats, behind Iran, Syria, and Hizballah. Yadlin described Gaza as "hopeless for now," commenting that the Palestinians had to realize that Hamas offered no solution. IDI analysts, he said, had predicted a confrontation in Gaza since Hamas won the Palestinian Legislative Council elections in January 2006. Yadlin commented that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh had become personally close despite their ideological differences, but neither leader had control over those forces under them.

3. (S) Yadlin explained that both Fatah and Hamas contained many factions. The Hamas military wing had been frustrated since the signing of the Mecca Agreement in January, but there were also many armed groups in Gaza that were not under the control of either party. Yadlin cited the example of the Dughmush clan, which had shifted from Fatah to the Popular Resistance Committees to Hamas before becoming an armed entity opposed to all of them. After May 15, the Hamas military wing had sought to export the fighting to Sderot by launching waves of Qassam rockets. One week later, as a result of IDF retaliation, they realized the price was too high and reduced the Qassam attacks.

4. (S) In response to the Ambassador's question, Yadlin said he did not think that day's Hamas attacks on Fatah security forces were part of a premeditated effort to wipe out Fatah in Gaza. Instead, they probably represented an initiative of the military wing with the tacit consent of Khalid Mishal in Damascus. Mishal was still considering the costs and benefits of the fighting, but the situation had become so tense that any incident could lead to street fighting without any political decision.

Gaza and West Bank Separating

-----------------------------

5. (S) The Ambassador asked Yadlin for his assessment of reports that Fatah forces had been ordered not to fight back. Yadlin said Mohammed Dahlan had 500 men and the Presidential Guard had 1,500 more. They understand that the balance of power favors Hamas, which "can take over Gaza any time it wants to." Yadlin said he would be surprised if Fatah fights, and even more surprised if they win. As far as he was concerned, this had been the case for the past year. The situation was different in the West Bank, however, where Fatah remained relatively strong and had even started to

TEL AVIV 00001733 002 OF 002

kidnap Hamas activists. Yadlin agreed that Tawfiq Tirawi had a power base in the West Bank, but he added that Fatah was not cohesive.

6. (S) The Ambassador commented that if Fatah decided it has lost Gaza, there would be calls for Abbas to set up a separate regime in the West Bank. While not necessarily reflecting a consensus GOI view, Yadlin commented that such a development would please Israel since it would enable the IDF to treat Gaza as a hostile country rather than having to deal with Hamas as a non-state actor. He added that Israel could work with a Fatah regime in the West Bank. The Ambassador asked Yadlin if he worried about a Hamas-controlled Gaza giving Iran a new opening. Yadlin replied that Iran was already present in Gaza, but Israel could handle the situation "as long as Gaza does not have a port (sea or air)."

War with Syria "Could Happen Easily"

------------------------------------

7. (S) Noting Israeli press speculation, the Ambassador asked Yadlin if he expected war with Syria this summer. Recalling the 1967 war, Yadlin commented that it had started as a result of the Soviet Ambassador in Israel reporting on non-existing Israeli preparations to attack Syria. Something similar was happening again, he said, with the Russians telling the Syrians that Israel planned to attack them, possibly in concert with a U.S. attack on Iran. Yadlin stated that since last summer's war in Lebanon, Syria had engaged in a "frenzy of preparations" for a confrontation with Israel. The Syrian regime was also showing greater self-confidence. Some Syrian leaders appeared to believe that Syria could take on Israel military, but others were more cautious. The fact that both sides were on high alert meant that a war could happen easily, even though neither side is seeking one. In response to a question, Yadlin said he did not think the Asad regime would survive a war, but he added that preserving that "evil" regime should not be a matter of concern.

Fighting in Nahr al-Barid Positive for Israel

---------------------------------------------

8. (S) The Ambassador asked Yadlin for his views on the fighting in the Nahr al-Barid refugee camp in northern Lebanon. Although Yadlin was called to another meeting and did not have time to elaborate, he answered that the fighting was positive for Israel because it had embarrassed Hizballah, which had been unable to adopt a clear-cut position on the Lebanese Army's action, and because the Fatah al-Islam terrorist organization had been planning to attack UNIFIL and then Israel before it blundered into its current confrontation with the LAF. He also agreed that the confrontation was strengthening the LAF, in fact and in the eyes of the Lebanese people, which was also good.

9. (S) Comment: Yadlin's relatively relaxed attitude toward the deteriorating security situation in Gaza represents a shift in IDF thinking from last fall, when the Southern Command supported a major ground operation into Gaza to remove the growing threat from Hamas. While many media commentators continue to make that argument, Yadlin's view appears to be more in synch with that of Chief of General Staff Ashkenazi, who also believes that the more serious threat to Israel currently comes from the north.

********************************************* ******************** Visit Embassy Tel Aviv's Classified Website: http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/nea/telaviv

You can also access this site through the State Department's Classified SIPRNET website. ********************************************* ******************** JONES

@ a008def1:57a3564d

A Vision for #GitViaNostr

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

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

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

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

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

How Far We’ve Come

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philosophy

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

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

I’d like to add one more:

• Embrace anarchy and resist monolithic development.

Micro Clients FTW

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friction and Challenges

The Git Server

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

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

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

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

Challenges with the Git Server

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vision for the Git Server

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

Functionality Already in ngit to Support This

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

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

Implementation Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Git Client in the Browser

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

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

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

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

song

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

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

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

CI/CD

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

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

DVMs for CI/CD

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

There are various trust levels in CI/CD tasks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

CI/CD Watcher Agents

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

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

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

Progress to Date

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

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

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

Easy Web App Deployment

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

Many More Opportunities

Large Patches via Blossom

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

Enhancing the #GitViaNostr Experience

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

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

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

Concluding Thoughts

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

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

Contributions

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

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

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

nostr:npub1uplxcy63up7gx7cladkrvfqh834n7ylyp46l3e8t660l7peec8rsd2sfek (git-remote-nostr)

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

CI / CD nostr:npub16ux4qzg4qjue95vr3q327fzata4n594c9kgh4jmeyn80v8k54nhqg6lra7 nostr:npub1hw6amg8p24ne08c9gdq8hhpqx0t0pwanpae9z25crn7m9uy7yarse465gr

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

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

@ 6be5cc06:5259daf0

Eu reconheço que Deus, e somente Deus, é o soberano legítimo sobre todas as coisas. Nenhum homem, nenhuma instituição, nenhum parlamento tem autoridade para usurpar aquilo que pertence ao Rei dos reis. O Estado moderno, com sua pretensão totalizante, é uma farsa blasfema diante do trono de Cristo. Não aceito outro senhor.

A Lei que me guia não é a ditada por burocratas, mas a gravada por Deus na própria natureza humana. A razão, quando iluminada pela fé, é suficiente para discernir o que é justo. Rejeito as leis arbitrárias que pretendem legitimar o roubo, o assassinato ou a escravidão em nome da ordem. A justiça não nasce do decreto, mas da verdade.

Acredito firmemente na propriedade privada como extensão da própria pessoa. Aquilo que é fruto do meu trabalho, da minha criatividade, da minha dedicação, dos dons a mim concedidos por Deus, pertence a mim por direito natural. Ninguém pode legitimamente tomar o que é meu sem meu consentimento. Todo imposto é uma agressão; toda expropriação, um roubo. Defendo a liberdade econômica não por idolatria ao mercado, mas porque a liberdade é condição necessária para a virtude.

Assumo o Princípio da Não Agressão como o mínimo ético que devo respeitar. Não iniciarei o uso da força contra ninguém, nem contra sua propriedade. Exijo o mesmo de todos. Mas sei que isso não basta. O PNA delimita o que não devo fazer — ele não me ensina o que devo ser. A liberdade exterior só é boa se houver liberdade interior. O mercado pode ser livre, mas se a alma estiver escravizada pelo vício, o colapso será inevitável.

Por isso, não me basta a ética negativa. Creio que uma sociedade justa precisa de valores positivos: honra, responsabilidade, compaixão, respeito, fidelidade à verdade. Sem isso, mesmo uma sociedade que respeite formalmente os direitos individuais apodrecerá por dentro. Um povo que ama o lucro, mas despreza a verdade, que celebra a liberdade mas esquece a justiça, está se preparando para ser dominado. Trocará um déspota visível por mil tiranias invisíveis — o hedonismo, o consumismo, a mentira, o medo.

Não aceito a falsa caridade feita com o dinheiro tomado à força. A verdadeira generosidade nasce do coração livre, não da coerção institucional. Obrigar alguém a ajudar o próximo destrói tanto a liberdade quanto a virtude. Só há mérito onde há escolha. A caridade que nasce do amor é redentora; a que nasce do fisco é propaganda.

O Estado moderno é um ídolo. Ele promete segurança, mas entrega servidão. Promete justiça, mas entrega privilégios. Disfarça a opressão com linguagem técnica, legal e democrática. Mas por trás de suas máscaras, vejo apenas a velha serpente. Um parasita que se alimenta do trabalho alheio e manipula consciências para se perpetuar.

Resistir não é apenas um direito, é um dever. Obedecer a Deus antes que aos homens — essa é a minha regra. O poder se volta contra a verdade, mas minha lealdade pertence a quem criou o céu e a terra. A tirania não se combate com outro tirano, mas com a desobediência firme e pacífica dos que amam a justiça.

Não acredito em utopias. Desejo uma ordem natural, orgânica, enraizada no voluntarismo. Uma sociedade que se construa de baixo para cima: a partir da família, da comunidade local, da tradição e da fé. Não quero uma máquina que planeje a vida alheia, mas um tecido de relações voluntárias onde a liberdade floresça à sombra da cruz.

Desejo, sim, o reinado social de Cristo. Não por imposição, mas por convicção. Que Ele reine nos corações, nas famílias, nas ruas e nos contratos. Que a fé guie a razão e a razão ilumine a vida. Que a liberdade seja meio para a santidade — não um fim em si. E que, livres do jugo do Leviatã, sejamos servos apenas do Senhor.

@ 52b4a076:e7fad8bd

I have been recently building NFDB, a new relay DB. This post is meant as a short overview.

Regular relays have challenges

Current relay software have significant challenges, which I have experienced when hosting Nostr.land: - Scalability is only supported by adding full replicas, which does not scale to large relays. - Most relays use slow databases and are not optimized for large scale usage. - Search is near-impossible to implement on standard relays. - Privacy features such as NIP-42 are lacking. - Regular DB maintenance tasks on normal relays require extended downtime. - Fault-tolerance is implemented, if any, using a load balancer, which is limited. - Personalization and advanced filtering is not possible. - Local caching is not supported.

NFDB: A scalable database for large relays

NFDB is a new database meant for medium-large scale relays, built on FoundationDB that provides: - Near-unlimited scalability - Extended fault tolerance - Instant loading - Better search - Better personalization - and more.

Search

NFDB has extended search capabilities including: - Semantic search: Search for meaning, not words. - Interest-based search: Highlight content you care about. - Multi-faceted queries: Easily filter by topic, author group, keywords, and more at the same time. - Wide support for event kinds, including users, articles, etc.

Personalization

NFDB allows significant personalization: - Customized algorithms: Be your own algorithm. - Spam filtering: Filter content to your WoT, and use advanced spam filters. - Topic mutes: Mute topics, not keywords. - Media filtering: With Nostr.build, you will be able to filter NSFW and other content - Low data mode: Block notes that use high amounts of cellular data. - and more

Other

NFDB has support for many other features such as: - NIP-42: Protect your privacy with private drafts and DMs - Microrelays: Easily deploy your own personal microrelay - Containers: Dedicated, fast storage for discoverability events such as relay lists

Calcite: A local microrelay database

Calcite is a lightweight, local version of NFDB that is meant for microrelays and caching, meant for thousands of personal microrelays.

Calcite HA is an additional layer that allows live migration and relay failover in under 30 seconds, providing higher availability compared to current relays with greater simplicity. Calcite HA is enabled in all Calcite deployments.

For zero-downtime, NFDB is recommended.

Noswhere SmartCache

Relays are fixed in one location, but users can be anywhere.

Noswhere SmartCache is a CDN for relays that dynamically caches data on edge servers closest to you, allowing: - Multiple regions around the world - Improved throughput and performance - Faster loading times

routerd

routerd is a custom load-balancer optimized for Nostr relays, integrated with SmartCache.

routerd is specifically integrated with NFDB and Calcite HA to provide fast failover and high performance.

Ending notes

NFDB is planned to be deployed to Nostr.land in the coming weeks.

A lot more is to come. 👀️️️️️️

@ 2b998b04:86727e47

I recently released my first open-source tool:\ 👉 nostr-signal-filter

It fetches and formats your latest top-level Nostr note or long-form article, cleans up any embedded links using TinyURL, and outputs a clean version ready for reposting to:

• LinkedIn

• Facebook

• X / Twitter

---

⚙️ Built for Simplicity

The stack is intentionally minimal:

• Python + WebSockets + Bech32

• TinyURL API for link shortening

• Dockerized CLI usage:

bash

CopyEdit

docker run --rm -e PUBKEY=npub1yourpubkeyhere nostr-fetcher > latest.md

From idea to working repo took under 3 hours — including debugging, Docker tweaks, README cleanup, and tagging a clean release.\ \ This most certainly would have taken much longer if I had done this all without ChatGPTs' help.\ \ 🖼️ Example Output (latest.md)

text

CopyEdit

🕒 2025-05-20 22:24:17 📄 Note (originally posted on Nostr/primal.net) --- 🚨 New long-form drop: AI Isn’t Magic. It’s Engineering. How I use ChatGPT like any other tool in the stack — with iteration, discernment, and real output. Read it here: https://tinyurl.com/ynv7jq6g ⚡ Zaps appreciated if it resonates. --- 🔗 View on Nostr: https://tinyurl.com/yobvaxkx

---

🧪 Where I Used It

• ✅ My LinkedIn post ->

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andrew-g-stanton_primal-activity-7330808691933282304-QjmF?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAABQv18BeAPYRkxkYSr1mQStB9TczIhoXvQ

• ✅ Facebook: clean rendering with preview ->

https://www.facebook.com/andrewgstanton/posts/pfbid027EHZ1brPRBkHQKNsqUijPdPZGvK9id9asErdTxwjSDEf336o9TsuDPeKugToVDx7l

• ✅ X/Twitter: teaser + link (had to truncate for character limit) ->

https://x.com/AndyGStanton/status/1925045477172773136

---

🙌 Try It Yourself

If you're publishing on Nostr but still sharing on legacy platforms:

👉 github.com/andrewgstanton/nostr-signal-filter

• Clean output

• Easy to run

• Portable via Docker

All it needs is your npub.

---

⚡ Zap Me If You Found This Useful

If this tool saved you time — or if it sparked ideas for your own Nostr publishing stack —\ send a zap my way. I’m always looking to connect with other creators who value signal > noise.

🔗 Zap on Primal -> https://primal.net/andrewgstanton

---

🔭 Next Features (I’d Love Help With)

• Archive all notes + articles (not just the latest 50) to archive.md

• Function to shorten links in any text block

• Output post.md for any given Nostr event ID (not just latest)

• Optional API integration to post directly to LinkedIn or X

---

Built with ChatGPT’s help.\ Iterated. Published. Cross-posted.\ That’s proof of work.

@ 30ceb64e:7f08bdf5

Status: Draft
Author: TheWildHustle

Abstract

This NIP defines a framework for storing and sharing health and fitness profile data on Nostr. It establishes a set of standardized event kinds for individual health metrics, allowing applications to selectively access specific health information while preserving user control and privacy.

In this framework exists - NIP-101h.1 Weight using kind 1351 - NIP-101h.2 Height using kind 1352 - NIP-101h.3 Age using kind 1353 - NIP-101h.4 Gender using kind 1354 - NIP-101h.5 Fitness Level using kind 1355

Motivation

I want to build and support an ecosystem of health and fitness related nostr clients that have the ability to share and utilize a bunch of specific interoperable health metrics.

• Selective access - Applications can access only the data they need
• User control - Users can choose which metrics to share
• Interoperability - Different health applications can share data
• Privacy - Sensitive health information can be managed independently

Specification

Kind Number Range

Health profile metrics use the kind number range 1351-1399:

| Kind | Metric | | --------- | ---------------------------------- | | 1351 | Weight | | 1352 | Height | | 1353 | Age | | 1354 | Gender | | 1355 | Fitness Level | | 1356-1399 | Reserved for future health metrics |

Common Structure

All health metric events SHOULD follow these guidelines:

• The content field contains the primary value of the metric
• Required tags:
• ['t', 'health'] - For categorizing as health data
• ['t', metric-specific-tag] - For identifying the specific metric
• ['unit', unit-of-measurement] - When applicable
• Optional tags:
• ['converted_value', value, unit] - For providing alternative unit measurements
• ['timestamp', ISO8601-date] - When the metric was measured
• ['source', application-name] - The source of the measurement

Unit Handling

Health metrics often have multiple ways to be measured. To ensure interoperability:

• Where multiple units are possible, one standard unit SHOULD be chosen as canonical
• When using non-standard units, a converted_value tag SHOULD be included with the canonical unit
• Both the original and converted values should be provided for maximum compatibility

Client Implementation Guidelines

Clients implementing this NIP SHOULD:

• Allow users to explicitly choose which metrics to publish
• Support reading health metrics from other users when appropriate permissions exist
• Support updating metrics with new values over time
• Preserve tags they don't understand for future compatibility
• Support at least the canonical unit for each metric

Extensions

New health metrics can be proposed as extensions to this NIP using the format:

• NIP-101h.X where X is the metric number

Each extension MUST specify: - A unique kind number in the range 1351-1399 - The content format and meaning - Required and optional tags - Examples of valid events

Privacy Considerations

Health data is sensitive personal information. Clients implementing this NIP SHOULD:

• Make it clear to users when health data is being published
• Consider incorporating NIP-44 encryption for sensitive metrics
• Allow users to selectively share metrics with specific individuals
• Provide easy ways to delete previously published health data

---

NIP-101h.1: Weight

Description

This NIP defines the format for storing and sharing weight data on Nostr.

Event Kind: 1351

Content

The content field MUST contain the numeric weight value as a string.

Required Tags

• ['unit', 'kg' or 'lb'] - Unit of measurement
• ['t', 'health'] - Categorization tag
• ['t', 'weight'] - Specific metric tag

Optional Tags

• ['converted_value', value, unit] - Provides the weight in alternative units for interoperability
• ['timestamp', ISO8601 date] - When the weight was measured

Examples

json { "kind": 1351, "content": "70", "tags": [ ["unit", "kg"], ["t", "health"], ["t", "weight"] ] }

json { "kind": 1351, "content": "154", "tags": [ ["unit", "lb"], ["t", "health"], ["t", "weight"], ["converted_value", "69.85", "kg"] ] }

NIP-101h.2: Height

Status: Draft

Description

This NIP defines the format for storing and sharing height data on Nostr.

Event Kind: 1352

Content

The content field can use two formats: - For metric height: A string containing the numeric height value in centimeters (cm) - For imperial height: A JSON string with feet and inches properties

Required Tags

• ['t', 'health'] - Categorization tag
• ['t', 'height'] - Specific metric tag
• ['unit', 'cm' or 'imperial'] - Unit of measurement

Optional Tags

• ['converted_value', value, 'cm'] - Provides height in centimeters for interoperability when imperial is used
• ['timestamp', ISO8601-date] - When the height was measured

Examples

```jsx // Example 1: Metric height Apply to App.jsx

// Example 2: Imperial height with conversion Apply to App.jsx ```

Implementation Notes

• Centimeters (cm) is the canonical unit for height interoperability
• When using imperial units, a conversion to centimeters SHOULD be provided
• Height values SHOULD be positive integers
• For maximum compatibility, clients SHOULD support both formats

---

NIP-101h.3: Age

Status: Draft

Description

This NIP defines the format for storing and sharing age data on Nostr.

Event Kind: 1353

Content

The content field MUST contain the numeric age value as a string.

Required Tags

• ['unit', 'years'] - Unit of measurement
• ['t', 'health'] - Categorization tag
• ['t', 'age'] - Specific metric tag

Optional Tags

• ['timestamp', ISO8601-date] - When the age was recorded
• ['dob', ISO8601-date] - Date of birth (if the user chooses to share it)

Examples

```jsx // Example 1: Basic age Apply to App.jsx

// Example 2: Age with DOB Apply to App.jsx ```

Implementation Notes

• Age SHOULD be represented as a positive integer
• For privacy reasons, date of birth (dob) is optional
• Clients SHOULD consider updating age automatically if date of birth is known
• Age can be a sensitive metric and clients may want to consider encrypting this data

---

NIP-101h.4: Gender

Status: Draft

Description

This NIP defines the format for storing and sharing gender data on Nostr.

Event Kind: 1354

Content

The content field contains a string representing the user's gender.

Required Tags

• ['t', 'health'] - Categorization tag
• ['t', 'gender'] - Specific metric tag

Optional Tags

• ['timestamp', ISO8601-date] - When the gender was recorded
• ['preferred_pronouns', string] - User's preferred pronouns

Common Values

While any string value is permitted, the following common values are recommended for interoperability: - male - female - non-binary - other - prefer-not-to-say

Examples

```jsx // Example 1: Basic gender Apply to App.jsx

// Example 2: Gender with pronouns Apply to App.jsx ```

Implementation Notes

• Clients SHOULD allow free-form input for gender
• For maximum compatibility, clients SHOULD support the common values
• Gender is a sensitive personal attribute and clients SHOULD consider appropriate privacy controls
• Applications focusing on health metrics should be respectful of gender diversity

---

NIP-101h.5: Fitness Level

Status: Draft

Description

This NIP defines the format for storing and sharing fitness level data on Nostr.

Event Kind: 1355

Content

The content field contains a string representing the user's fitness level.

Required Tags

• ['t', 'health'] - Categorization tag
• ['t', 'fitness'] - Fitness category tag
• ['t', 'level'] - Specific metric tag

Optional Tags

• ['timestamp', ISO8601-date] - When the fitness level was recorded
• ['activity', activity-type] - Specific activity the fitness level relates to
• ['metrics', JSON-string] - Quantifiable fitness metrics used to determine level

Common Values

While any string value is permitted, the following common values are recommended for interoperability: - beginner - intermediate - advanced - elite - professional

Examples

```jsx // Example 1: Basic fitness level Apply to App.jsx

// Example 2: Activity-specific fitness level with metrics Apply to App.jsx ```

Implementation Notes

• Fitness level is subjective and may vary by activity
• The activity tag can be used to specify fitness level for different activities
• The metrics tag can provide objective measurements to support the fitness level
• Clients can extend this format to include activity-specific fitness assessments
• For general fitness apps, the simple beginner/intermediate/advanced scale is recommended

@ 91bea5cd:1df4451c

O Contexto Legal Brasileiro e o Consentimento

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

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

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

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

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

Outros riscos:

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

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

Riscos de Falsas Acusações e Alegação de Coação Futura

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

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

Estratégias de Prevenção e Mitigação

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

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

2. Documentação do Consentimento:

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

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

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

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

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

Observações Importantes

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

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

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

O que vem a ser consentimento viciado

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isso tem duas implicações sérias:

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

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

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

Conclusão

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

---

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

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

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

@ 8125b911:a8400883

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

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

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

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

Download

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

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

Installation

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

macOS Users:

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

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

Windows Users:

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

Connecting

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

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

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

Restrictions

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

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

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

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

Currently, the maximum value for this parameter is 2.

Conclusion

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

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

Not your relay, not your events.

@ e691f4df:1099ad65

Viewing Bitcoin Through the Light of Awakening

Ankh & Ohm Capital’s Overview of the Psycho-Spiritual Nature of Bitcoin

---

Glossary:

I. Preface: The Logos of Our Logo

II. An Oracular Introduction

III. Alchemizing Greed

IV. Layers of Fractalized Thought

V. Permissionless Individuation

VI. Dispelling Paradox Through Resonance

VII. Ego Deflation

VIII. The Coin of Great Price

Preface: The Logos of Our Logo

Before we offer our lens on Bitcoin, it’s important to illuminate the meaning behind Ankh & Ohm’s name and symbol. These elements are not ornamental—they are foundational, expressing the cosmological principles that guide our work.

Our mission is to bridge the eternal with the practical. As a Bitcoin-focused family office and consulting firm, we understand capital not as an end, but as a tool—one that, when properly aligned, becomes a vehicle for divine order. We see Bitcoin not simply as a technological innovation but as an emanation of the Divine Logos—a harmonic expression of truth, transparency, and incorruptible structure. Both the beginning and the end, the Alpha and Omega.

The Ankh (☥), an ancient symbol of eternal life, is a key to the integration of opposites. It unites spirit and matter, force and form, continuity and change. It reminds us that capital, like Life, must not only be generative, but regenerative; sacred. Money must serve Life, not siphon from it.

The Ohm (Ω) holds a dual meaning. In physics, it denotes a unit of electrical resistance—the formative tension that gives energy coherence. In the Vedic tradition, Om (ॐ) is the primordial vibration—the sound from which all existence unfolds. Together, these symbols affirm a timeless truth: resistance and resonance are both sacred instruments of the Creator.

Ankh & Ohm, then, represents our striving for union, for harmony —between the flow of life and intentional structure, between incalculable abundance and measured restraint, between the lightbulb’s electrical impulse and its light-emitting filament. We stand at the threshold where intention becomes action, and where capital is not extracted, but cultivated in rhythm with the cosmos. 

We exist to shepherd this transformation, as guides of this threshold —helping families, founders, and institutions align with a deeper order, where capital serves not as the prize, but as a pathway to collective Presence, Purpose, Peace and Prosperity.

---

An Oracular Introduction

Bitcoin is commonly understood as the first truly decentralized and secure form of digital money—a breakthrough in monetary sovereignty. But this view, while technically correct, is incomplete and spiritually shallow. Bitcoin is more than a tool for economic disruption. Bitcoin represents a mythic threshold: a symbol of the psycho-spiritual shift that many ancient traditions have long foretold.

For millennia, sages and seers have spoken of a coming Golden Age. In the Vedic Yuga cycles, in Plato’s Great Year, in the Eagle and Condor prophecies of the Americas—there exists a common thread: that humanity will emerge from darkness into a time of harmony, cooperation, and clarity. That the veil of illusion (maya, materiality) will thin, and reality will once again become transparent to the transcendent. In such an age, systems based on scarcity, deception, and centralization fall away. A new cosmology takes root—one grounded in balance, coherence, and sacred reciprocity.

But we must ask—how does such a shift happen? How do we cross from the age of scarcity, fear, and domination into one of coherence, abundance, and freedom?

One possible answer lies in the alchemy of incentive.

Bitcoin operates not just on the rules of computer science or Austrian economics, but on something far more old and subtle: the logic of transformation. It transmutes greed—a base instinct rooted in scarcity—into cooperation, transparency, and incorruptibility.

In this light, Bitcoin becomes more than code—it becomes a psychoactive protocol, one that rewires human behavior by aligning individual gain with collective integrity. It is not simply a new form of money. It is a new myth of value. A new operating system for human consciousness.

Bitcoin does not moralize. It harmonizes. It transforms the instinct for self-preservation into a pathway for planetary coherence.

---

Alchemizing Greed

At the heart of Bitcoin lies the ancient alchemical principle of transmutation: that which is base may be refined into gold.

Greed, long condemned as a vice, is not inherently evil. It is a distorted longing. A warped echo of the drive to preserve life. But in systems built on scarcity and deception, this longing calcifies into hoarding, corruption, and decay.

Bitcoin introduces a new game. A game with memory. A game that makes deception inefficient and truth profitable. It does not demand virtue—it encodes consequence. Its design does not suppress greed; it reprograms it.

In traditional models, game theory often illustrates the fragility of trust. The Prisoner’s Dilemma reveals how self-interest can sabotage collective well-being. But Bitcoin inverts this. It creates an environment where self-interest and integrity converge—where the most rational action is also the most truthful.

Its ledger, immutable and transparent, exposes manipulation for what it is: energetically wasteful and economically self-defeating. Dishonesty burns energy and yields nothing. The network punishes incoherence, not by decree, but by natural law.

This is the spiritual elegance of Bitcoin: it does not suppress greed—it transmutes it. It channels the drive for personal gain into the architecture of collective order. Miners compete not to dominate, but to validate. Nodes collaborate not through trust, but through mathematical proof.

This is not austerity. It is alchemy.

Greed, under Bitcoin, is refined. Tempered. Re-forged into a generative force—no longer parasitic, but harmonic.

---

Layers of Fractalized Thought Fragments

All living systems are layered. So is the cosmos. So is the human being. So is a musical scale.

At its foundation lies the timechain—the pulsing, incorruptible record of truth. Like the heart, it beats steadily. Every block, like a pulse, affirms its life through continuity. The difficulty adjustment—Bitcoin’s internal calibration—functions like heart rate variability, adapting to pressure while preserving coherence.

Above this base layer is the Lightning Network—a second layer facilitating rapid, efficient transactions. It is the nervous system: transmitting energy, reducing latency, enabling real-time interaction across a distributed whole.

Beyond that, emerging tools like Fedimint and Cashu function like the capillaries—bringing vitality to the extremities, to those underserved by legacy systems. They empower the unbanked, the overlooked, the forgotten. Privacy and dignity in the palms of those the old system refused to see.

And then there is NOSTR—the decentralized protocol for communication and creation. It is the throat chakra, the vocal cords of the “freedom-tech” body. It reclaims speech from the algorithmic overlords, making expression sovereign once more. It is also the reproductive system, as it enables the propagation of novel ideas and protocols in fertile, uncensorable soil.

Each layer plays its part. Not in hierarchy, but in harmony. In holarchy. Bitcoin and other open source protocols grow not through exogenous command, but through endogenous coherence. Like cells in an organism. Like a song.

Imagine the cell as a piece of glass from a shattered holographic plate —by which its perspectival, moving image can be restructured from the single shard. DNA isn’t only a logical script of base pairs, but an evolving progressive song. Its lyrics imbued with wise reflections on relationships.  The nucleus sings, the cell responds—not by command, but by memory. Life is not imposed; it is expressed. A reflection of a hidden pattern.

Bitcoin chants this. Each node, a living cell, holds the full timechain—Truth distributed, incorruptible. Remove one, and the whole remains. This isn’t redundancy. It’s a revelation on the power of protection in Truth.

Consensus is communion. Verification becomes a sacred rite—Truth made audible through math. 

Not just the signal; the song. A web of self-expression woven from Truth.

No center, yet every point alive with the whole. Like Indra’s Net, each reflects all. This is more than currency and information exchange. It is memory; a self-remembering Mind, unfolding through consensus and code. A Mind reflecting the Truth of reality at the speed of thought.

Heuristics are mental shortcuts—efficient, imperfect, alive. Like cells, they must adapt or decay. To become unbiased is to have self-balancing heuristics which carry feedback loops within them: they listen to the environment, mutate when needed, and survive by resonance with reality. Mutation is not error, but evolution. Its rules are simple, but their expression is dynamic. 

What persists is not rigidity, but pattern. 

To think clearly is not necessarily to be certain, but to dissolve doubt by listening, adjusting, and evolving thought itself.

To understand Bitcoin is simply to listen—patiently, clearly, as one would to a familiar rhythm returning.

---

Permissionless Individuation

Bitcoin is a path. One that no one can walk for you.

Said differently, it is not a passive act. It cannot be spoon-fed. Like a spiritual path, it demands initiation, effort, and the willingness to question inherited beliefs.

Because Bitcoin is permissionless, no one can be forced to adopt it. One must choose to engage it—compelled by need, interest, or intuition. Each person who embarks undergoes their own version of the hero’s journey.

Carl Jung called this process Individuation—the reconciliation of fragmented psychic elements into a coherent, mature Self. Bitcoin mirrors this: it invites individuals to confront the unconscious assumptions of the fiat paradigm, and to re-integrate their relationship to time, value, and agency.

In Western traditions—alchemy, Christianity, Kabbalah—the individual is sacred, and salvation is personal. In Eastern systems—Daoism, Buddhism, the Vedas—the self is ultimately dissolved into the cosmic whole. Bitcoin, in a paradoxical way, echoes both: it empowers the individual, while aligning them with a holistic, transcendent order.

To truly see Bitcoin is to allow something false to die. A belief. A habit. A self-concept.

In that death—a space opens for deeper connection with the Divine itSelf. 

In that dissolution, something luminous is reborn. 

After the passing, Truth becomes resurrected.  

---

Dispelling Paradox Through Resonance

There is a subtle paradox encoded into the hero’s journey: each starts in solidarity, yet the awakening affects the collective.

No one can be forced into understanding Bitcoin. Like a spiritual truth, it must be seen. And yet, once seen, it becomes nearly impossible to unsee—and easier for others to glimpse. The pattern catches.

This phenomenon mirrors the concept of morphic resonance, as proposed and empirically tested by biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Once a critical mass of individuals begins to embody a new behavior or awareness, it becomes easier—instinctive—for others to follow suit. Like the proverbial hundredth monkey who begins to wash the fruit in the sea water, and suddenly, monkeys across islands begin doing the same—without ever meeting.

When enough individuals embody a pattern, it ripples outward. Not through propaganda, but through field effect and wave propagation. It becomes accessible, instinctive, familiar—even across great distance.

Bitcoin spreads in this way. Not through centralized broadcast, but through subtle resonance. Each new node, each individual who integrates the protocol into their life, strengthens the signal for others. The protocol doesn’t shout; it hums, oscillates and vibrates——persistently, coherently, patiently.

One awakens. Another follows. The current builds. What was fringe becomes familiar. What was radical becomes obvious.

This is the sacred geometry of spiritual awakening. One awakens, another follows, and soon the fluidic current is strong enough to carry the rest. One becomes two, two become many, and eventually the many become One again. This tessellation reverberates through the human aura, not as ideology, but as perceivable pattern recognition.

Bitcoin’s most powerful marketing tool is truth. Its most compelling evangelist is reality. Its most unstoppable force is resonance.

Therefore, Bitcoin is not just financial infrastructure—it is psychic scaffolding. It is part of the subtle architecture through which new patterns of coherence ripple across the collective field. 

The training wheels from which humanity learns to embody Peace and Prosperity.

---

Ego Deflation

The process of awakening is not linear, and its beginning is rarely gentle—it usually begins with disruption, with ego inflation and destruction.

To individuate is to shape a center; to recognize peripherals and create boundaries—to say, “I am.” But without integration, the ego tilts—collapsing into void or inflating into noise. Fiat reflects this pathology: scarcity hoarded, abundance simulated. Stagnation becomes disguised as safety, and inflation masquerades as growth.

In other words, to become whole, the ego must first rise—claiming agency, autonomy, and identity. However, when left unbalanced, it inflates, or implodes. It forgets its context. It begins to consume rather than connect. And so the process must reverse: what inflates must deflate.

In the fiat paradigm, this inflation is literal. More is printed, and ethos is diluted. Savings decay. Meaning erodes. Value is abstracted. The economy becomes bloated with inaudible noise. And like the psyche that refuses to confront its own shadow, it begins to collapse under the weight of its own illusions.

But under Bitcoin, time is honored. Value is preserved. Energy is not abstracted but grounded.

Bitcoin is inherently deflationary—in both economic and spiritual senses. With a fixed supply, it reveals what is truly scarce. Not money, not status—but the finite number of heartbeats we each carry.

To see Bitcoin is to feel that limit in one’s soul. To hold Bitcoin is to feel Time’s weight again. To sense the importance of Bitcoin is to feel the value of preserved, potential energy. It is to confront the reality that what matters cannot be printed, inflated, or faked. In this way, Bitcoin gently confronts the ego—not through punishment, but through clarity.

Deflation, rightly understood, is not collapse—it is refinement. It strips away illusion, bloat, and excess. It restores the clarity of essence.

Spiritually, this is liberation.

---

The Coin of Great Price

There is an ancient parable told by a wise man:

“The kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls, who, upon finding one of great price, sold all he had and bought it.”

Bitcoin is such a pearl.

But the ledger is more than a chest full of treasure. It is a key to the heart of things.

It is not just software—it is sacrament.

A symbol of what cannot be corrupted. A mirror of divine order etched into code. A map back to the sacred center.

It reflects what endures. It encodes what cannot be falsified. It remembers what we forgot: that Truth, when aligned with form, becomes Light once again.

Its design is not arbitrary. It speaks the language of life itself— 

The elliptic orbits of the planets mirrored in its cryptography,

The logarithmic spiral of the nautilus shell discloses its adoption rate,

The interconnectivity of mycelium in soil reflect the network of nodes in cyberspace, 

A webbed breadth of neurons across synaptic space fires with each new confirmed transaction.

It is geometry in devotion. Stillness in motion.

It is the Logos clothed in protocol.

What this key unlocks is beyond external riches. It is the eternal gold within us.

Clarity. Sovereignty. The unshakeable knowing that what is real cannot be taken. That what is sacred was never for sale.

Bitcoin is not the destination.

It is the Path.

And we—when we are willing to see it—are the Temple it leads back to.

@ 90152b7f:04e57401

WikiLeaks The Global Intelligence Files

Released on 2013-03-11 00:00 GMT

| Email-ID | 364528 | | -------- | --------------------------- | | Date | 2007-09-20 03:02:09 | | From | os@stratfor.com | | To | intelligence@stratfor.com |

Rice, Israeli FM discuss Israeli decision of defining Gaza as "hostile\ entity"\ 2007-09-20 00:41:16\ http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-09/20/content_6756959.htm\ \ JERUSALEM, Sept. 19 (Xinhua) -- Visiting U.S. Secretary of State\ Condoleezza Rice met with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on\ Wednesday, the two discussed Israel's decision that defined the Hamas-\ controlled Gaza Strip as a "hostile entity."\ \ At a joint press conference held after their meeting, Rice told the\ reporters that the Palestinian Hamas is a "hostile entity" to U.S. as well.\ \ Israel's Security Cabinet declared the Gaza Strip a "hostile entity" on\ Wednesday ahead of Rice's visit and said it would cutoff power and fuel\ supplies to the strip.\ \ Gaza's population, largely impoverished, is almost entirely\ dependent on Israel for the supply of electricity, water and fuel, and a\ cutoff would deepen their hardship.\ \ Since the Hamas takeover in June, Israel has closed crossings with\ Gaza almost entirely, allowing in only humanitarian aid. However, Rice\ reiterated that the United States will not abandon the innocent\ Palestinians in Gaza.\ \ For her part, Livni said that Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip\ two years ago, hoping that could lead to the establishment of a\ Palestinian state, but only get almost daily rocket attacks in return.\ \ "We expect the Palestinians to understand that Israeli security is\ in their own interests," Livni said, adding that Palestinians must\ understand "supporting Hamas won't help them."\ \ The Israeli Security Cabinet's declaration of Gaza as an "hostile\ entity" could lead to the most severe retaliatory measure taken by\ Israel against Palestinian rocket fire from the strip.\ \ The crude rocket attacks have killed 12 people in southern Israel in\ the past seven years, injured dozens more and badly disrupted daily life\ in the region.\ \ Last week, a Qassam rocket hit an Israeli military base near the\ Gaza Strip, wounding over 60 soldiers in the attack. The attack then\ sparked calls for the government to take harsh response against the Gaza\ Strip, which has been under the control of Hamas since it violently took\ over the enclave in mid June.\ \ The Jewish states has been holding Hamas responsible for the attack,\ although the movement has not been directly involved in the attacks.\ Israel still accused the Islamic movement of doing little to halt them.\ \ Apart from the Palestinian issue, Rice also discussed with Livni\ issues about Iran, Lebanon and the Middle East peace progress.\ \ She said Israel and the Palestinians are showing good faith in their\ negotiations towards a "two state solution."\ \ Regarding Iranian issues, Rice told reporters that diplomatic mean\ is a part of efforts to halt the Iranian nuclear program, but stressed\ it "has to have teeth."\ \ Rice, who had visited this region in August, is also expected to\ hold separate meetings on Wednesday with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud\ Barak and the Likud party head Binyamin Netanyahu.\ \ She will then hold a dinner meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud\ Olmert.\ \ Rice is scheduled to leave here Thursday afternoon and visit the\ West Bank city of Ramallah for meetings with the Palestinian leadership\ on Thursday.

@ 40b9c85f:5e61b451

Introduction

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

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

The Current State of DVMs: Challenges and Limitations

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

1. Inconsistent Implementation

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

2. Fragmented Specifications

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

3. Ambiguous API Interfaces

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

The Reflection Pattern: A Solution from RPC Systems

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

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

How Reflection Could Transform the DVM Specification

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

1. Defined Lifecycle Phases

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

2. Schema-Based Interactions

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

3. Capability Negotiation

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

Implementation Approach

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

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

Parallels with Other Protocols

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

@ 6e64b83c:94102ee8

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

Prerequisites

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

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

5. Domain Requirements:

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

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

8. Tools to use:

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

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

     # Make it executable chmod +x nak-*

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

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

Setting Up Citrine

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

Installing Required Tools

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

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

Cloudflare Authentication

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

Creating the Tunnel

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

3. Copy the tunnel ID after creating the tunnel

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

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

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

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

10. Validate your configuration: bash cloudflared tunnel validate

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

Preventing Android from Killing the Tunnel

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

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

Updating Your Outbox Model Relays

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

Decoding npub (Public Key)

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

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

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

To decode an npub string to its hex format:

bash nak decode nostr:npub1dejts0qlva8mqzjlrxqkc2tmvs2t7elszky5upxaf3jha9qs9m5q605uc4

Change it with your own npub.

bash { "pubkey": "6e64b83c1f674fb00a5f19816c297b6414bf67f015894e04dd4c657e94102ee8" }

Copy the pubkey value in quotes.

Create a kind 10002 event with your relay list:

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

Example format:

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

Save it to a file called event.json

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

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

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

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

bash unset HISTFILE nak key encrypt ... set HISTFILE

How to securely create NIP-49 encypted private key

```bash

Read your private key (input will be hidden)

read -s SECRET

Read your password (input will be hidden)

read -s PASSWORD

encrypt command

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

copy and paste the ncryptsec1 text from the output

read -s ENCRYPTED nak key decrypt "$ENCRYPTED"

clear variables from memory

unset SECRET PASSWORD ENCRYPTED ```

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

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

echo %SECRET%| nak key encrypt %PASSWORD%

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

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

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

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

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

4. Testing your relay:

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

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

@ cd17b2d6:8cc53332

Looking to simulate a USDT deposit that appears instantly in a wallet — with no blockchain confirmation, no real spend, and no trace?

You’re in the right place.

🔗 Buy Flash USDT Now This product sends Flash USDT directly to your TRC20, ERC20, or BEP20 wallet address — appears like a real deposit, but disappears after a set time or block depth.

✅ Perfect for: Simulating token inflows Wallet stress testing “Proof of funds” display Flash USDT is ideal for developers, trainers, UI testers, and blockchain researchers — and it’s fully customizable.

🧠 What Is Flash USDT? Flash USDT is a synthetic transaction that mimics a real Tether transfer. It shows up instantly in a wallet balance, and it’s confirmed on-chain — and expires after a set duration.

This makes it:

Visible on wallet interfaces Time-limited (auto-disappears cleanly) Undetectable on block explorers after expiry It’s the smartest, safest way to simulate high-value transactions without real crypto.

🛠️ Flash USDT Software – Your Own USDT Flasher at Your Fingertips Want to control the flash? Run your own operations? Flash unlimited wallets?

🔗 Buy Flash USDT Software

This is your all-in-one USDT flasher tool, built for TRC20, ERC20, and BEP20 chains. It gives you full control to:

Send custom USDT amounts Set custom expiry time (e.g., 30–360 days) Flash multiple wallets Choose between networks (Tron, ETH, BSC) You can simulate any amount, to any supported wallet, from your own system.

No third-party access. No blockchain fee. No trace left behind.

💥 Why Our Flash USDT & Software Stands Out Feature Flash USDT Flash USDT Software One-time flash send ✅ Yes Optional Full sender control ❌ No ✅ Yes TRC20 / ERC20 / BEP20 ✅ Yes ✅ Yes Custom duration/expiry Limited ✅ Yes Unlimited usage ❌ One-off ✅ Yes Whether you’re flashing for wallet testing, demoing investor dashboards, or simulating balance flows, our tools deliver realism without risk.

🛒 Ready to Buy Flash USDT or the Software? Skip the wait. Skip the scammers. You’re one click away from real control.

👉 Buy Flash USDT 👉 Buy Flash USDT Software

📞 Support or live walkthrough?

💬 Telegram: @cryptoflashingtool 📱 WhatsApp: +1 770-666-2531

🚫 Legal Notice These tools are intended for:

Educational purposes Demo environments Wallet and UI testing They are not for illegal use or financial deception. Any misuse is your full responsibility.

Final Call: Need to flash USDT? Want full control? Don’t wait for another “maybe” tool.

Get your Flash USDT or Flashing Software today and simulate like a pro.

🔗 Buy Now → Flash USDT 🔗 Buy Now → Flash USDT Software 💬 Telegram: @cryptoflashingtool 📱 WhatsApp: +1 770-666-2531Looking to simulate a USDT deposit that appears instantly in a wallet — with no blockchain confirmation, no real spend, and no trace?

You’re in the right place.

 Buy Flash USDT Now\ This product sends Flash USDT directly to your TRC20, ERC20, or BEP20 wallet address — appears like a real deposit, but disappears after a set time or block depth.

Perfect for:

• Simulating token inflows
• Wallet stress testing
• “Proof of funds” display

Flash USDT is ideal for developers, trainers, UI testers, and blockchain researchers — and it’s fully customizable.

---

What Is Flash USDT?

Flash USDT is a synthetic transaction that mimics a real Tether transfer. It shows up instantly in a wallet balance, and it’s confirmed on-chain — and expires after a set duration.

This makes it:

• Visible on wallet interfaces
• Time-limited (auto-disappears cleanly)
• Undetectable on block explorers after expiry

It’s the smartest, safest way to simulate high-value transactions without real crypto.

---

Flash USDT Software – Your Own USDT Flasher at Your Fingertips

Want to control the flash?\ Run your own operations?\ Flash unlimited wallets?

 Buy Flash USDT Software

This is your all-in-one USDT flasher tool, built for TRC20, ERC20, and BEP20 chains. It gives you full control to:

• Send custom USDT amounts
• Set custom expiry time (e.g., 30–360 days)
• Flash multiple wallets
• Choose between networks (Tron, ETH, BSC)

You can simulate any amount, to any supported wallet, from your own system.

No third-party access.\ No blockchain fee.\ No trace left behind.

---

Why Our Flash USDT & Software Stands Out

Feature	Flash USDT	Flash USDT Software
One-time flash send	Yes	Optional
Full sender control	No	Yes
TRC20 / ERC20 / BEP20	Yes	Yes
Custom duration/expiry	Limited	Yes
Unlimited usage	One-off	Yes

Whether you’re flashing for wallet testing, demoing investor dashboards, or simulating balance flows, our tools deliver realism without risk.

---

Ready to Buy Flash USDT or the Software?

Skip the wait. Skip the scammers.\ You’re one click away from real control.

 Buy Flash USDT

 Buy Flash USDT Software

 Support or live walkthrough?

 Telegram: @cryptoflashingtool

 WhatsApp: +1 770-666-2531

---

Legal Notice

These tools are intended for:

• Educational purposes
• Demo environments
• Wallet and UI testing

They are not for illegal use or financial deception. Any misuse is your full responsibility.

---

Final Call:

Need to flash USDT? Want full control?\ Don’t wait for another “maybe” tool.

Get your Flash USDT or Flashing Software today and simulate like a pro.

 Buy Now → Flash USDT

 Buy Now → Flash USDT Software

 Telegram: @cryptoflashingtool

 WhatsApp: +1 770-666-2531

@ eb0157af:77ab6c55

The exchange, which collapsed in 2022, will distribute $5 billion to creditors starting May 30.

On May 30, FTX will begin the second phase of repayments, delivering over $5 billion to eligible creditors. According to the official announcement, payments will be processed through two main providers: BitGo and Kraken.

Creditors can expect to receive their funds within a relatively short period — from one to three business days after the distribution begins. This second round focuses on creditors with claims over $50,000, following the first repayment phase launched in February for smaller claims.

John Ray III, current CEO of FTX, has allocated about $11.4 billion for customer repayments. Creditors will receive amounts calculated based on the value of crypto assets at the time of the bankruptcy filing (November 2022).

Variable repayment percentages

The distribution plan foresees differentiated payout rates based on the various categories of claims:

• Dotcom customer claims will receive 72%;
• U.S. customer claims will get 54%;
• General unsecured claims and claims from digital asset loans will each receive 61%;
• Convenience class claims will see a 120% repayment.

“These initial distributions to non-convenience classes mark a significant milestone for FTX,” stated the exchange’s CEO.

Requirements to claim repayments

To receive payments, creditors must complete several mandatory steps:

• Log into the FTX Customer Portal;
• Complete KYC (Know Your Customer) verification;
• Submit the required tax forms;
• Complete onboarding with BitGo or Kraken.

The post FTX: over $5 billion ready for creditors in second repayment phase appeared first on Atlas21.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Abstract

This document proposes a novel architecture that decouples the peer-to-peer (P2P) communication layer from the Bitcoin protocol and replaces or augments it with the Nostr protocol. The goal is to improve censorship resistance, performance, modularity, and maintainability by migrating transaction propagation and block distribution to the Nostr relay network.

Introduction

Bitcoin’s current architecture relies heavily on its P2P network to propagate transactions and blocks. While robust, it has limitations in terms of flexibility, scalability, and censorship resistance in certain environments. Nostr, a decentralized event-publishing protocol, offers a multi-star topology and a censorship-resistant infrastructure for message relay.

This proposal outlines how Bitcoin communication could be ported to Nostr while maintaining consensus and verification through standard Bitcoin clients.

Motivation

• Enhanced Censorship Resistance: Nostr’s architecture enables better relay redundancy and obfuscation of transaction origin.
• Simplified Lightweight Nodes: Removing the full P2P stack allows for lightweight nodes that only verify blockchain data and communicate over Nostr.
• Architectural Modularity: Clean separation between validation and communication enables easier auditing, upgrades, and parallel innovation.
• Faster Propagation: Nostr’s multi-star network may provide faster propagation of transactions and blocks compared to the mesh-like Bitcoin P2P network.

Architecture Overview

Components

1. Bitcoin Minimal Node (BMN):

   • Verifies blockchain and block validity.
   • Maintains UTXO set and handles mempool logic.
   • Connects to Nostr relays instead of P2P Bitcoin peers.

2. Bridge Node:

   • Bridges Bitcoin P2P traffic to and from Nostr relays.
   • Posts new transactions and blocks to Nostr.
   • Downloads mempool content and block headers from Nostr.

3. Nostr Relays:

   • Accept Bitcoin-specific event kinds (transactions and blocks).
   • Store mempool entries and block messages.
   • Optionally broadcast fee estimation summaries and tipsets.

Event Format

Proposed reserved Nostr kind numbers for Bitcoin content (NIP/BIP TBD):

| Nostr Kind | Purpose | |------------|------------------------| | 210000 | Bitcoin Transaction | | 210001 | Bitcoin Block Header | | 210002 | Bitcoin Block | | 210003 | Mempool Fee Estimates | | 210004 | Filter/UTXO summary |

Transaction Lifecycle

1. Wallet creates a Bitcoin transaction.
2. Wallet sends it to a set of configured Nostr relays.
3. Relays accept and cache the transaction (based on fee policies).
4. Mining nodes or bridge nodes fetch mempool contents from Nostr.
5. Once mined, a block is submitted over Nostr.
6. Nodes confirm inclusion and update their UTXO set.

Security Considerations

• Sybil Resistance: Consensus remains based on proof-of-work. The communication path (Nostr) is not involved in consensus.
• Relay Discoverability: Optionally bootstrap via DNS, Bitcoin P2P, or signed relay lists.
• Spam Protection: Relay-side policy, rate limiting, proof-of-work challenges, or Lightning payments.
• Block Authenticity: Nodes must verify all received blocks and reject invalid chains.

Compatibility and Migration

• Fully compatible with current Bitcoin consensus rules.
• Bridge nodes preserve interoperability with legacy full nodes.
• Nodes can run in hybrid mode, fetching from both P2P and Nostr.

Future Work

• Integration with watch-only wallets and SPV clients using verified headers via Nostr.
• Use of Nostr’s social graph for partial trust assumptions and relay reputation.
• Dynamic relay discovery using Nostr itself (relay list events).

Conclusion

This proposal lays out a new architecture for Bitcoin communication using Nostr to replace or augment the P2P network. This improves decentralization, censorship resistance, modularity, and speed, while preserving consensus integrity. It encourages innovation by enabling smaller, purpose-built Bitcoin nodes and offloading networking complexity.

---

This document may become both a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP-XXX) and a Nostr Improvement Proposal (NIP-XXX). Event kind range reserved: 210000–219999.

@ 2f29aa33:38ac6f13

The Myth and the Magic

Picture this: a group of investors, huddled around a glowing computer screen, nervously watching Bitcoin’s price. Suddenly, someone produces a stick-no ordinary stick, but a magical one. With a mischievous grin, they poke the Bitcoin. The price leaps upward. Cheers erupt. The legend of the Bitcoin stick is born.

But why does poking Bitcoin with a stick make the price go up? Why does it only work for a lucky few? And what does the data say about this mysterious phenomenon? Let’s dig in, laugh a little, and maybe learn the secret to market-moving magic.

The Statistical Side of Stick-Poking

Bitcoin’s Price: The Wild Ride

Bitcoin’s price is famous for its unpredictability. In the past year, it’s soared, dipped, and soared again, sometimes gaining more than 50% in just a few months. On a good day, billions of dollars flow through Bitcoin trades, and the price can jump thousands in a matter of hours. Clearly, something is making this happen-and it’s not just spreadsheets and financial news.

What Actually Moves the Price?

• Scarcity: Only 21 million Bitcoins will ever exist. When more people want in, the price jumps.

• Big News: Announcements, rumors, and meme-worthy moments can send the price flying.

• FOMO: When people see Bitcoin rising, they rush to buy, pushing it even higher.

• Liquidations: When traders betting against Bitcoin get squeezed, it triggers a chain reaction of buying.

But let’s be honest: none of this is as fun as poking Bitcoin with a stick.

---

The Magical Stick: Not Your Average Twig

Why Not Every Stick Works

You can’t just grab any old branch and expect Bitcoin to dance. The magical stick is a rare artifact, forged in the fires of internet memes and blessed by the spirit of Satoshi. Only a chosen few possess it-and when they poke, the market listens.

Signs You Have the Magical Stick

• When you poke, Bitcoin’s price immediately jumps a few percent.

• Your stick glows with meme energy and possibly sparkles with digital dust.

• You have a knack for timing your poke right after a big event, like a halving or a celebrity tweet.

• Your stick is rumored to have been whittled from the original blockchain itself.

Why Most Sticks Fail

• No Meme Power: If your stick isn’t funny, Bitcoin ignores you.

• Bad Timing: Poking during a bear market just annoys the blockchain.

• Not Enough Hype: If the bitcoin community isn’t watching, your poke is just a poke.

• Lack of Magic: Some sticks are just sticks. Sad, but true.

---

The Data: When the Stick Strikes

Let’s look at some numbers:

• In the last month, Bitcoin’s price jumped over 20% right after a flurry of memes and stick-poking jokes.

• Over the past year, every major price surge was accompanied by a wave of internet hype, stick memes, or wild speculation.

• In the past five years, Bitcoin’s biggest leaps always seemed to follow some kind of magical event-whether a halving, a viral tweet, or a mysterious poke.

Coincidence? Maybe. But the pattern is clear: the stick works-at least when it’s magical.

---

The Role of Memes, Magic, and Mayhem

Bitcoin’s price is like a cat: unpredictable, easily startled, and sometimes it just wants to be left alone. But when the right meme pops up, or the right stick pokes at just the right time, the price can leap in ways that defy logic.

The bitcoin community knows this. That’s why, when Bitcoin’s stuck in a rut, you’ll see a flood of stick memes, GIFs, and magical thinking. Sometimes, it actually works.

---

The Secret’s in the Stick (and the Laughs)

So, does poking Bitcoin with a stick really make the price go up? If your stick is magical-blessed by memes, timed perfectly, and watched by millions-absolutely. The statistics show that hype, humor, and a little bit of luck can move markets as much as any financial report.

Next time you see Bitcoin stalling, don’t just sit there. Grab your stick, channel your inner meme wizard, and give it a poke. Who knows? You might just be the next legend in the world of bitcoin magic.

And if your stick doesn’t work, don’t worry. Sometimes, the real magic is in the laughter along the way.

-aco

@block height: 897,104

---

---

@ fbf0e434:e1be6a39

Hackathon 概要

AI BUIDL Lab: 基于提示工程（Prompt Engineering）在 Rootstock 上构建真实 Web3 应用的黑客松 近日收官，共有 211 名开发者注册并提交 22 个项目。本次活动旨在鼓励开发者借助 AI 驱动的工作流程，在 Rootstock 平台开发 Web3 应用。参与者聚焦三大领域：去中心化金融（DeFi）与支付、商业与零工经济，以及 Web3 身份与声誉体系，通过 AI 技术加速去中心化应用（dApps）的创新迭代。

活动产出丰硕成果，包括去中心化金融解决方案、AI 增强型身份管理系统等，凸显了 AI 与 Web3 集成的潜力。赛事奖金池包含 1.5 万美元的 RIF 代币，用于奖励在创意性和技术执行力方面表现突出的顶尖项目。

本次黑客松不仅印证了 AI 在简化去中心化应用开发中的价值，也展现了 Web3 生态系统的进阶成果。活动与 thirdweb、Alchemy 及 RootstockLabs 的合作，为开发者高效参与及产出创新项目提供了有力支持。

Hackathon 获奖者

DeFi 和支付奖项得主

• ProtectedPay_Rootstock：一个在 CrossFi 链上的 DeFi 平台，通过先进的区块链功能促进安全转账、群体支付和智能储蓄。
• AIFi: AI-Powered DeFi Hub on Rootstock：利用 AI 提供汇款、信用评分和用户界面改善，提高拉丁美洲的金融可访问性。

商业和零工经济奖项得主

• SwipeGig：一个利用区块链和 AI 连接自由职业者和客户的去中心化人才市场，确保安全交易。
• HireStamp：使用 AI 评分的凭证进行简历验证，将信誉锚定于比特币的安全基础设施。

Web3 中的身份和声誉奖项得主

• AgenticID：提供自我主权身份验证，结合区块链和 AI，使用零知识证明进行安全的用户认证。
• TrustScan：使用 AI 分析 Rootstock 上的钱包活动，生成信誉和身份评分，加强信任。

赏金最佳 AI 提示使用

• AuditFi_Rootstock：提供 AI 驱动的智能合约安全审计，通过链上验证增强透明度和信任。
• RSK Smart Yield Engine：一个 AI 驱动的 DeFi 协议收益优化器，通过智能合约和 AI 管理资金和制定策略。

有关所有项目的更多信息，请访问 DoraHacks。

关于组织者

Rootstock

Rootstock - 比特币 DeFi 层 - 专注于将比特币强大的网络与以太坊的智能合约功能相结合，提升区块链的互操作性。Rootstock 以技术专长著称，已经创建了一个支持去中心化金融应用的平台。该组织致力于通过扩展在金融服务中智能合约的可访问性和功能性来推动区块链领域的创新。

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

I. Historical Foundations of U.S. Monetary Architecture

The early monetary system of the United States was built atop inherited commodity money conventions from Europe’s maritime economies. Silver and gold coins—primarily Spanish pieces of eight, Dutch guilders, and other foreign specie—formed the basis of colonial commerce. These units were already integrated into international trade and piracy networks and functioned with natural compatibility across England, France, Spain, and Denmark. Lacking a centralized mint or formal currency, the U.S. adopted these forms de facto.

As security risks and the practical constraints of physical coinage mounted, banks emerged to warehouse specie and issue redeemable certificates. These certificates evolved into fiduciary media—claims on specie not actually in hand. Banks observed over time that substantial portions of reserves remained unclaimed for years. This enabled fractional reserve banking: issuing more claims than reserves held, so long as redemption demand stayed low. The practice was inherently unstable, prone to panics and bank runs, prompting eventual centralization through the formation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

Following the Civil War and unstable reinstatements of gold convertibility, the U.S. sought global monetary stability. After World War II, the Bretton Woods system formalized the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency. The dollar was nominally backed by gold, but most international dollars were held offshore and recycled into U.S. Treasuries. The Nixon Shock of 1971 eliminated the gold peg, converting the dollar into pure fiat. Yet offshore dollar demand remained, sustained by oil trade mandates and the unique role of Treasuries as global reserve assets.

II. The Structure of Fiduciary Media and Treasury Demand

Under this system, foreign trade surpluses with the U.S. generate excess dollars. These surplus dollars are parked in U.S. Treasuries, thereby recycling trade imbalances into U.S. fiscal liquidity. While technically loans to the U.S. government, these purchases act like interest-only transfers—governments receive yield, and the U.S. receives spendable liquidity without principal repayment due in the short term. Debt is perpetually rolled over, rarely extinguished.

This creates an illusion of global subsidy: U.S. deficits are financed via foreign capital inflows that, in practice, function more like financial tribute systems than conventional debt markets. The underlying asset—U.S. Treasury debt—functions as the base reserve asset of the dollar system, replacing gold in post-Bretton Woods monetary logic.

III. Emergence of Tether and the Parastatal Dollar

Tether (USDT), as a private issuer of dollar-denominated tokens, mimics key central bank behaviors while operating outside the regulatory perimeter. It mints tokens allegedly backed 1:1 by U.S. dollars or dollar-denominated securities (mostly Treasuries). These tokens circulate globally, often in jurisdictions with limited banking access, and increasingly serve as synthetic dollar substitutes.

If USDT gains dominance as the preferred medium of exchange—due to technological advantages, speed, programmability, or access—it displaces Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) not through devaluation, but through functional obsolescence. Gresham’s Law inverts: good money (more liquid, programmable, globally transferable USDT) displaces bad (FRNs) even if both maintain a nominal 1:1 parity.

Over time, this preference translates to a systemic demand shift. Actors increasingly use Tether instead of FRNs, especially in global commerce, digital marketplaces, or decentralized finance. Tether tokens effectively become shadow base money.

IV. Interaction with Commercial Banking and Redemption Mechanics

Under traditional fractional reserve systems, commercial banks issue loans denominated in U.S. dollars, expanding the money supply. When borrowers repay loans, this destroys the created dollars and contracts monetary elasticity. If borrowers repay in USDT instead of FRNs:

• Banks receive a non-Fed liability (USDT).
• USDT is not recognized as reserve-eligible within the Federal Reserve System.
• Banks must either redeem USDT for FRNs, or demand par-value conversion from Tether to settle reserve requirements and balance their books.

This places redemption pressure on Tether and threatens its 1:1 peg under stress. If redemption latency, friction, or cost arises, USDT’s equivalence to FRNs is compromised. Conversely, if banks are permitted or compelled to hold USDT as reserve or regulatory capital, Tether becomes a de facto reserve issuer.

In this scenario, banks may begin demanding loans in USDT, mirroring borrower behavior. For this to occur sustainably, banks must secure Tether liquidity. This creates two options: - Purchase USDT from Tether or on the secondary market, collateralized by existing fiat. - Borrow USDT directly from Tether, using bank-issued debt as collateral.

The latter mirrors Federal Reserve discount window operations. Tether becomes a lender of first resort, providing monetary elasticity to the banking system by creating new tokens against promissory assets—exactly how central banks function.

V. Structural Consequences: Parallel Central Banking

If Tether begins lending to commercial banks, issuing tokens backed by bank notes or collateralized debt obligations: - Tether controls the expansion of broad money through credit issuance. - Its balance sheet mimics a central bank, with Treasuries and bank debt as assets and tokens as liabilities. - It intermediates between sovereign debt and global liquidity demand, replacing the Federal Reserve’s open market operations with its own issuance-redemption cycles.

Simultaneously, if Tether purchases U.S. Treasuries with FRNs received through token issuance, it: - Supplies the Treasury with new liquidity (via bond purchases). - Collects yield on government debt. - Issues a parallel form of U.S. dollars that never require redemption—an interest-only loan to the U.S. government from a non-sovereign entity.

In this context, Tether performs monetary functions of both a central bank and a sovereign wealth fund, without political accountability or regulatory transparency.

VI. Endgame: Institutional Inversion and Fed Redundancy

This paradigm represents an institutional inversion:

• The Federal Reserve becomes a legacy issuer.
• Tether becomes the operational base money provider in both retail and interbank contexts.
• Treasuries remain the foundational reserve asset, but access to them is mediated by a private intermediary.
• The dollar persists, but its issuer changes. The State becomes a fiscal agent of a decentralized financial ecosystem, not its monetary sovereign.

Unless the Federal Reserve reasserts control—either by absorbing Tether, outlawing its instruments, or integrating its tokens into the reserve framework—it risks becoming irrelevant in the daily function of money.

Tether, in this configuration, is no longer a derivative of the dollar—it is the dollar, just one level removed from sovereign control. The future of monetary sovereignty under such a regime is post-national and platform-mediated.

@ bc6ccd13:f53098e4

The global population has been rising rapidly for the past two centuries when compared to historical trends. Fifty years ago, that trend seemed set to continue, and there was a lot of concern around the issue of overpopulation. But if you haven’t been living under a rock, you’ll know that while the population is still rising, that trend now seems set to reverse this century, and there’s every indication population could decline precipitously over the next two centuries.

Demographics is a field where predictions about the future are much more reliable than in most scientific fields. That’s because future population trends are “baked in” decades in advance. If you want to know how many fifty-year-olds there will be in forty years, all you have to do is count the ten-year-olds today and allow for mortality rates. That maximum was already determined by the number of births ten years ago, and absolutely nothing can change that now. The average person doesn’t think that through when they look at population trends. You hear a lot of “oh we just need to do more of x to help the declining birthrate” without an acknowledgement that future populations in a given cohort are already fixed by the number of births that already occurred.

As you can see, global birthrates have already declined close to the 2.3 replacement level, with some regions ahead of others, but all on the same trajectory with no region moving against the trend. I’m not going to speculate on the reasons for this, or even whether it’s a good or bad thing. Instead I’m going to make some observations about outcomes this trend could cause economically, and why. Like most macro issues, an individual can’t do anything to change the global landscape personally, but knowing what that landscape might look like is essential to avoiding fallout from trends outside your control.

The Resource Pie

Thomas Malthus popularized the concern about overpopulation with his 1798 book An Essay on the Principle of Population. The basic premise of the book was that population could grow and consume all the available resources, leading to mass poverty, starvation, disease, and population collapse. We can say in hindsight that this was incorrect, given that the global population has increased from less than a billion to over eight billion since then, and the apocalypse Malthus predicted hasn’t materialized. Exactly the opposite, in fact. The global standard of living has risen to levels Malthus couldn’t have imagined, much less predicted.

So where did Malthus go wrong? His hypothesis seems reasonable enough, and we do see a similar trend in certain animal populations. The base assumption Malthus got wrong was to assume resources are a finite, limiting factor to the human population. That at some point certain resources would be totally consumed, and that would be it. He treated it like a pie with a lot of slices, but still a finite number, and assumed that if the population kept rising, eventually every slice would be consumed and there would be no pie left for future generations. That turns out to be completely wrong.

Of course, the earth is finite at some abstract level. The number of atoms could theoretically be counted and quantified. But on a practical level, do humans exhaust the earth’s resources? I’d point to an article from Yale Scientific titled Has the Earth Run out of any Natural Resources? To quote,

> However, despite what doomsday predictions may suggest, the Earth has not run out of any resources nor is it likely that it will run out of any in the near future. > > In fact, resources are becoming more abundant. Though this may seem puzzling, it does not mean that the actual quantity of resources in the Earth’s crust is increasing but rather that the amount available for our use is constantly growing due to technological innovations. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the only resource we have exhausted is cryolite, a mineral used in pesticides and aluminum processing. However, that is not to say every bit of it has been mined away; rather, producing it synthetically is much more cost efficient than mining the existing reserves at its current value.

As it happens, we don’t run out of resources. Instead, we become better at finding, extracting, and efficiently utilizing resources, which means that in practical terms resources become more abundant, not less. In other words, the pie grows faster than we can eat it.

So is there any resource that actually limits human potential? I think there is, and history would suggest that resource is human ingenuity and effort. The more people are thinking about and working on a problem, the more solutions we find and build to solve it. That means not only does the pie grow faster than we can eat it, but the more people there are, the faster the pie grows. Of course that assumes everyone eating pie is also working to grow the pie, but that’s a separate issue for now.

Productivity and Division of Labor

Why does having more people lead to more productivity? A big part of it comes down to division of labor and specialization. The best way to get really good at something is to do more of it. In a small community, doing just one thing simply isn’t possible. Everyone has to be somewhat of a generalist in order to survive. But with a larger population, being a specialist becomes possible. In fact, that’s the purpose of money, as I explained here.

nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzp0rve5f6xtu56djkfkkg7ktr5rtfckpun95rgxaa7futy86npx8yqq247t2dvet9q4tsg4qng36lxe6kc4nftayyy89kua2

The more specialized an economy becomes, the more efficient it can be. There are big economies of scale in almost every task or process. So for example, if a single person tried to build a car from scratch, it would be extremely difficult and take a very long time. However, if you have a thousand people building a car, each doing a specific job, they can become very good at doing that specific job and do it much faster. And then you can move that process to a factory, and build machines to do specific jobs, and add even more efficiency.

But that only works if you’re building more than one car. It doesn’t make sense to build a huge factory full of specialized equipment that takes lots of time and effort to design and manufacture, and then only build one car. You need to sell thousands of cars, maybe even millions of cars, to pay off that initial investment. So division of labor and specialization relies on large populations in two different ways. First, you need a large population to have enough people to specialize in each task. But second and just as importantly, you need a large population of buyers for the finished product. You need a big market in order to make mass production economical.

Think of a computer or smartphone. It takes thousands of specialized processes, thousands of complex parts, and millions of people doing specialized jobs to extract the raw materials, process them, and assemble them into a piece of electronic hardware. And electronics are relatively expensive anyway. Imagine how impossible it would be to manufacture electronics economically, if the market demand wasn’t literally in the billions of units.

Stairs Up, Elevator Down

We’ve seen exponential increases in productivity over the past few centuries, resulting in higher living standards even as population exploded. Now, facing the prospect of a drastic trend reversal, what will happen to productivity and living standards? The typical sentiment seems to be “well, there are a lot of people already competing for resources, so if population does decline, that will just reduce the competition and leave a bigger slice of pie for each person, so we’ll all be getting wealthier as a result of population decline.”

This seems reasonable at first glance. Surely dividing the economic pie into fewer slices means a bigger slice for everyone, right? But remember, more specialization and division of labor is what made the pie as big as it is to begin with. And specialization depends on large populations for both the supply of specialized labor, and the demand for finished goods. Can complex supply chains and mass production withstand population reduction intact? I don’t think the answer is clear.

The idea that it will all be okay, and we’ll get wealthier as population falls, is based on some faulty assumptions. It assumes that wealth is basically some fixed inventory of “things” that exist, and it’s all a matter of distribution. That’s typical Marxist thinking, similar to the reasoning behind “tax the rich” and other utopian wealth transfer schemes.

The reality is, wealth is a dynamic concept with strong network effects. For example, a grocery store in a large city can be a valuable asset with a large potential income stream. The same store in a small village with a declining population can be an unprofitable and effectively worthless liability.

Even something as permanent as a house is very susceptible to network effects. If you currently live in an area where housing is scarce and expensive, you might think a declining population would be the perfect solution to high housing costs. However, if you look at a place that’s already facing the beginnings of a population decline, you’ll see it’s not actually that simple. Japan, for example, is already facing an aging and declining population. And sure enough, you can get a house in Japan for free, or basically free. Sounds amazing, right? Not really.

If you check out the reason houses are given away in Japan, you’ll find a depressing reality. Most of the free houses are in rural areas or villages where the population is declining, often to the point that the village becomes uninhabited and abandoned. It’s so bad that in 2018, 13.6% of houses in Japan were vacant. Why do villages become uninhabited? Well, it turns out that a certain population level is necessary to support the services and businesses people need. When the population falls too low, specialized businesses can no longer operated profitably. It’s the exact issue we discussed with division of labor and the need for a high population to provide a market for the specialist to survive. As the local stores, entertainment venues, and businesses close, and skilled tradesmen move away to larger population centers with more customers, living in the village becomes difficult and depressing, if not impossible. So at a certain critical level, a village that’s too isolated will reach a tipping point where everyone leaves as fast as possible. And it turns out that an abandoned house in a remote village or rural area without any nearby services and businesses is worth… nothing. Nobody wants to live there, nobody wants to spend the money to maintain the house, nobody wants to pay the taxes needed to maintain the utilities the town relied on. So they try to give the houses away to anyone who agrees to live there, often without much success.

So on a local level, population might rise gradually over time, but when that process reverses and population declines to a certain level, it can collapse rather quickly from there.

I expect the same incentives to play out on a larger scale as well. Complex supply chains and extreme specialization lead to massive productivity. But there’s also a downside, which is the fragility of the system. Specialization might mean one shop can make all the widgets needed for a specific application, for the whole globe. That’s great while it lasts, but what happens when the owner of that shop retires with his lifetime of knowledge and experience? Will there be someone equally capable ready to fill his shoes? Hopefully… But spread that problem out across the global economy, and cracks start to appear. A specialized part is unavailable. So a machine that relies on that part breaks down and can’t be repaired. So a new machine needs to be built, which is a big expense that drives up costs and prices. And with a falling population, demand goes down. Now businesses are spending more to make fewer items, so they have to raise prices to stay profitable. Now fewer people can afford the item, so demand falls even further. Eventually the business is forced to close, and other industries that relied on the items they produced are crippled. Things become more expensive, or unavailable at any price. Living standards fall. What was a stairway up becomes an elevator down.

Hope, From the Parasite Class?

All that being said, I’m not completely pessimistic about the future. I think the potential for an acceptable outcome exists.

I see two broad groups of people in the economy; producers, and parasites. One thing the increasing productivity has done is made it easier than ever to survive. Food is plentiful globally, the only issues are with distribution. Medical advances save countless lives. Everything is more abundant than ever before. All that has led to a very “soft” economic reality. There’s a lot of non-essential production, which means a lot of wealth can be redistributed to people who contribute nothing, and if it’s done carefully, most people won’t even notice. And that is exactly what has happened, in spades.

There are welfare programs of every type and description, and handouts to people for every reason imaginable. It’s never been easier to survive without lifting a finger. So millions of able-bodied men choose to do just that.

Besides the voluntarily idle, the economy is full of “bullshit jobs.” Shoutout to David Graeber’s book with that title. (It’s an excellent book and one I would highly recommend, even though the author was a Marxist and his conclusions are completely wrong.) A 2015 British poll asked people, “Does your job make a meaningful contribution to the world?” Only 50% said yes, while 37% said no and 13% were uncertain.

This won’t be a surprise to anyone who’s operated a business, or even worked in the private sector in general. There are three types of jobs; jobs that accomplish something productive, jobs that accomplish nothing of value, and jobs that actually hinder people trying to accomplish something productive. The number of jobs in the last two categories has grown massively over the years. This would include a lot of unnecessary administrative jobs, burdensome regulatory jobs, useless DEI and HR jobs, a large percentage of public sector jobs, most of the military-industrial complex, and the list is endless. All these jobs accomplish nothing worthwhile at best, and actively discourage those who are trying to accomplish something at worst.

Even among jobs that do accomplish some useful purpose, the amount of time spent actually doing the job continues to decline. According to a 2016 poll, American office workers spent only 39% of their workday actually doing their primary task. The other 61% was largely wasted on unproductive administrative tasks and meetings, answering emails, and just simply wasting time.

I could go on, but the point is, there’s a lot of slack in the economy. We’ve become so productive that the number of people actually doing the work to keep everyone fed, clothed, and cared for is only a small percentage of the population. In one sense, that’s a cause for optimism. The population could decline a lot, and we’d still have enough bodies to man the economic engine, as it were.

Aging

The thing with population decline, though, is nobody gets to choose who goes first. Not unless you’re a psychopathic dictator. So populations get old, then they get small. This means that the number of dependents in the economy rises naturally. Once people retire, they still need someone to grow the food, keep the lights on, and provide the medical care. And it doesn’t matter how much money the retirees have saved, either. Money is just a claim on wealth. The goods and services actually have to be provided by someone, and if that someone was never born, all the money in the world won’t change anything.

And the aging occurs on top of all the people already taking from the economy without contributing anything of value. So that seems like a big problem.

Currently, wealth redistribution happens through a combination of direct taxes, indirect taxation through deficit spending, and the whole gamut of games that happen when banks create credit/debt money by making loans. In a lot of cases, it’s very indirect and difficult to pin down. For example, someone has a “job” in a government office, enforcing pointless regulations that actually hinder someone in the private sector from producing something useful. Their paycheck comes from the government, so a combination of taxes on productive people, and deficit spending, which is also a tax on productive people. But they “have a job,” so who’s going to question their contribution to society? On the other hand, it could be a banker or hedge fund manager. They might be pulling in a massive salary, but at the core all they’re really doing is finding creative financial ways to transfer wealth from productive people to themselves, without contributing anything of value.

You’ll notice a common theme if you think about this problem deeply. Most of the wealth transfer that supports the unproductive, whether that’s welfare recipients, retirees, bureaucrats, corporate middle managers, or weapons manufacturers, is only possible through expanding the money supply. There’s a limit to how much direct taxation the productive will bear while the option to collect welfare exists. At a certain point, people conclude that working hard every day isn’t worth it, when taxes take so much of their wages that they could make almost as much without working at all. So the balance of what it takes to support the dependent class has to come indirectly, through new money creation.

As long as the declining population happens under the existing monetary system, the future looks bleak. There’s no limit to how much money creation and inflation the parasite class will use in an attempt to avoid work. They’ll continue to suck the productive class dry until the workers give up in disgust, and the currency collapses into hyperinflation. And you can’t run a complex economy without functional money, so productivity inevitably collapses with the currency.

The optimistic view is that we don’t have to continue supporting the failed credit/debt monetary system. It’s hurting productivity, messing up incentives, and contributing to increasing wealth inequality and lower living standards for the middle class. If we walk away from that system and adopt a hard money standard, the possibility of inflationary wealth redistribution vanishes. The welfare and warfare programs have to be slashed. The parasite class is forced to get busy, or starve. In that scenario, the declining population of workers can be offset by a massive shift away from “bullshit jobs” and into actual productive work.

While that might not be a permanent solution to declining population, it would at least give us time to find a real solution, without having our complex economy collapse and send our living standards back to the 17th century.

It’s a complex issue with many possible outcomes, but I think a close look at the effects of the monetary system on productivity shows one obvious problem that will make the situation worse than necessary. Moving to a better monetary system and creating incentives for productivity would do a lot to reduce the economic impacts of a declining population.

@ f32184ee:6d1c17bf

Ads Fueling Freedom

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

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

Ulbricht’s Vision: A Decentralized Social Protocol

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

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

Ulbricht’s Principles

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

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

NextBlock’s Implementation of PROMO Protocol

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

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

Aligned Principles

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

[Blueprint Match, source NextBlock]

---

Who We Are

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

Our first product, Billboard, is launching this June.

Open for All

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

Our Vision

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

Read our Manifesto to learn more.

NextBlock is registered in Texas, USA.

@ 9bde4214:06ca052b

"It's gonna be permissionless or hell."

Gigi and gzuuus are vibing towards dystopia.

Books & articles mentioned:

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

In this dialogue:

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

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

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

---

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

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjndTXyk3mw

Im Jahr 1954, als Frankreich gerade dabei war, seine kolonialen Kriege in Indochina und Algerien zu verschärfen, schrieb Boris Vian ein Lied – oder vielmehr: einen poetischen Faustschlag. Le Déserteur ist keine Ballade, sondern ein Manifest. Keine Hymne auf den Frieden, sondern eine Anklage gegen den Krieg. Adressiert an den Präsidenten, beginnt das Chanson wie ein höflicher Brief – und endet als flammender Akt des zivilen Ungehorsams.

„Herr Präsident,\ ich schreibe Ihnen einen Brief,\ den Sie vielleicht lesen werden,\ wenn Sie Zeit haben.“

Was folgt, ist ein klassischer Kriegsdienstverweigerungsbrief, aber eben kein bürokratischer. Vian spricht nicht in Paragraphen, sondern in Herzschlägen. Der Erzähler, ein einfacher Mann, will nicht kämpfen. Nicht für irgendein Vaterland, nicht für irgendeine Fahne, nicht für irgendeinen ideologischen Zweck.

„Ich soll zur Welt gekommen sein,\ um zu leben, nicht um zu sterben.“

70 Jahre später klingt diese Zeile wie ein Skandal. In einer Zeit, in der die Ukraine junge Männer für Kopfgeld auf der Straße zwangsrekrutiert und in Stahlgewitter schickt, in der palästinensische Jugendliche im Gazastreifen unter Trümmern begraben werden, während israelische Reservisten mit Dauerbefehl marschieren – ist Le Déserteur ein sakraler Text geworden. Fast ein Gebet.

„Wenn man mich verfolgt,\ werde ich den Gehorsam verweigern.\ Ich werde keine Waffe in die Hand nehmen,\ ich werde fliehen, bis ich Frieden finde.“

Wie viele „Deserteure“ gibt es heute, die wir gar nicht kennen? Menschen, die sich nicht auf die Seite der Bomben stellen wollen – egal, wer sie wirft? Die sich nicht mehr einspannen lassen zwischen Propaganda und Patriotismus? Die ihre Menschlichkeit über jeden nationalen Befehl stellen?

Der Krieg, sagt Vian, macht aus freien Menschen Befehlsempfänger und aus Söhnen Leichen. Und wer heute sagt, es gebe „gerechte Kriege“, sollte eine Frage beantworten: Ist es auch ein gerechter Tod?

Darum: Verweigert.

Verweigert den Befehl, zu hassen.\ Verweigert den Reflex, Partei zu ergreifen.\ Verweigert den Dienst an der Waffe.

Denn wie Vian singt:

„Sagen Sie's den Leuten:\ Ich werde nicht kommen.“

---

LASSEN SIE DER FRIEDENSTAUBE FLÜGEL WACHSEN!

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

Schon jetzt können Sie uns unterstützen:

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

Für Einzahlungen in CHF (Betreff: Friedenstaube):

Für Einzahlungen in Euro:

Milosz Matuschek

IBAN DE 53710520500000814137

BYLADEM1TST

Sparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg

Betreff: Friedenstaube

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

---

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

@ 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.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

If you're an engineer stepping into the Bitcoin space from the broader crypto ecosystem, you're probably carrying a mental model shaped by speed, flexibility, and rapid innovation. That makes sense—most blockchain platforms pride themselves on throughput, programmability, and dev agility.

But Bitcoin operates from a different set of first principles. It’s not competing to be the fastest network or the most expressive smart contract platform. It’s aiming to be the most credible, neutral, and globally accessible value layer in human history.

Here’s why that matters—and why Bitcoin is not just an alternative crypto asset, but a structural necessity in the global financial system.

1. Bitcoin Fixes the Triffin Dilemma—Not With Policy, But Protocol

The Triffin Dilemma shows us that any country issuing the global reserve currency must run persistent deficits to supply that currency to the world. That’s not a flaw of bad leadership—it’s an inherent contradiction. The U.S. must debase its own monetary integrity to meet global dollar demand. That’s a self-terminating system.

Bitcoin sidesteps this entirely by being:

• Non-sovereign – no single nation owns it
• Hard-capped – no central authority can inflate it
• Verifiable and neutral – anyone with a full node can enforce the rules

In other words, Bitcoin turns global liquidity into an engineering problem, not a political one. No other system, fiat or crypto, has achieved that.

2. Bitcoin’s “Ossification” Is Intentional—and It's a Feature

From the outside, Bitcoin development may look sluggish. Features are slow to roll out. Code changes are conservative. Consensus rules are treated as sacred.

That’s the point.

When you’re building the global monetary base layer, stability is not a weakness. It’s a prerequisite. Every other financial instrument, app, or protocol that builds on Bitcoin depends on one thing: assurance that the base layer won’t change underneath them without extreme scrutiny.

So-called “ossification” is just another term for predictability and integrity. And when the market does demand change (SegWit, Taproot), Bitcoin’s soft-fork governance process has proven capable of deploying it safely—without coercive central control.

3. Layered Architecture: Throughput Is Not a Base Layer Concern

You don’t scale settlement at the base layer. You build layered systems. Just as TCP/IP doesn't need to carry YouTube traffic directly, Bitcoin doesn’t need to process every microtransaction.

Instead, it anchors:

• Lightning (fast payments)
• Fedimint (community custody)
• Ark (privacy + UTXO compression)
• Statechains, sidechains, and covenants (coming evolution)

All of these inherit Bitcoin’s security and scarcity, while handling volume off-chain, in ways that maintain auditability and self-custody.

4. Universal Assayability Requires Minimalism at the Base Layer

A core design constraint of Bitcoin is that any participant, anywhere in the world, must be able to independently verify the validity of every transaction and block—past and present—without needing permission or relying on third parties.

This property is called assayability—the ability to “test” or verify the authenticity and integrity of received bitcoin, much like verifying the weight and purity of a gold coin.

To preserve this:

• The base layer must remain resource-light, so running a full node stays accessible on commodity hardware.
• Block sizes must remain small enough to prevent centralization of verification.
• Historical data must remain consistent and tamper-evident, enabling proof chains across time and jurisdiction.

Any base layer that scales by increasing throughput or complexity undermines this fundamental guarantee, making the network more dependent on trust and surveillance infrastructure.

Bitcoin prioritizes global verifiability over throughput—because trustless money requires that every user can check the money they receive.

5. Governance: Not Captured, Just Resistant to Coercion

The current controversy around OP_RETURN and proposals to limit inscriptions is instructive. Some prominent devs have advocated for changes to block content filtering. Others see it as overreach.

Here's what matters:

• No single dev, or team, can force changes into the network. Period.
• Bitcoin Core is not “the source of truth.” It’s one implementation. If it deviates from market consensus, it gets forked, sidelined, or replaced.
• The economic majority—miners, users, businesses—enforce Bitcoin’s rules, not GitHub maintainers.

In fact, recent community resistance to perceived Core overreach only reinforces Bitcoin’s resilience. Engineers who posture with narcissistic certainty, dismiss dissent, or attempt to capture influence are routinely neutralized by the market’s refusal to upgrade or adopt forks that undermine neutrality or openness.

This is governance via credible neutrality and negative feedback loops. Power doesn’t accumulate in one place. It’s constantly checked by the network’s distributed incentives.

6. Bitcoin Is Still in Its Infancy—And That’s a Good Thing

You’re not too late. The ecosystem around Bitcoin—especially L2 protocols, privacy tools, custody innovation, and zero-knowledge integrations—is just beginning.

If you're an engineer looking for:

• Systems with global scale constraints
• Architectures that optimize for integrity, not speed
• Consensus mechanisms that resist coercion
• A base layer with predictable monetary policy

Then Bitcoin is where serious systems engineers go when they’ve outgrown crypto theater.

Take-away

Under realistic, market-aware assumptions—where:

• Bitcoin’s ossification is seen as a stability feature, not inertia,
• Market forces can and do demand and implement change via tested, non-coercive mechanisms,
• Proof-of-work is recognized as the only consensus mechanism resistant to fiat capture,
• Wealth concentration is understood as a temporary distribution effect during early monetization,
• Low base layer throughput is a deliberate design constraint to preserve verifiability and neutrality,
• And innovation is layered by design, with the base chain providing integrity, not complexity...

Then Bitcoin is not a fragile or inflexible system—it is a deliberately minimal, modular, and resilient protocol.

Its governance is not leaderless chaos; it's a negative-feedback structure that minimizes the power of individuals or institutions to coerce change. The very fact that proposals—like controversial OP_RETURN restrictions—can be resisted, forked around, or ignored by the market without breaking the system is proof of decentralized control, not dysfunction.

Bitcoin is an adversarially robust monetary foundation. Its value lies not in how fast it changes, but in how reliably it doesn't—unless change is forced by real, bottom-up demand and implemented through consensus-tested soft forks.

In this framing, Bitcoin isn't a slower crypto. It's the engineering benchmark for systems that must endure, not entertain.

Final Word

Bitcoin isn’t moving slowly because it’s dying. It’s moving carefully because it’s winning. It’s not an app platform or a sandbox. It’s a protocol layer for the future of money.

If you're here because you want to help build that future, you’re in the right place.

nostr:nevent1qqswr7sla434duatjp4m89grvs3zanxug05pzj04asxmv4rngvyv04sppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgs9tc6ruevfqu7nzt72kvq8te95dqfkndj5t8hlx6n79lj03q9v6xcrqsqqqqqp0n8wc2

nostr:nevent1qqsd5hfkqgskpjjq5zlfyyv9nmmela5q67tgu9640v7r8t828u73rdqpr4mhxue69uhkymmnw3ezucnfw33k76tww3ux76m09e3k7mf0qgsvr6dt8ft292mv5jlt7382vje0mfq2ccc3azrt4p45v5sknj6kkscrqsqqqqqp02vjk5

nostr:nevent1qqstrszamvffh72wr20euhrwa0fhzd3hhpedm30ys4ct8dpelwz3nuqpr4mhxue69uhkymmnw3ezucnfw33k76tww3ux76m09e3k7mf0qgs8a474cw4lqmapcq8hr7res4nknar2ey34fsffk0k42cjsdyn7yqqrqsqqqqqpnn3znl

@ bc6ccd13:f53098e4

The Bitcoin price action since the US presidential election, and particularly today, November 11, has given me an excuse to revisit an idea I’ve written about before. I explained here that money doesn’t “flow into” assets, and that the terminology makes it difficult for people to understand how prices actually work.

nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzp0rve5f6xtu56djkfkkg7ktr5rtfckpun95rgxaa7futy86npx8yqqhy6mmwv4uj63r0v4ekutt594fx2ctvd3uj63nvdamj6jtww3hj6stw096xs6twvukkgmt9ws6xg86ht5t

The Bitcoin market this year has been a perfect illustration of the points I tried to make, which offers another angle to explain the concept.

Back in January, the first spot Bitcoin ETFs were launched for trading in the US market. This was heralded as a great thing for the Bitcoin price, and tracking “inflows” into these ETFs became a top priority for Bitcoin market analysts. The expectation of course was that more Bitcoin purchased by these ETFs would result in higher prices for the asset.

And sure enough, over the first two months of trading, from mid-January to mid-March, the combined “inflows” to the ETFs totaled around $11 billion. Over the same time frame, the Bitcoin price rose almost 60%, from around $43,000 to $68,000. As should be expected, right?

But then, over the next seven and a half months, from mid-March to early November, the ETFs saw another $11 billion in “inflows”. The Bitcoin price in mid-March? $68,000. In early November? All the way up to… $68,000. Seven and a half months of treading water.

So how can that be? How can $11 billion dollars flowing into an asset cause a 60% price rise once, and no price change at all the next time?

If you read my previous article linked above, you’ll see that the whole idea of money “flowing into” an asset is incorrect and misleading, and this is a perfect illustration why. If you step back a bit, you’ll see the folly of that mentality. So when the ETFs buy $11 billion dollars worth of Bitcoin, where does it come from? They obviously have to buy it from someone. As always, every transaction has a buyer and a seller. In this case, the sellers are current Bitcoin holders selling through OTC desks on the spot market.

So why focus on the ETF buying rather than the Bitcoin holder selling? Instead of saying there were $11 billion in inflows to the Bitcoin ETFs, why not say there were $11 billion in outflows from spot Bitcoin holders? It’s just as valid either way.

To take it a step further, many analysts were consistently confused all summer as Bitcoin ETFs continued to see “inflows” on days that the Bitcoin price stayed flat or even fell. So let’s imagine two consecutive days of $300 million daily “inflows” into the ETFs. The first day, the Bitcoin price rises 3%. The second day, the Bitcoin price falls 3%. The first day, headlines can read Bitcoin Price Rises 3% as ETFs See $300m in Inflows. The second day, headlines can read Bitcoin Price Falls 3% as Spot Bitcoin Holders See $300m in Outflows.

See the silliness of this whole idea? Money flows aren’t the cause of price movement. They’re a fake metric used as a post hoc justification for price moves by people who want you to believe they understand markets better than you.

Moving on to today, as I write this on the evening of November 11, Bitcoin is up 30% from $68,000 to $88,000 in the week since the November 5 election. It rose from $69,000 to $75,000 on election night alone, after US markets had closed and while there were no ETF “inflows” at all. In fact, the ETFs saw over a hundred million dollars in outflows on November 5, followed by an 8% single day price increase.

So if money flows don’t move price, what does?

Investor sentiment, that’s what.

Talking about money flows at all, as illustrated by the Bitcoin ETFs, requires arbitrarily dividing a single market into different segments to disguise the fact that every transaction has both a buyer and a seller, so every transaction has an equal dollar amount of “flows” in both directions. In actuality, price is set by a convergence between the highest price any potential buyer is willing to pay, and the lowest price any potential seller is willing to accept. And that number can change without a single transaction occurring, and without a single dollar “flowing” anywhere.

If every Bitcoin holder simultaneously decided tonight that the lowest price they’re willing to accept is $200,000 per Bitcoin, and a single potential buyer decided to buy a single dollar worth of Bitcoin at that price, that would be the new Bitcoin price tomorrow morning. No ETF “inflows” or institutional buying pressure or short squeezes or liquidations required, or any of the other excuses market analysts use to confuse normal people and make it seem like they have some deep esoteric insight into the workings of markets and future price action.

Don’t overcomplicate something as simple as price. If holders of an asset demand higher prices and potential buyers are willing to pay it, prices rise. If potential buyers of an asset offer lower prices and holders are willing to sell, prices fall. The constant interplay between all those individual investors sentiments is what forms a market and a price. The transferring of money between buyers and sellers is an effect of price, not a cause.

@ 4ba8e86d:89d32de4

Tutorial feito por nostr:nostr:npub1rc56x0ek0dd303eph523g3chm0wmrs5wdk6vs0ehd0m5fn8t7y4sqra3tk poste original abaixo:

Parte 1 : http://xh6liiypqffzwnu5734ucwps37tn2g6npthvugz3gdoqpikujju525yd.onion/263585/tutorial-debloat-de-celulares-android-via-adb-parte-1

Parte 2 : http://xh6liiypqffzwnu5734ucwps37tn2g6npthvugz3gdoqpikujju525yd.onion/index.php/263586/tutorial-debloat-de-celulares-android-via-adb-parte-2

Quando o assunto é privacidade em celulares, uma das medidas comumente mencionadas é a remoção de bloatwares do dispositivo, também chamado de debloat. O meio mais eficiente para isso sem dúvidas é a troca de sistema operacional. Custom Rom’s como LineageOS, GrapheneOS, Iodé, CalyxOS, etc, já são bastante enxutos nesse quesito, principalmente quanto não é instalado os G-Apps com o sistema. No entanto, essa prática pode acabar resultando em problemas indesejados como a perca de funções do dispositivo, e até mesmo incompatibilidade com apps bancários, tornando este método mais atrativo para quem possui mais de um dispositivo e separando um apenas para privacidade.   Pensando nisso, pessoas que possuem apenas um único dispositivo móvel, que são necessitadas desses apps ou funções, mas, ao mesmo tempo, tem essa visão em prol da privacidade, buscam por um meio-termo entre manter a Stock rom, e não ter seus dados coletados por esses bloatwares. Felizmente, a remoção de bloatwares é possível e pode ser realizada via root, ou mais da maneira que este artigo irá tratar, via adb.

O que são bloatwares?

Bloatware é a junção das palavras bloat (inchar) + software (programa), ou seja, um bloatware é basicamente um programa inútil ou facilmente substituível — colocado em seu dispositivo previamente pela fabricante e operadora — que está no seu dispositivo apenas ocupando espaço de armazenamento, consumindo memória RAM e pior, coletando seus dados e enviando para servidores externos, além de serem mais pontos de vulnerabilidades.

O que é o adb?

O Android Debug Brigde, ou apenas adb, é uma ferramenta que se utiliza das permissões de usuário shell e permite o envio de comandos vindo de um computador para um dispositivo Android exigindo apenas que a depuração USB esteja ativa, mas também pode ser usada diretamente no celular a partir do Android 11, com o uso do Termux e a depuração sem fio (ou depuração wifi). A ferramenta funciona normalmente em dispositivos sem root, e também funciona caso o celular esteja em Recovery Mode.

Requisitos:

Para computadores:

• Depuração USB ativa no celular; • Computador com adb; • Cabo USB;

Para celulares:

• Depuração sem fio (ou depuração wifi) ativa no celular; • Termux; • Android 11 ou superior;

Para ambos:

• Firewall NetGuard instalado e configurado no celular; • Lista de bloatwares para seu dispositivo;

Ativação de depuração:

Para ativar a Depuração USB em seu dispositivo, pesquise como ativar as opções de desenvolvedor de seu dispositivo, e lá ative a depuração. No caso da depuração sem fio, sua ativação irá ser necessária apenas no momento que for conectar o dispositivo ao Termux.

Instalação e configuração do NetGuard

O NetGuard pode ser instalado através da própria Google Play Store, mas de preferência instale pela F-Droid ou Github para evitar telemetria.

F-Droid: https://f-droid.org/packages/eu.faircode.netguard/

Github: https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases

Após instalado, configure da seguinte maneira:

Configurações → padrões (lista branca/negra) → ative as 3 primeiras opções (bloquear wifi, bloquear dados móveis e aplicar regras ‘quando tela estiver ligada’);

Configurações → opções avançadas → ative as duas primeiras (administrar aplicativos do sistema e registrar acesso a internet);

Com isso, todos os apps estarão sendo bloqueados de acessar a internet, seja por wifi ou dados móveis, e na página principal do app basta permitir o acesso a rede para os apps que você vai usar (se necessário). Permita que o app rode em segundo plano sem restrição da otimização de bateria, assim quando o celular ligar, ele já estará ativo.

Lista de bloatwares

Nem todos os bloatwares são genéricos, haverá bloatwares diferentes conforme a marca, modelo, versão do Android, e até mesmo região.

Para obter uma lista de bloatwares de seu dispositivo, caso seu aparelho já possua um tempo de existência, você encontrará listas prontas facilmente apenas pesquisando por elas. Supondo que temos um Samsung Galaxy Note 10 Plus em mãos, basta pesquisar em seu motor de busca por:

Samsung Galaxy Note 10 Plus bloatware list

Provavelmente essas listas já terão inclusas todos os bloatwares das mais diversas regiões, lhe poupando o trabalho de buscar por alguma lista mais específica.

Caso seu aparelho seja muito recente, e/ou não encontre uma lista pronta de bloatwares, devo dizer que você acaba de pegar em merda, pois é chato para um caralho pesquisar por cada aplicação para saber sua função, se é essencial para o sistema ou se é facilmente substituível.

De antemão já aviso, que mais para frente, caso vossa gostosura remova um desses aplicativos que era essencial para o sistema sem saber, vai acabar resultando na perda de alguma função importante, ou pior, ao reiniciar o aparelho o sistema pode estar quebrado, lhe obrigando a seguir com uma formatação, e repetir todo o processo novamente.

Download do adb em computadores

Para usar a ferramenta do adb em computadores, basta baixar o pacote chamado SDK platform-tools, disponível através deste link: https://developer.android.com/tools/releases/platform-tools. Por ele, você consegue o download para Windows, Mac e Linux.

Uma vez baixado, basta extrair o arquivo zipado, contendo dentro dele uma pasta chamada platform-tools que basta ser aberta no terminal para se usar o adb.

Download do adb em celulares com Termux.

Para usar a ferramenta do adb diretamente no celular, antes temos que baixar o app Termux, que é um emulador de terminal linux, e já possui o adb em seu repositório. Você encontra o app na Google Play Store, mas novamente recomendo baixar pela F-Droid ou diretamente no Github do projeto.

F-Droid: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.termux/

Github: https://github.com/termux/termux-app/releases

Processo de debloat

Antes de iniciarmos, é importante deixar claro que não é para você sair removendo todos os bloatwares de cara sem mais nem menos, afinal alguns deles precisam antes ser substituídos, podem ser essenciais para você para alguma atividade ou função, ou até mesmo são insubstituíveis.

Alguns exemplos de bloatwares que a substituição é necessária antes da remoção, é o Launcher, afinal, é a interface gráfica do sistema, e o teclado, que sem ele só é possível digitar com teclado externo. O Launcher e teclado podem ser substituídos por quaisquer outros, minha recomendação pessoal é por aqueles que respeitam sua privacidade, como Pie Launcher e Simple Laucher, enquanto o teclado pelo OpenBoard e FlorisBoard, todos open-source e disponíveis da F-Droid.

Identifique entre a lista de bloatwares, quais você gosta, precisa ou prefere não substituir, de maneira alguma você é obrigado a remover todos os bloatwares possíveis, modifique seu sistema a seu bel-prazer. O NetGuard lista todos os apps do celular com o nome do pacote, com isso você pode filtrar bem qual deles não remover.

Um exemplo claro de bloatware insubstituível e, portanto, não pode ser removido, é o com.android.mtp, um protocolo onde sua função é auxiliar a comunicação do dispositivo com um computador via USB, mas por algum motivo, tem acesso a rede e se comunica frequentemente com servidores externos. Para esses casos, e melhor solução mesmo é bloquear o acesso a rede desses bloatwares com o NetGuard.

MTP tentando comunicação com servidores externos:

Executando o adb shell

No computador

Faça backup de todos os seus arquivos importantes para algum armazenamento externo, e formate seu celular com o hard reset. Após a formatação, e a ativação da depuração USB, conecte seu aparelho e o pc com o auxílio de um cabo USB. Muito provavelmente seu dispositivo irá apenas começar a carregar, por isso permita a transferência de dados, para que o computador consiga se comunicar normalmente com o celular.

Já no pc, abra a pasta platform-tools dentro do terminal, e execute o seguinte comando:

./adb start-server

O resultado deve ser:

daemon not running; starting now at tcp:5037 daemon started successfully

E caso não apareça nada, execute:

./adb kill-server

E inicie novamente.

Com o adb conectado ao celular, execute:

./adb shell

Para poder executar comandos diretamente para o dispositivo. No meu caso, meu celular é um Redmi Note 8 Pro, codinome Begonia.

Logo o resultado deve ser:

begonia:/ $

Caso ocorra algum erro do tipo:

adb: device unauthorized. This adb server’s $ADB_VENDOR_KEYS is not set Try ‘adb kill-server’ if that seems wrong. Otherwise check for a confirmation dialog on your device.

Verifique no celular se apareceu alguma confirmação para autorizar a depuração USB, caso sim, autorize e tente novamente. Caso não apareça nada, execute o kill-server e repita o processo.

No celular

Após realizar o mesmo processo de backup e hard reset citado anteriormente, instale o Termux e, com ele iniciado, execute o comando:

pkg install android-tools

Quando surgir a mensagem “Do you want to continue? [Y/n]”, basta dar enter novamente que já aceita e finaliza a instalação

Agora, vá até as opções de desenvolvedor, e ative a depuração sem fio. Dentro das opções da depuração sem fio, terá uma opção de emparelhamento do dispositivo com um código, que irá informar para você um código em emparelhamento, com um endereço IP e porta, que será usado para a conexão com o Termux.

Para facilitar o processo, recomendo que abra tanto as configurações quanto o Termux ao mesmo tempo, e divida a tela com os dois app’s, como da maneira a seguir:

Para parear o Termux com o dispositivo, não é necessário digitar o ip informado, basta trocar por “localhost”, já a porta e o código de emparelhamento, deve ser digitado exatamente como informado. Execute:

adb pair localhost:porta CódigoDeEmparelhamento

De acordo com a imagem mostrada anteriormente, o comando ficaria “adb pair localhost:41255 757495”.

Com o dispositivo emparelhado com o Termux, agora basta conectar para conseguir executar os comandos, para isso execute:

adb connect localhost:porta

Obs: a porta que você deve informar neste comando não é a mesma informada com o código de emparelhamento, e sim a informada na tela principal da depuração sem fio.

Pronto! Termux e adb conectado com sucesso ao dispositivo, agora basta executar normalmente o adb shell:

adb shell

Remoção na prática Com o adb shell executado, você está pronto para remover os bloatwares. No meu caso, irei mostrar apenas a remoção de um app (Google Maps), já que o comando é o mesmo para qualquer outro, mudando apenas o nome do pacote.

Dentro do NetGuard, verificando as informações do Google Maps:

Podemos ver que mesmo fora de uso, e com a localização do dispositivo desativado, o app está tentando loucamente se comunicar com servidores externos, e informar sabe-se lá que peste. Mas sem novidades até aqui, o mais importante é que podemos ver que o nome do pacote do Google Maps é com.google.android.apps.maps, e para o remover do celular, basta executar:

pm uninstall –user 0 com.google.android.apps.maps

E pronto, bloatware removido! Agora basta repetir o processo para o resto dos bloatwares, trocando apenas o nome do pacote.

Para acelerar o processo, você pode já criar uma lista do bloco de notas com os comandos, e quando colar no terminal, irá executar um atrás do outro.

Exemplo de lista:

Caso a donzela tenha removido alguma coisa sem querer, também é possível recuperar o pacote com o comando:

cmd package install-existing nome.do.pacote

Pós-debloat

Após limpar o máximo possível o seu sistema, reinicie o aparelho, caso entre no como recovery e não seja possível dar reboot, significa que você removeu algum app “essencial” para o sistema, e terá que formatar o aparelho e repetir toda a remoção novamente, desta vez removendo poucos bloatwares de uma vez, e reiniciando o aparelho até descobrir qual deles não pode ser removido. Sim, dá trabalho… quem mandou querer privacidade?

Caso o aparelho reinicie normalmente após a remoção, parabéns, agora basta usar seu celular como bem entender! Mantenha o NetGuard sempre executando e os bloatwares que não foram possíveis remover não irão se comunicar com servidores externos, passe a usar apps open source da F-Droid e instale outros apps através da Aurora Store ao invés da Google Play Store.

Referências: Caso você seja um Australopithecus e tenha achado este guia difícil, eis uma videoaula (3:14:40) do Anderson do canal Ciberdef, realizando todo o processo: http://odysee.com/@zai:5/Como-remover-at%C3%A9-200-APLICATIVOS-que-colocam-a-sua-PRIVACIDADE-E-SEGURAN%C3%87A-em-risco.:4?lid=6d50f40314eee7e2f218536d9e5d300290931d23

Pdf’s do Anderson citados na videoaula: créditos ao anon6837264 http://eternalcbrzpicytj4zyguygpmkjlkddxob7tptlr25cdipe5svyqoqd.onion/file/3863a834d29285d397b73a4af6fb1bbe67c888d72d30/t-05e63192d02ffd.pdf

Processo de instalação do Termux e adb no celular: https://youtu.be/APolZrPHSms

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

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

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

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

Part I: The Scene and Its Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part IV: Redemption as Narrative Alchemy

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

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

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

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

Part V: Real-World Reflections and Dangerous Scripts

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

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

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

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

Part VI: Cultural Responsibility and Narrative Ethics

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

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

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

Conclusion: Reckoning with the Stories We Tell

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

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

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

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

@ ed5774ac:45611c5c

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

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

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

My facebook post from 20 April 2020:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Walking Away from the Herd

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

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

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

Finding My Tribe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Regrets

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

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

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

@ 52b4a076:e7fad8bd

Introduction

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

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

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

First preparations

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

Asynchronous indexing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trying it out

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

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

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

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

Bottlenecks, bottlenecks everywhere

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breaking the 100K/s reads barrier

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

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

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

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

It's shards all the way down

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

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

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

The stress test

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

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

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

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

Finishing notes

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

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

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

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

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

🩸
The world won’t stop and wait for you to recover.

Do your duty regardless of how you feel. That’s the only guarantee you’ll end the day alright.

You’ve heard it before: “The worst workout is the one you didn’t do.” Sometimes you don’t feel like going to the gym. You start bargaining with laziness: “I didn’t sleep well… maybe I should skip today.” But then you go anyway, committing only to the bare minimum your energy allows. And once you start, your body outperforms your mind’s assumptions—it turns out to be one of the best workouts you’ve had in a long time. The feeling of following through, of winning a battle you were losing, gives you the confidence to own the rest of your day. You finally feel good.

And that wouldn’t have happened if you stayed home waiting to feel better. Guilt would’ve joined forces with discouragement, and you’d be crushed by melancholy in a victim mindset. That loss would bleed into the rest of your week, conditioning your mind: because you didn’t spend your energy on the workout, you’d stay up late, wake up worse, and while waiting to feel “ready,” you’d lose a habit that took months of effort to build.

When in doubt, just do your duty. Stick to the plan. Don’t negotiate with your feelings—outsmart them. “Just one page today,” and you’ll end up reading ten. “Only the easy tasks,” and you’ll gain momentum to conquer the hard ones. Laziness is a serpent—you win when you make no deals with it.

A close friend once told me that when he was at his limit during a second job shift, he’d open a picture on his phone—of a fridge or a stove he needed to buy for his home—and that image gave him strength to stay awake. That moment stuck with me forever.

Do you really think the world will have the same mercy on you that you have on yourself? Don’t be surprised when it doesn’t spare you. Move forward even while stitching your wounds: “If you wait for perfect conditions, you’ll never do anything.” (Ecclesiastes 11:4)

Thank you for reading, my friend!

If this message resonated with you, consider leaving your "🥃" as a token of appreciation.

A toast to our family!

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

My friend, let yourself be deluded for a moment, and reality will see to it that your fantasy is shattered—like a hammer crushing marble. The real world grants no mercy; it will relentlessly tear down your aspirations, casting them into the abyss of disillusionment and burying your dreams under the unbearable weight of your own expectations. It’s an inescapable fate—but the outcome is still in your hands: perish at the bottom like a wretch or turn the pit into a trench.

Davvero, everyone must eventually face something that breaks them. It is in devastation that man discovers what he is made of, and in the silence of defeat that he hears the finest advice. Yet the weak would rather embrace the convenient lie of self-pity, blaming life for failures that are, in truth, the result of their own negligence and cowardly choices. If you hide behind excuses because you fear the painful truth, know this: the responsibility has always been yours.

Ascolta bene! Just remain steadfast, even when everything feels like an endless maze. The difficulties you face today—those you believe you’ll never overcome—will one day seem insignificant under the light of time and experience. Tomorrow, you’ll look back and laugh at yourself for ever letting these storms seem so overwhelming.

Now, it’s up to you to fight your own battle—for the evil day spares no one. Don’t let yourself be paralyzed by shock or bow before adversity. Be strong and of good courage—not as one who waits for relief, but as one prepared to face the inevitable and turn pain into glory.

Thank you for reading, my friend!

If this message resonated with you, consider leaving your "🥃" as a token of appreciation.

A toast to our family!

@ 3ffac3a6:2d656657

🏅 Como Criar um Badge Épico no Nostr com nak + badges.page

Requisitos:

• Ter o nak instalado (https://github.com/fiatjaf/nak)
• Ter uma chave privada Nostr (nsec...)
• Acesso ao site https://badges.page
• Um relay ativo (ex: wss://relay.primal.net)

---

🔧 Passo 1 — Criar o badge em badges.page

1. Acesse o site https://badges.page

2. Clique em "New Badge" no canto superior direito
   

3. Preencha os campos:

4. Nome (ex: Teste Épico)
5. Descrição

6. Imagem e thumbnail

7. Após criar, você será redirecionado para a página do badge.

---

🔍 Passo 2 — Copiar o naddr do badge

Na barra de endereços, copie o identificador que aparece após /a/ — este é o naddr do seu badge.

Exemplo: nostr:naddr1qq94getnw3jj63tsd93k7q3q8lav8fkgt8424rxamvk8qq4xuy9n8mltjtgztv2w44hc5tt9vetsxpqqqp6njkq3sd0

Copie: naddr1qq94getnw3jj63tsd93k7q3q8lav8fkgt8424rxamvk8qq4xuy9n8mltjtgztv2w44hc5tt9vetsxpqqqp6njkq3sd0

---

🧠 Passo 3 — Decodificar o naddr com nak

Abra seu terminal (ou Cygwin no Windows) e rode:

bash nak decode naddr1qq94getnw3jj63tsd93k7q3q8lav8fkgt8424rxamvk8qq4xuy9n8mltjtgztv2w44hc5tt9vetsxpqqqp6njkq3sd0

Você verá algo assim:

json { "pubkey": "3ffac3a6c859eaaa8cdddb2c7002a6e10b33efeb92d025b14ead6f8a2d656657", "kind": 30009, "identifier": "Teste-Epico" }

Grave o campo "identifier" — nesse caso: Teste-Epico

---

🛰️ Passo 4 — Consultar o evento no relay

Agora vamos pegar o evento do badge no relay:

bash nak req -d "Teste-Epico" wss://relay.primal.net

Você verá o conteúdo completo do evento do badge, algo assim:

json { "kind": 30009, "tags": [["d", "Teste-Epico"], ["name", "Teste Épico"], ...] }

---

💥 Passo 5 — Minerar o evento como "épico" (PoW 31)

Agora vem a mágica: minerar com proof-of-work (PoW 31) para que o badge seja classificado como épico!

bash nak req -d "Teste-Epico" wss://relay.primal.net | nak event --pow 31 --sec nsec1SEU_NSEC_AQUI wss://relay.primal.net wss://nos.lol wss://relay.damus.io

Esse comando: - Resgata o evento original - Gera um novo com PoW de dificuldade 31 - Assina com sua chave privada nsec - E publica nos relays wss://relay.primal.net, wss://nos.lol e wss://relay.damus.io

⚠️ Substitua nsec1SEU_NSEC_AQUI pela sua chave privada Nostr.

---

✅ Resultado

Se tudo der certo, o badge será atualizado com um evento de PoW mais alto e aparecerá como "Epic" no site!

@ c11cf5f8:4928464d

This post may sound like a rant, hope not! Just want you to take a minute and think about our shameless collective behaviors.

In the past few weeks have been framing a simple idea, proposed to @AGORA for adding a V4V tag to be used in the ~AGORA marketplace here on SN. A new way to incentivize this Value 4 Value thing that many keep talking about, and just few actually have the bullish balls to adopts and embrace at 360 degrees. Oh yep, that's cool, it has been implemented in Podcasting 2.0, Nice! So we don't need to think about it anymore, the platform takes care, we trust the Fountain... The worse is that this approach has been taken like an invitation for people to create contentless podcasts, AI music is booming... Why? Because they know is profitable and effortless (kind of...) but if you are lucky with your phone camera repeatedly streaming on YT, you can maybe be able to entertain enough fans and start to be paid for it. Our values are misleading us, we don't do stuff because we aim to create some kind valuable, we do it mostly because it is easily profitable.

But what about adopting it in our daily life? Making it a way to live by, instead just a platform implementation? How we can change the currently widespread disease of fiat mentality? How can we find ways to create a circular economy that has its fundamentals on other values? Does need profit always be in the first place or can we define value in non-monetary terms? Does this hourly rate really reflect the value you provide? Can we really place a value in the seconds of this precious lifespan we have? Time is money? Money is Time? really?

Would we live one day in a word where there is so much abundance that it will be meaningless to associate numbers with stuff we do? A time when resources will be equally available to all, energy endlessly provided following Tesla standards—Nikola Tesla, not Elon's Tesla—like the air we are now breading? Are we ready to drop and unlearn all the behaviors we have been indoctrinated with since birth, with something that can benefit the entire world population instead of just ourselves or the few around us?

These are the questions that have been bothering me since a long time. I'd like some responses. It's this Value for Value thing, then, just a new fancy word to define voluntarism? A way to give without expecting nothing back? a bunch of people, ones can profit from? Or is Value4Value just a marketing strategy to access bitcoiners and nostriches zaps? Because that what it looks to me when most of us approach this idea. Let's join nostr, people give you zaps... Come to SN, you can earn sats! 💡sats=money, fiat money, I can pay bills with... sure lets' do it! If someone can gimme gimme money just for a comment and GMs... obviously I'll do it and spam everyone in the network with dummy, unfollowed unread two-letters acronym and get my daily satstash to grow. What about quality content? What about creating and spreading Value?

Honor

Trust

Credibility

Faith

Morality

Compassion

Would be a one simple, beautiful and bright smile enough to compensate all the efforts you invested for years or decades in that alpha, even if it is not yet profitable? Do we really need to go into the NGO compliance hell of asking permission, registering with the local gov to be let alone and do what we love, allowing surveillance and eyesight from entities we don't really care, but we do because is the way that allow us to do what we love), is the way we know.

Buddhism have been embracing something similar for long time, has been thought for millennia uninterruptedly. We still ignoring it, at least in the west. Defined as karma as a unit of measurement to define the good and the bad seeds one accumulate along the multi-life journey. Does karma need to be count? Who keeps the karmaccounting books in order? Only you can, but when your values are misaligned with the community and centered in your selfish ego, then you are probably keeping the books in dis-order then. So, how one can evaluate if we are doing right or wrong... considering there's no right or wrong, how one then can know if what has been done, what is doing and what will be done as consequence of today decision will be aligned with good values? What are good values?

Natural Law provides us an inalienable framework where objective moral truths, rooted in human nature and discerned through reason, guide ethical behavior and honest governance. It defines simple values anyone already knows and rules that we take so granted, that we ignore. Or maybe we just don't think about them when acting, privately and publicly.

These few simple value and rules, that if considered when taking action ensure us good outcomes will be, not guaranteed, but at least scheduled to be delivered. We just don't know when thought, can be in this life or in another one... who knows!

https://stacker.news/items/986449

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

Prelude

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

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

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

Intro

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

The Filibuster: A Security Rule with No Teeth

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

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

Supreme Court Packing: Because Nine’s Just a Number

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

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

The Executive Should Go Full Klingon

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

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

Let the System Crash

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

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

States Are the Real MVPs

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

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

Chaos Isn’t the Enemy

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

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

Why This Matters

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

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

@ c4b5369a:b812dbd6

Offline transactions with Cashu

Over the past few weeks, I've been busy implementing offline capabilities into nutstash. I think this is one of the key value propositions of ecash, beinga a bearer instrument that can be used without internet access. It does however come with limitations, which can lead to a bit of confusion. I hope this article will clear some of these questions up for you!

What is ecash/Cashu?

Ecash is the first cryptocurrency ever invented. It was created by David Chaum in 1983. It uses a blind signature scheme, which allows users to prove ownership of a token without revealing a link to its origin. These tokens are what we call ecash. They are bearer instruments, meaning that anyone who possesses a copy of them, is considered the owner.

Cashu is an implementation of ecash, built to tightly interact with Bitcoin, more specifically the Bitcoin lightning network. In the Cashu ecosystem, Mints are the gateway to the lightning network. They provide the infrastructure to access the lightning network, pay invoices and receive payments. Instead of relying on a traditional ledger scheme like other custodians do, the mint issues ecash tokens, to represent the value held by the users.

How do normal Cashu transactions work?

A Cashu transaction happens when the sender gives a copy of his ecash token to the receiver. This can happen by any means imaginable. You could send the token through email, messenger, or even by pidgeon. One of the common ways to transfer ecash is via QR code.

The transaction is however not finalized just yet! In order to make sure the sender cannot double-spend their copy of the token, the receiver must do what we call a swap. A swap is essentially exchanging an ecash token for a new one at the mint, invalidating the old token in the process. This ensures that the sender can no longer use the same token to spend elsewhere, and the value has been transferred to the receiver.

What about offline transactions?

Sending offline

Sending offline is very simple. The ecash tokens are stored on your device. Thus, no internet connection is required to access them. You can litteraly just take them, and give them to someone. The most convenient way is usually through a local transmission protocol, like NFC, QR code, Bluetooth, etc.

The one thing to consider when sending offline is that ecash tokens come in form of "coins" or "notes". The technical term we use in Cashu is Proof. It "proofs" to the mint that you own a certain amount of value. Since these proofs have a fixed value attached to them, much like UTXOs in Bitcoin do, you would need proofs with a value that matches what you want to send. You can mix and match multiple proofs together to create a token that matches the amount you want to send. But, if you don't have proofs that match the amount, you would need to go online and swap for the needed proofs at the mint.

Another limitation is, that you cannot create custom proofs offline. For example, if you would want to lock the ecash to a certain pubkey, or add a timelock to the proof, you would need to go online and create a new custom proof at the mint.

Receiving offline

You might think: well, if I trust the sender, I don't need to be swapping the token right away!

You're absolutely correct. If you trust the sender, you can simply accept their ecash token without needing to swap it immediately.

This is already really useful, since it gives you a way to receive a payment from a friend or close aquaintance without having to worry about connectivity. It's almost just like physical cash!

It does however not work if the sender is untrusted. We have to use a different scheme to be able to receive payments from someone we don't trust.

Receiving offline from an untrusted sender

To be able to receive payments from an untrusted sender, we need the sender to create a custom proof for us. As we've seen before, this requires the sender to go online.

The sender needs to create a token that has the following properties, so that the receciver can verify it offline:

• It must be locked to ONLY the receiver's public key
• It must include an offline signature proof (DLEQ proof)
• If it contains a timelock & refund clause, it must be set to a time in the future that is acceptable for the receiver
• It cannot contain duplicate proofs (double-spend)
• It cannot contain proofs that the receiver has already received before (double-spend)

If all of these conditions are met, then the receiver can verify the proof offline and accept the payment. This allows us to receive payments from anyone, even if we don't trust them.

At first glance, this scheme seems kinda useless. It requires the sender to go online, which defeats the purpose of having an offline payment system.

I beleive there are a couple of ways this scheme might be useful nonetheless:

1. Offline vending machines: Imagine you have an offline vending machine that accepts payments from anyone. The vending machine could use this scheme to verify payments without needing to go online itself. We can assume that the sender is able to go online and create a valid token, but the receiver doesn't need to be online to verify it.

2. Offline marketplaces: Imagine you have an offline marketplace where buyers and sellers can trade goods and services. Before going to the marketplace the sender already knows where he will be spending the money. The sender could create a valid token before going to the marketplace, using the merchants public key as a lock, and adding a refund clause to redeem any unspent ecash after it expires. In this case, neither the sender nor the receiver needs to go online to complete the transaction.

How to use this

Pretty much all cashu wallets allow you to send tokens offline. This is because all that the wallet needs to do is to look if it can create the desired amount from the proofs stored locally. If yes, it will automatically create the token offline.

Receiving offline tokens is currently only supported by nutstash (experimental).

To create an offline receivable token, the sender needs to lock it to the receiver's public key. Currently there is no refund clause! So be careful that you don't get accidentally locked out of your funds!

The receiver can then inspect the token and decide if it is safe to accept without a swap. If all checks are green, they can accept the token offline without trusting the sender.

The receiver will see the unswapped tokens on the wallet homescreen. They will need to manually swap them later when they are online again.

Later when the receiver is online again, they can swap the token for a fresh one.

Summary

We learned that offline transactions are possible with ecash, but there are some limitations. It either requires trusting the sender, or relying on either the sender or receiver to be online to verify the tokens, or create tokens that can be verified offline by the receiver.

I hope this short article was helpful in understanding how ecash works and its potential for offline transactions.

Cheers,

Gandlaf

@ bc6ccd13:f53098e4

Bullshit Jobs, for those unfamiliar, is the title of a 2018 book by anthropologist David Graeber. It’s well worth a read just for the fascinating research and the engaging writing style. The premise of the book is that many people work in jobs that contribute nothing to society, and would not be missed if they suddenly vanished overnight.

The data backs this up. In a 2015 British poll that asked “does your job make a meaningful contribution to the world?”, 37 percent of people said no, and another 13 percent weren’t sure. That’s fully half the population who can’t confidently say their job is even worth doing. And other polls have found similar or worse results.

The book was inspired by the overwhelming response to a 2013 article Graeber wrote titled On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs: A Work Rant. The point I’d like to address is found here.

Over the course of the last century, the number of workers employed as domestic servants, in industry, and in the farm sector has collapsed dramatically. At the same time, ‘professional, managerial, clerical, sales, and service workers’ tripled, growing ‘from one-quarter to three-quarters of total employment.’ In other words, productive jobs have, just as predicted, been largely automated away (even if you count industrial workers globally, including the toiling masses in India and China, such workers are still not nearly so large a percentage of the world population as they used to be.)

But rather than allowing a massive reduction of working hours to free the world’s population to pursue their own projects, pleasures, visions, and ideas, we have seen the ballooning of not even so much of the ‘service’ sector as of the administrative sector, up to and including the creation of whole new industries like financial services or telemarketing, or the unprecedented expansion of sectors like corporate law, academic and health administration, human resources, and public relations.

These are what I propose to call ‘bullshit jobs’.

It’s as if someone were out there making up pointless jobs just for the sake of keeping us all working. And here, precisely, lies the mystery. In capitalism, this is precisely what is not supposed to happen. Sure, in the old inefficient socialist states like the Soviet Union, where employment was considered both a right and a sacred duty, the system made up as many jobs as they had to (this is why in Soviet department stores it took three clerks to sell a piece of meat). But, of course, this is the sort of very problem market competition is supposed to fix. According to economic theory, at least, the last thing a profit-seeking firm is going to do is shell out money to workers they don’t really need to employ. Still, somehow, it happens.

While corporations may engage in ruthless downsizing, the layoffs and speed-ups invariably fall on that class of people who are actually making, moving, fixing and maintaining things; through some strange alchemy no one can quite explain, the number of salaried paper-pushers ultimately seems to expand, and more and more employees find themselves, not unlike Soviet workers actually, working 40 or even 50 hour weeks on paper, but effectively working 15 hours just as Keynes predicted, since the rest of their time is spent organizing or attending motivational seminars, updating their facebook profiles or downloading TV box-sets.

The answer clearly isn’t economic: it’s moral and political.

In the book, Graeber expands on this idea with a very entertaining description of the many flavors of bullshit jobs, based on anecdotes from readers of his article. He follows that up with theories speculating on the cause of this situation. And wraps it all up with the conclusion that basically capitalists are all big meanies and invent bullshit jobs just to torture people and prevent the arrival of the Marxist utopia where no one has to do much real work and we all sit around and sing kumbaya and discuss philosophy. That’s too harsh a criticism of a very well researched and written book, but I have to confess I was sorely disappointed the first time I read it by the author’s failure to even entertain what seems like the obvious alternative explanation.

Graeber acknowledges in the book that it’s not surprising bullshit jobs exist inside government, although he doesn’t focus strongly enough on why that is. Like he does in the article, he tries to brush it off with the excuse that the same problem exists in the private sector. As he acknowledges, this isn’t supposed to happen in capitalism. He realizes that it makes no logical economic sense for a profit-seeking firm to hire workers to do nothing productive.

But then he follows that acknowledgement with the claim that “The answer clearly isn’t economic: it’s moral and political.” I’m sorry, what? How is that clear? How do you go from stating an obvious economic fact, to denying that the problem is economic, and call it “clear”.

“Still, somehow, it happens,” is not anywhere close to a sufficient explanation to rule out an economic factor.

The economic explanation

First, some definitions.

Capitalism is defined as “an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.”

A free market is “an economic system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and are not controlled or regulated by a government: a market operating by free competition.”

Now that we made sure we’re talking about the same thing, we can analyze this issue logically.

Capitalism and free markets work through competition for customers. It’s an economic law that a customer won’t pay more for the same good or service when they could pay less. Someone can try to make obscure and esoteric objections and force me to emphasize the word “same” and analyze what the good or service being purchased actually is, but everyone else understands this intuitively. So if two companies are offering the same product for sale, all things being equal, the company offering lower prices will attract the customers. Pretty simple stuff.

Of course, the goal for the company is to generate profits. It’s literally in the definition of the word “capitalism”. So any system in which companies have a goal other than generating profits is, by definition, not capitalism.

A company can increase its profits two ways: raising prices, or lowering costs. We don’t have to get too philosophical to realize that if a company is paying someone to do nothing, the company could increase profits by firing that person and lowering their costs of production.

So the question is, why don’t they? Why do they hire people who increase their costs and lower their profits, thereby making them less competitive? And more importantly, if they do make that mistake, why don’t their competitors undercut their prices and take all the customers and bankrupt them?

I don’t think we can dismiss the economic factor as off-handedly as Graeber does. After all, making a profit is the fundamental, definitional purpose of a business or company in a capitalist economy. To say “companies in this capitalist economy are doing something completely antithetical to the very principles and definition of capitalism, so obviously they’re not doing it for economic reasons” is something of a non sequitur.

The conclusion, to me, seems obvious. We don’t have a capitalist economy. As far as I can tell, that’s true by definition. If companies aren’t even trying to achieve the goal companies must achieve to survive in a capitalist economy, and somehow they’re still surviving, that’s proof of the non-capitalist nature of the economy.

Which part of the capitalist system are we missing?

Well, let’s start with the obvious: there’s a lot of government in our economy. The government isn’t privately owned, which makes it not capitalist by definition. So any part of the economy that’s government is not capitalist.

Why is government not capitalist? Because government is not motivated to provide goods and services at a profit. Why not? Because government does not sell goods and services into a free market. Government gives away goods and services to its “customers” for free, because they’re paid for by people other than the consumers of the service. That payment comes in one of two ways: taxes, and debt. It’s not a voluntary transaction.

Which part of the capitalist system might private companies be missing?

They could be lacking competition. That is, operating a monopoly or cartel. If there’s no competing business to provide goods at lower prices, the company could hire people for useless jobs and compensate by raising prices. This places them outside the definition of capitalism, since “free competition” is part of the definition of a free market. Monopolies and cartels often develop and survive through protection by the government, which emphasizes their un-capitalistic nature.

They could be in a temporary situation where the people making the management decisions are sufficiently insulated from the market forces at play that their poor decisions can persist for a while. Many companies begin to lose their competitive edge at some point, after getting big enough to have economic inertia and for the management to be less accountable for business performance. If a company has grown big enough, they can start making poor financial decisions and absorb the lost profits, sometimes for years, before losing their market share to a smaller, more competitive rival. This isn’t really an absence of capitalism, just the natural creative destruction necessary for capitalism to function. The problem comes when a company that’s obviously uncompetitive is prevented from failing through un-capitalistic means. Maybe they’re big enough and wealthy enough to pressure the government into granting them monopoly status. This doesn’t have to be open, it’s often through creating such an impenetrable legal morass around the industry that no competitor can emerge. Or it can be in the form of a “too big to fail” direct government bailout.

The company could also be lacking that essential link between customer satisfaction and business income. In other words, maybe they aren’t selling to their customers. That can happen for various reasons.

Some companies are “private companies” but sell to the government. The government is not a customer in the capitalist sense, because the government spends money taken coercively from its subjects, not money earned voluntarily in the free market. So any company like Raytheon or Boeing that survives off government contracts can’t be accurately called a capitalist organization.

In an industry like healthcare, where the insurance companies are the middlemen in basically all transactions between patients and doctors, there are also lots of ways for bullshit jobs to proliferate. Patients don’t care how much a procedure costs, just that it helps them. Doctors don’t care how much a procedure costs, just that the insurance company will pay for it. And insurance companies don’t care whether a procedure helps the patient, they just want to collect as many premiums as possible while paying out as little for care as possible. The fact that the patient isn’t paying the doctor for their care breaks the necessary link between customer and producer that’s essential for a free market to function. That combines with the regulatory moat and cartel-like structure of the healthcare industry to prevent the competitive function of capitalism from occurring.

Companies could also be surviving off of money from someone other than their customers: bankers and investors. There’s obviously a role in a capitalist system for investors to support a new venture until it’s able to attract customers and establish a stable and profitable business model. But many companies today exist for much longer than economically reasonable without turning a profit. In the US, almost 2,000 of the 5,000 publicly traded companies with data available were classified as “zombie companies”, meaning they don’t even make enough profit to pay the interest on their debt. So they’re going deeper in the hole every year. How can this continue?

Well, the alternative to paying off your debt, is to borrow even more money to make payments on the debt you already owe. If this sounds similar to how the US government survives, then you’re beginning to get the picture.

How can banks keep loaning money to unprofitable businesses? And why would they do it? It doesn’t make sense… until you understand how banking works.

That’s really the core focus of most of my writing, and I’ve written multiple articles on money and banking explaining how the system works as I understand it. This would be a good one focused on banking specifically.

nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzp0rve5f6xtu56djkfkkg7ktr5rtfckpun95rgxaa7futy86npx8yqqt4g6r994pxjeedgfsku6edf35k2tt5de4nvdtzhjwrp2

To very briefly recap, banks don’t make loans by taking in money from depositors and loaning that money to borrowers. Instead, banks create new money that never existed before out of thin air and loan that new money to borrowers. Banks make a profit by charging borrowers interest on this newly created money, which costs them nothing to create. A pretty cushy gig, if you can get it.

So from the perspective of the banks, the more loans and debt outstanding, the better. Every dollar of debt is a dollar they can collect interest on. It cost them nothing to create, so the more, the merrier. In fact, the banks would prefer that the loan principle never be repaid, because once it’s repaid, they can no longer collect interest on that loan until they make another loan to replace it. As long as the borrower keeps paying interest, the banks are happy. And if they need to lend the borrower some more money so he can afford to pay the interest, that’s fine too. Anything but letting the loan default.

Given those incentives, how do you expect a chart of the outstanding loans and credit of US commercial banks to look?

If you guessed up only, you’d be correct.

So what does this banking system have to do with bullshit jobs? Well, I’d argue that the fractionally reserved fiat banking system, in and of itself, is an anti-capitalist system. Money is the communication layer of capitalism, as I’ve previously written.

nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzp0rve5f6xtu56djkfkkg7ktr5rtfckpun95rgxaa7futy86npx8yqq247t2dvet9q4tsg4qng36lxe6kc4nftayyy89kua2

When one group of people can create money out of thin air, they have the ability to reallocate wealth in the economy. As long as the money is still functional, of course. Too much money creation and wealth reallocation, and people stop trusting the money. That’s when inflation becomes hyperinflation, the money no longer functions, and the whole system implodes.

Wealth reallocation by a small select group is the essence of a centrally planned socialist/Marxist economy. And we all know how efficient those economies are. In fact, Graeber himself mentioned the inefficiency of socialist states like the Soviet Union in his original article, and was not at all surprised by the existence of bullshit jobs in such an economic system. When wealth can be reallocated by central planners without regard to people’s preferences in a free market, inefficiency is never punished, so zombie companies full of bullshit jobs never go bankrupt.

The same thing happens under our “capitalist” system. Zombie companies full of bullshit jobs can get almost unlimited funding from too-big-to-fail banks, who don’t care whether they repay the loans, as long as they stay in business and keep making the interest payments. Sometimes the funding is in the form of loans directly, sometimes it’s in the form of massive stock market bubbles inflated by the endless money creation, sometimes through junk bond issuance funded by the same bubble economics, and sometimes it’s venture capital funds flush with liquidity for the same reason. Regardless, the cause, and the outcome, are the same.

The corrupt bankers own the corrupt politicians, so when the inevitable so-called black swan event occurs and the rotten edifice starts to quiver, another bailout is promptly rolled out. The government borrows trillions from their owners over at the Federal Reserve, who create the money out of thin air. The government sends it on over to the bankers who got caught with their hand in the cookie jar once again, and they paper over the massive holes in their balance sheet caused by blowing asset bubbles and funding inefficient zombie companies. Or sometimes, the government skips the middlemen entirely and bails out Boeing or whoever it happens to be directly.

And once again, bullshit jobs that couldn’t survive free market competition are rewarded at the expense of savers and taxpayers. As always, this flood of new liquidity flows out through the economy, causing inflation and boosting income for other inefficient companies that also deserved to fail. Creative destruction, a fundamental feature of a capitalist system, is avoided once again.

In my opinion, the banking system is at the root of the problem causing the proliferation of bullshit jobs. The system itself is, by design, fundamentally anti-capitalist in nature and function. It’s really a giant privately owned economic central planning system, in which a small fraction of people determine how resources are allocated, with privatized profits and socialized losses. The Soviet technocrats would be jealous.

Unfortunately, the bankers have successfully connected their industry so tightly to the term “capitalist” that showing people they’re anything but is almost impossible. To paraphrase the well-known quote, the greatest trick the bankers ever pulled was convincing the world that they’re the real capitalists.

Until the banking and monetary system fundamentally changes, inefficiency will persist and bullshit jobs will continue to proliferate. In my opinion, the problem is very much an economic problem. And it’s not a “late-stage capitalism” problem, it’s a “capitalism left the building a century ago” problem. We don’t need to get rid of capitalism, we’ve already done that. We need to bring sound money, and with it the possibility of a capitalist economy, back again.

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

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

---

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

---

Zwei Worte nur braucht man – und die Sache ist klar. Jeder gebildete Russe kennt diese Worte: sie stammen aus dem XIX. Jahrhundert, als Nikolaus I. die Krim-Kampagne begann und das Zarenreich nach üblen Querelen ganz Europa und die Türkei zum Gegner hatte - allen voran die Herrscher der Weltmeere: das British Empire mit Queen Victoria. Der historische Ausdruck anglitschanka gadit (locker übersetzt: die Engländerin macht Shit) besitzt bis heute verdeckte politische Sprengkraft und ist seit Ende Februar 2022 in Russland wieder populär. Wer auch immer der Urheber dieser im Original durchaus diskreten Benennung des Fäkalvorgangs war: der Ausdruck steht für ernste Konflikte mit dem Englisch sprechenden Westen, dem Erzfeind.

Ein kurzer Blick in die Geschichte mag dies erläutern: Fast alle westlichen Historiker benennen als Auslöser des Krimkrieges Mitte des IX. Jahrhunderts die Verteidigung der russisch-orthodoxen Kirche und deren Zugang zur Kreuzkirche in Jerusalem. Es wird vom letzten Kreuzzug u.a. geschrieben. Das ist eine höchst einseitige Interpretation, denn es ging Nikolaus I. vor allem um den Zugang zum einzigen dauerhaft eisfreien Hafen Russlands im Schwarzen Meer, durch die Meeresenge der Dardanellen ins Mittelmeer. Das ist verständlich, war doch die Eroberung der Krim ab 1783 unter seiner Großmutter Katharina II. aus eben diesem Grunde erfolgt. Damals schon wurde der Hafen Sewastopol zum Stützpunkt der russischen Flotte ausgebaut. 

Ende 1825, nach dem plötzlichen Tod des ältesten Bruders Alexander I., war Nikolaus von seiner Erziehung her auf eine Regentschaft ganz und gar nicht vorbereitet gewesen, doch herrschte er dreißig Jahre lang nicht nur über das russische Reich, sondern auch über Finnland und das damalige Königreich Polen unter russischem Protektorat. Nikolaus I. zeichnete sich von Beginn an durch Gewaltmaßnahmen aus: Als ihm im Dezember (russ. dekabr)1825 eine Gruppe sehr gebildeter, freiheitsliebender junger Adligen aus besten Familien den Eid verweigerte (dies zog als Dekabristenaufstand in die Geschichte ein), ließ er fünf der Rebellen hängen, die anderen schickte er in Fußfesseln nach Sibirien in die Bergwerke. Er gründete die berüchtigte Geheimpolizei Dritte Abteilung, ließ Privatbriefe des Dichters Puschkin öffnen (obwohl dieser „in seiner Gnade stand“) und Historikern ist Nikolaus I. als Gendarm Europas bekannt. Im russischen Volk aber nannte man ihn kurz und bündig: *Nicki Knüppel aus dem Sack (Nikolaschka palkin). *

Leo Tolstoj beschrieb diesen Zaren in seinen Erzählungen über die Kriege im Kaukasus (Hadschi Murat) als feist und fett, mit leblosen, trüben Augen und als berüchtigten Frauenjäger. Tolstoj war es auch, der als junger Teilnehmer im Krimkrieg drei Erzählungen schrieb: Sewastopol im Dezember 1854, im Mai 1855 und im August 1855. Nachdem das British Empire unter Queen Victoria Russland den Krieg erklärt hatte (in Koalition mit Frankreich und Piemont-Sardinien als Schutzmacht des Osmanischen Reiches), entstand der Ausdruck anglitschanka gadit – die Engländerin macht Shit. Bis heute findet man dazu drastische Illustrationen im Netz…

Noch bevor russische Truppen Ende Februar 2022 in die Ukraine marschierten, lebte dieser Ausdruck in Russland wieder auf. Wer hierzulande Interesse an der Wahrheit hat, kann deutliche Parallelen zur damaligen politischen Lage entdecken, auch in Bezug auf die Verhaltensweisen des derzeitigen russischen Staatschefs und des historischen Nicki Knüppel aus dem Sack. Obwohl der amtierende durchaus Anerkennung verdient hat, denn nach dem Zusammenbruch der Sowjetunion in den 1990er Jahren unter Jelzin stellte er die Staatlich-keit des verlotterten, hungernden Landes wieder her und trieb den wirtschaftlichen Aufbau voran. Davon kann ich zeugen, lebte ich doch von 1992 – 2008 vor Ort.

Sicher - heute ist längst bekannt, daß die bereits Ende März 2022 in Istanbul laufenden Friedensverhandlungen zwischen Russland und der Ukraine vom britischen Premier und im Namen des US Präsidenten boykottiert wurden. Daniel Ruch, Schweizer Botschafter a.D., sprach gar von Sabotage! Der deutsche General a. D. Harald Kujat kommentierte damals mit den Worten: „Seit April 2022 gehen alle Kriegsopfer in der Ukraine auf das Konto des Westens!“ Der Ausdruck anglitschanka gadit ist seitdem in Russland wieder geläufig. Nun, brandaktuell, treffen sich die Kriegsparteien wieder in Istanbul: Ausgang ungewiss. Doch wird inzwischen auch von einzelnen westlichen Politikern anerkannt, dass Russland eine neutrale Pufferzone zu den Nato-Staaten verlangt und braucht.

Wenn hierzulande gemutmaßt wird, alle Russen würden den Ukraine-Krieg bejahen, so sollte man zur Kenntnis nehmen, dass derartige Aussagen kaum die wirkliche Überzeugung wiedergeben. Seit den Repressionen unter Stalin, seit in jeder zweiten Familie nahe Angehörige im GULAG einsaßen und umkamen und darüber Jahrzehnte lang geschwiegen werden musste, ist der Wahrheitsgehalt öffentlicher Umfragen getrost zu bezweifeln. Hat man hier etwa vergessen, dass seit 2011 auf eine mächtig wachsende zivile Protestbewegung und riesige Demonstrationen in russischen Großstädten immer schärfere Aktionen von Seiten des Staates erfolgten? Dass Knüppel auf Köpfe und Leiber prasselten, wie zur Zeit Nickis I., und der Polizeiapparat derart wuchs, dass heute das Verhältnis von Bürger und Silowiki (Vertreter der Gewalt)1:1 steht?

Offenbar weiß man hier nicht, dass schon Anfang 2022 von Mitarbeitern in jeder staatlich finanzierten Institution, ob im Bereich von Kultur, Wissenschaft, Forschung oder Lehre die schriftliche Zustimmung zur Spezialoperation mit der Ukraine eingefordert wurde! Eine Weigerung hatte den Verlust des Arbeitsplatzes zur Folge, egal welches Renommée oder welchen Rang der Betroffene besaß! Manche Leiter von staatlichen Institutionen zeigten dabei gehöriges Geschick und zeichneten für alle; andere (z.B. staatliche Theater) riefen jeden Mitarbeiter ins Kontor. Nur wenige Personen, die unter dem persönlichem Schutz des Präsidenten standen, konnten sich dieser Zustimmung zum Krieg entziehen. Wissenschaftler und Künstler emigrierten zuhauf. Berlin ist voll mit Geflohenen aus jenem Land, das kriegerisch ins Bruderland einmarschierte! Aber kann denn jeder emigrieren? Die Alten, Familien mit Kindern? Mit guten Freunden, die dort blieben, ist eine Kommunikation nur verschlüsselt möglich, in Nachrichten wie: die Feuer der Inquisition brennen (jeder, der von der offiziellen Doktrin abweicht, ist gefährdet), Ratten verbreiten Krankheiten bezieht sich auf Denunziationen, die in jeder Diktatur aufblühen, wenn sich jemand dem Schussfeld entziehen möchte und im vorauseilenden Gehorsam den Nachbarn anzeigt. Kennen wir das nicht noch aus unseren hitlerdeutschen 1930er Jahren?!

Je mehr im Reich aller Russen in den letzten Jahren von oben geknebelt und geknüppelt wurde, desto mehr Denunziationen griffen um sich. Junge Menschen, die auf Facebook gegen den Krieg posteten, wurden verhaftet. Seit 2023 sitzen u.a. zwei junge russische Theaterfrauen aufgrund der üblen Denunziation eines Kollegen hinter Gittern. Die Inszenierung der Regisseurin Zhenja Berkowitsch und der Autorin Swetlana Petritschuk erhielt Ende 2022 den höchsten Theaterpreis von ganz Russland, die Goldene Maske. Das Stück Finist (Phönix), klarer Falke ist nach dem Motiv eines russischen Märchens geschrieben, fußt aber auf dokumentarischem Material: es verhandelt die Versuchung junger Frauen, auf Islamisten hereinzufallen und sie aus Frust und falsch verstandener Solidarität zu heiraten. Die Anklage hat den Spieß genau umgedreht: Autorin und Regisseurin wurden des Terrorismus beschuldigt! Das Rechtssystem im Land scheint heute noch vergleichbar mit jenem, das Alexander Puschkin vor über 200 Jahren in seiner Erzählung Dubrowski authentisch beschrieb: Wer die Macht hat, regelt das Recht. Man kann die Erzählung des russischen Robin Hood auch deutsch nachlesen (leider, leider hat Puschkin sie nicht beendet).

Andere, erbaulichere Elemente aus der Zeit Puschkins, bzw. von Nikolaus I., dienen allerdings als Gegengewicht zum Alltag: seit Ende 2007 finden in Moskau und St. Petersburg jeden Winter nach dem Vorbild der historischen Adelsbälle große gesellschaftliche Events statt: Puschkinball, Wiener Opernball, jetzt nur noch Opernball genannt. Der Nachwuchs aus begüterten Familien lernt alte Tanzschritte und feine Sitten. Fort mit dem sowjetischen Schmuddelimage! Prächtige Kostümbälle werden nun zum Abschluss jedes Schuljahres aufgeboten. In stilisierten Kostümen der Zeit Nikolajs I. bzw. Puschkins tanzen Schuldirektoren, Lehrer und junge Absolventen. Der Drang nach altem Glanz und Größe (oder eine notwendige Kompensation?) spiegelt sich im Volk. 

Werfen wir jedoch einen Blick auf einige Geschehnisse in der Ukraine ab 2014, die in unserer Presse immer noch verschwiegen werden:  Im Spätsommer 2022 begegnete ich auf Kreta einer Ukrainerin aus der Nordukraine, die wegen des fürchterlichen Nationalismus nach 2014 ihre Heimat verließ. Sie ist nicht die einzige! Ihre Kinder waren erwachsen und zogen nach Polen, sie aber reiste mit einer Freundin weiter Richtung Griechenland, lernte die Sprache, erwarb die Staatsbürgerschaft und ist nun auf Kreta verheiratet.

Natalia erzählte mir, was bei uns kaum zu lesen ist, was jedoch Reporter wie Patrick Baab oder Historiker wie Daniele Ganser schon lange berichtet haben: 2014, als die Bilder der Proteste auf dem Maidan um die Welt gingen, habe die damalige amerikanische Regierung unter Präsident Biden die Vorgänge in Kiew für einen Putsch genutzt: Janukowitsch, der korrupte, doch demokratisch gewählte Präsident der Ukraine wurde gestürzt, die Ereignisse mit Hilfe von Strohmännern und rechten Nationalisten gelenkt, die mit Geld versorgt wurden. Bis es zum Massaker auf dem Maidan kam, als bewaffnete, ihrer Herkunft nach zunächst nicht identifi-zierbare Schützen (es waren v.a. rechte Nationalisten, so der gebürtige Ukrainer und US Bürger Professor N. Petro und Prof. Ivan Katchanovskij) von den Dächern in die Menge schossen.

Im YouTube Kanal Neutrality Studies konnte man am 17.02.2024 hören: Anlässlich des traurigen 10. Jahrestages des Maidan-Massakers, bei dem am 20. Februar 2014 mehr als 100 Menschen durch Scharfschützenfeuer getötet wurden, spreche ich heute mit Ivan Katchanovski, einem ukrainischen (und kanadischen) Politikwissenschaftler an der Univer-sität von Ottawa, der das Massaker detailliert erforscht hat. Letztes Jahr veröffentlichte er das Papier „Die Maidan-Massaker-Prozess und Untersuchungserkenntnisse: Implikationen für den Krieg zwischen der Ukraine und Russland und die Beziehungen“. Kurz gesagt, das Massaker wurde NICHT von den Kräften Victor Janukowytschs begangen, wie in westlichen Medien berichtet, und es gibt schlüssige Beweise dafür, dass die Schützen Teil des ultra-rechten Flügels der Ukraine waren, die dann nach dem Putsch an die Macht kamen. (Link zum Paper).

Wer erinnert sich hierzulande noch daran, dass 2014 im deutschen öffentlichen  Fernsehen von Hunter Biden, Sohn des US-Präsidenten berichtet wurde, der durch dubiose Gas- und Ölgeschäfte in der Ukraine auffiel? Dass damals im deutschen Fernsehen auch Bilder von Ukrainern mit SS-Stahlhelmen auftauchten? In einer Arte-Reportage zu Hilfs-transporten im März 2022 aus Polen über die Westukraine konnte der aufmerksame Zu-schauer an fast allen Häusern die tiefroten Banner von Anhängern des verstorbenen, in München begrabenen, faschistischen Stepan Bandera erkennen. Ausgesprochen wurde es nicht.

Die neue Kreterin Natalia sprach auch über eine Amerikanerin ukrainischer Herkunft, die Röntgenärztin Uljana Suprun, die aus den USA als Gesundheitsministerin rekrutiert wurde und unter dem amerikafreundlichen Präsidenten Poroschenko von 2016-2019 diesen Posten innehatte. Was bitte sollte eine Röntgenärztin aus den USA auf dem Ministerposten der Ukraine?! Streit und Skandal umgaben sie fast täglich in der RADA, dem ukrainischen Parlament. Es wurde gemunkelt, sie diene als Feigenblatt bei der Herstellung biologischer Waffen. Material zu ihr ist bis heute auf YouTube zu finden. 

---

DIE FRIEDENSTAUBE FLIEGT AUCH IN IHR POSTFACH!

Hier können Sie die Friedenstaube abonnieren und bekommen die Artikel zugesandt, vorerst für alle kostenfrei, wir starten gänzlich ohne Paywall. (Die Bezahlabos fangen erst zu laufen an, wenn ein Monetarisierungskonzept für die Inhalte steht). Sie wollen der Genossenschaft beitreten oder uns unterstützen? Mehr Infos hier oder am Ende des Textes.

---

Natalia bezeichnete die ukrainischen Emigrantenkreise in den USA und Kanada zurecht als ultranationalistisch, sie seien Kollaborateure der Nazis bei der Judenvernichtung gewesen und hätten sich nach dem Rückzug der Deutschen rechtzeitig nach Übersee abgesetzt. Das ist wohl bekannt. 

Heute ist das Recherchieren der wahren Geschehnisse von 2014 zwar immer noch mühsam, aber die Wahrheit sickert immer mehr durch, zumal auch Exilukrainer dazu geschrieben und öffentlich gesprochen haben. Die Kanäle SaneVox und Neutrality studies liefern unermüdlich weitere Fakten! Im März 2025 klärte der US-Professor Jeffrey Sachs das Europa-Parlament endlich in allen Details über die kriegerischen Machenschaften bestimmter Kreise innerhalb der englischsprechenden Westmächte auf! 

Kürzlich war im multipolar-magazin zu lesen, wie erschreckend tief unser eigenes Land bereits in**** den Ukraine-Krieg verwickelt ist: Da hieß es:

*„Kriegsplanung von deutschem Boden“ *

Zwei umfassende Beiträge der „New York Times“ und der Londoner „Times“ belegen, was lange bestritten wurde: die tiefe militärische und strategische Verwicklung von Nato-Mitgliedsstaaten in den Ukraine-Krieg. Demnach wird deren Kriegsbeteiligung seit Jahren vom europäischen Hauptquartier der US-Armee in Wiesbaden koordiniert. Für Deutschland stellen sich damit verfassungsrechtliche Fragen.

Und ein Karsten Montag schrieb ebenda am 25. April 2025:

Mehr als drei Jahre nach Beginn des russisch-ukrainischen Krieges berichten zwei große westliche Tageszeitungen über die tiefgreifende Beteiligung von Nato-Militärs an diesem Konflikt. Den Anfang machte die „New York Times“ (NYT). Unter dem Titel „Die Partnerschaft: Die geheime Geschichte des Krieges in der Ukraine“ erschien Ende März ein umfassender *Artikel, der laut Autor Adam Entous auf 300 Interviews mit Regierungs-, Militär- und Geheim-dienstvertretern in der Ukraine, den Vereinigten Staaten sowie weiteren Nato-Partnern basiert. Es handle sich um die „unerzählte Geschichte“ der „versteckten Rolle“ der USA bei den ukrainischen Militäroperationen. *

Wenige Wochen später veröffentlichte die britische Tageszeitung „The Times“ Anfang April einen ähnlichen Beitrag mit dem Titel „Die unerzählte Geschichte der entscheidenden Rolle der britischen Militärchefs in der Ukraine“. Dieser bestätigt die tiefe Verstrickung der Nato-Staaten in Militäroperationen wie der ukrainischen Offensive 2023. Abweichend vom NYT-Artikel bezeichnet er jedoch die britischen Militärchefs als die „Köpfe“ der „Anti-Putin“-Koalition. Einigkeit herrscht wiederum bei der Frage, wer für den Misserfolg der Operationen verantwortlich ist: Dies sei eindeutig der Ukraine zuzuschreiben. Auch im Times-Beitrag wird auf die besondere Rolle des europäischen US-Hauptquartiers im hessischen Wiesbaden bei der Koordination der Einsätze und den Waffenlieferungen hingewiesen.

Na also! Es gibt unter den aus der Ukraine Geflüchteten hier allerdings eine große Mehrheit, die von diesen Fakten weder etwas wissen, noch wissen wollen. Amerika und die Heimat der Anglitschanka ist für sie das Gelobte Land und wehe, du sprichst darüber, dann wirst du sofort der russischen Propaganda verdächtig. Wie Nicki mittlerweile daheim den Knüppel schwingt, interessiert sie auch nicht. 

Wieso wird hier nicht untersucht, wieso wird verschwiegen, dass Alexej Nawalny für einen englischen Dienst arbeitete – woher erhielt er das viele Geld für seine Kampagnen? Wo leben nun seine Witwe und die Kinder? Auf der Insel im nebligen Avalon/ Albion… 

Ein letztes Beispiel aus dem Bereich der Kultur zum Verständnis des leider so aktuellen Ausdrucks Die Engländerin macht Shit:  Anfang 2024 wurde im staatlichen Sender ONE (ARD) eine Serie der BBC zu frühen Erzählungen von Michail Bulgakow ausgestrahlt:** Aufzeichnungen eines jungen Arztes. Die BBC verhunzte den in Kiew geborenen Arzt und weltberühmten Autor derart, dass dem Zuschauer schlecht wurde: Mit dem Titel A Young Doctor‘s Notebook verfilmte sie Bulgakows frühe Erzählungen über die Nöte eines jungen Arztes in der bettelarmen sowjetrussischen Provinz in den 1920er Jahren hypernaturalistisch, blut-, dreck- und eitertriefend. Pseudokyrillische Titel und Balalaika Geklimper begleiteten das Leiden von schwer traumatisierten Menschen im russischen Bürgerkrieg oder Abscheulichkeiten, wie das Amputieren eines Mädchenbeines mit einer Baumsäge - ausgestrahlt vom 1. Deutschen Fernsehen! Michail Bulgakow hätte sich im Grabe umgedreht.

Als Autor beherrschte Bulgakow die Kunst der Groteske ebenso wie hochlyrische Schilderungen. Seine Prosa und seine Theaterstücke aber wurden Zeit seines Lebens von der Sowjetmacht verstümmelt - und post mortem auch von seinen ukrainischen Landsleuten: sein schönes Museum, das ehemalige Domizil der Familie Bulgakow in Kiew am Andrejew-Steig, das mit seinem ersten Roman Die weiße Garde (Kiew vor 100 Jahren im Strudel auch ultranationalistischer Strömungen) und der berühmten Dramatisierung Die Tage der Turbins in die große Literatur einzog, dieses Museum wurde abgewickelt und geschlossen, weil Bulgakow angeblich schlecht über die Ukraine geschrieben hätte! 

Ein Glück jedoch, dass die bedeutenden Werke Bulgakows seit nun drei Dekaden von russischsprachigen Philologen beharrlich in ihrer ursprünglichen Fassung wieder hergestellt wurden. Seine großen Romane Die weiße Garde und Meister und Margarita seien in der hervorragenden deutschen Übersetzung von Alexander Nitzberg jedem Interessierten ans Herz gelegt!

Die obigen Ausführungen sind keinesfalls eine Rechtfertigung des Krieges, es geht vielmehr um Hintergründe, Fakten und Machenschaften, die in der Regel bis heute bei uns verschwiegen werden! Obwohl es nun sonnenklar und öffentlich ist, dass bestimmte Inter-essengruppen der englischsprachigen Westmächte die hochgefährliche Konfrontationspolitik mit Russland zu verantworten haben: die Engländerin macht Shit…Und wir? Wir schweigen, glauben der immer noch laufenden Propaganda und wehren uns nicht gegen diese üble Russenphobie?! Ich erinnere mich noch lebhaft an die Nachkriegszeit im Ruhrgebiet, als der Ton ruppig war und Dreck und Trümmer unsere Sicht beherrschten. Auch uns kleinen Kindern gegenüber wurde von den bösen Russen gesprochen, als hätten diese unser Land überfallen.

Ja – es waren viele Geflüchtete aus dem Osten hier gestrandet, und diese hatten Unsägliches hinter sich. Lew Kopelew, der den Einmarsch der Roten Armee in Ostpreußen miterlebte und Gräuel vergebens zu verhindern suchte, wurde noch im April 1945 verhaftet und wegen Mitleid mit dem Feind zu 10 Jahren Lager verurteilt. Viele Jahre später erschienen seine Erinnerungen Aufbewahren für alle Zeit – auch auf Deutsch. Über die mindestens 27 Mio Opfer in der damaligen Sowjetunion und über die deutschen Aggressoren, die damals mit Mord und Raub die bösen Russen, sowjetische Zivilisten überfielen, wurde in den 1950er Jahren, im zerbombten und dreckigen Pott kein einziges Wort verloren. Der Spieß wurde einfach umgedreht. Von der Blockade Leningrads erfuhr ich erst als Erwachsene, anno 1974, als Austauschstudentin vor Ort.

Exakt vor 10 Jahren wurde es jedoch möglich – herzlichen Dank der damaligen stell-vertretenden tatarischen Kulturministerin Frau Irada Ayupova! – mein dokumentarisches Antikriegsstück mit Schicksalen von Kriegskindern – sowjetischen, jüdischen, deutschen – in Kasan, der Hauptstadt von Tatarstan, zweisprachig auf die Bühne des dortigen Jugendtheaters zu bringen. Wir spielten 15 Vorstellungen und einige tausend Jugendliche im Saal verstummten und verstanden, dass Krieg furchtbar ist. Hier und heute will leider kein Theater das Stück umsetzen…

Wir Menschen brauchen Frieden und keine Aufrüstung für neue Kriege! Der gute alte Aischylos schrieb einst in seinem Stück Die Perser: Wahrheit ist das erste Opfer eines Krieges. Leider ist dies immer noch genauso aktuell wie damals. Pfui Teufel!

---

Jana Moava (Pseudonym) ist Journalistin, Dozentin und arbeitete für große Zeitungen als Korrespondentin.

---

LASSEN SIE DER FRIEDENSTAUBE FLÜGEL WACHSEN!

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

Schon jetzt können Sie uns unterstützen:

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

Für Einzahlungen in CHF (Betreff: Friedenstaube):

Für Einzahlungen in Euro:

Milosz Matuschek

IBAN DE 53710520500000814137

BYLADEM1TST

Sparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg

Betreff: Friedenstaube

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

---

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

@ 266815e0:6cd408a5

Its been a little over a year since NIP-90 was written and merged into the nips repo and its been a communication mess.

Every DVM implementation expects the inputs in slightly different formats, returns the results in mostly the same format and there are very few DVM actually running.

NIP-90 is overloaded

Why does a request for text translation and creating bitcoin OP_RETURNs share the same input i tag? and why is there an output tag on requests when only one of them will return an output?

Each DVM request kind is for requesting completely different types of compute with diffrent input and output requirements, but they are all using the same spec that has 4 different types of inputs (text, url, event, job) and an undefined number of output types.

Let me show a few random DVM requests and responses I found on wss://relay.damus.io to demonstrate what I mean:

This is a request to translate an event to English json { "kind": 5002, "content": "", "tags": [ // NIP-90 says there can be multiple inputs, so how would a DVM handle translatting multiple events at once? [ "i", "<event-id>", "event" ], [ "param", "language", "en" ], // What other type of output would text translations be? image/jpeg? [ "output", "text/plain" ], // Do we really need to define relays? cant the DVM respond on the relays it saw the request on? [ "relays", "wss://relay.unknown.cloud/", "wss://nos.lol/" ] ] }

This is a request to generate text using an LLM model json { "kind": 5050, // Why is the content empty? wouldn't it be better to have the prompt in the content? "content": "", "tags": [ // Why use an indexable tag? are we ever going to lookup prompts? // Also the type "prompt" isn't in NIP-90, this should probably be "text" [ "i", "What is the capital of France?", "prompt" ], [ "p", "c4878054cff877f694f5abecf18c7450f4b6fdf59e3e9cb3e6505a93c4577db2" ], [ "relays", "wss://relay.primal.net" ] ] }

This is a request for content recommendation json { "kind": 5300, "content": "", "tags": [ // Its fine ignoring this param, but what if the client actually needs exactly 200 "results" [ "param", "max_results", "200" ], // The spec never mentions requesting content for other users. // If a DVM didn't understand this and responded to this request it would provide bad data [ "param", "user", "b22b06b051fd5232966a9344a634d956c3dc33a7f5ecdcad9ed11ddc4120a7f2" ], [ "relays", "wss://relay.primal.net", ], [ "p", "ceb7e7d688e8a704794d5662acb6f18c2455df7481833dd6c384b65252455a95" ] ] }

This is a request to create a OP_RETURN message on bitcoin json { "kind": 5901, // Again why is the content empty when we are sending human readable text? "content": "", "tags": [ // and again, using an indexable tag on an input that will never need to be looked up ["i", "09/01/24 SEC Chairman on the brink of second ETF approval", "text"] ] }

My point isn't that these event schema's aren't understandable but why are they using the same schema? each use-case is different but are they all required to use the same i tag format as input and could support all 4 types of inputs.

Lack of libraries

With all these different types of inputs, params, and outputs its verify difficult if not impossible to build libraries for DVMs

If a simple text translation request can have an event or text as inputs, a payment-required status at any point in the flow, partial results, or responses from 10+ DVMs whats the best way to build a translation library for other nostr clients to use?

And how do I build a DVM framework for the server side that can handle multiple inputs of all four types (url, text, event, job) and clients are sending all the requests in slightly differently.

Supporting payments is impossible

The way NIP-90 is written there isn't much details about payments. only a payment-required status and a generic amount tag

But the way things are now every DVM is implementing payments differently. some send a bolt11 invoice, some expect the client to NIP-57 zap the request event (or maybe the status event), and some even ask for a subscription. and we haven't even started implementing NIP-61 nut zaps or cashu A few are even formatting the amount number wrong or denominating it in sats and not mili-sats

Building a client or a library that can understand and handle all of these payment methods is very difficult. for the DVM server side its worse. A DVM server presumably needs to support all 4+ types of payments if they want to get the most sats for their services and support the most clients.

All of this is made even more complicated by the fact that a DVM can ask for payment at any point during the job process. this makes sense for some types of compute, but for others like translations or user recommendation / search it just makes things even more complicated.

For example, If a client wanted to implement a timeline page that showed the notes of all the pubkeys on a recommended list. what would they do when the selected DVM asks for payment at the start of the job? or at the end? or worse, only provides half the pubkeys and asks for payment for the other half. building a UI that could handle even just two of these possibilities is complicated.

NIP-89 is being abused

NIP-89 is "Recommended Application Handlers" and the way its describe in the nips repo is

a way to discover applications that can handle unknown event-kinds

Not "a way to discover everything"

If I wanted to build an application discovery app to show all the apps that your contacts use and let you discover new apps then it would have to filter out ALL the DVM advertisement events. and that's not just for making requests from relays

If the app shows the user their list of "recommended applications" then it either has to understand that everything in the 5xxx kind range is a DVM and to show that is its own category or show a bunch of unknown "favorites" in the list which might be confusing for the user.

In conclusion

My point in writing this article isn't that the DVMs implementations so far don't work, but that they will never work well because the spec is too broad. even with only a few DVMs running we have already lost interoperability.

I don't want to be completely negative though because some things have worked. the "DVM feeds" work, although they are limited to a single page of results. text / event translations also work well and kind 5970 Event PoW delegation could be cool. but if we want interoperability, we are going to need to change a few things with NIP-90

I don't think we can (or should) abandon NIP-90 entirely but it would be good to break it up into small NIPs or specs. break each "kind" of DVM request out into its own spec with its own definitions for expected inputs, outputs and flow.

Then if we have simple, clean definitions for each kind of compute we want to distribute. we might actually see markets and services being built and used.

@ 7459d333:f207289b

CC: Martti Malmi

https://stacker.news/items/986445

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

High-Level Overview

Bitcoin developers are currently debating a proposed change to how Bitcoin Core handles the OP_RETURN opcode — a mechanism that allows users to insert small amounts of data into the blockchain. Specifically, the controversy revolves around removing built-in filters that limit how much data can be stored using this feature (currently capped at 80 bytes).

Summary of Both Sides

Position A: Remove OP_RETURN Filters

Advocates: nostr:npub1ej493cmun8y9h3082spg5uvt63jgtewneve526g7e2urca2afrxqm3ndrm, nostr:npub12rv5lskctqxxs2c8rf2zlzc7xx3qpvzs3w4etgemauy9thegr43sf485vg, nostr:npub17u5dneh8qjp43ecfxr6u5e9sjamsmxyuekrg2nlxrrk6nj9rsyrqywt4tp, others

Arguments: - Ineffectiveness of filters: Filters are easily bypassed and do not stop spam effectively. - Code simplification: Removing arbitrary limits reduces code complexity. - Permissionless innovation: Enables new use cases like cross-chain bridges and timestamping without protocol-level barriers. - Economic regulation: Fees should determine what data gets added to the blockchain, not protocol rules.

Position B: Keep OP_RETURN Filters

Advocates: nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk, nostr:npub1s33sw6y2p8kpz2t8avz5feu2n6yvfr6swykrnm2frletd7spnt5qew252p, nostr:npub1wnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqq3n3wr, others

Arguments: - Historical intent: Satoshi included filters to keep Bitcoin focused on monetary transactions. - Resource protection: Helps prevent blockchain bloat and abuse from non-financial uses. - Network preservation: Protects the network from being overwhelmed by low-value or malicious data. - Social governance: Maintains conservative changes to ensure long-term robustness.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths of Removing Filters

• Encourages decentralized innovation.
• Simplifies development and maintenance.
• Maintains ideological purity of a permissionless system.

Weaknesses of Removing Filters

• Opens the door to increased non-financial data and potential spam.
• May dilute Bitcoin’s core purpose as sound money.
• Risks short-term exploitation before economic filters adapt.

Strengths of Keeping Filters

• Preserves Bitcoin’s identity and original purpose.
• Provides a simple protective mechanism against abuse.
• Aligns with conservative development philosophy of Bitcoin Core.

Weaknesses of Keeping Filters

• Encourages central decision-making on allowed use cases.
• Leads to workarounds that may be less efficient or obscure.
• Discourages novel but legitimate applications.

Long-Term Consequences

If Filters Are Removed

• Positive: Potential boom in new applications, better interoperability, cleaner architecture.
• Negative: Risk of increased blockchain size, more bandwidth/storage costs, spam wars.

If Filters Are Retained

• Positive: Preserves monetary focus and operational discipline.
• Negative: Alienates developers seeking broader use cases, may ossify the protocol.

Conclusion

The debate highlights a core philosophical split in Bitcoin: whether it should remain a narrow monetary system or evolve into a broader data layer for decentralized applications. Both paths carry risks and tradeoffs. The outcome will shape not just Bitcoin's technical direction but its social contract and future role in the broader crypto ecosystem.

@ fbf0e434:e1be6a39

Hackathon 概要

JAMHacks 9 于 2025 年 5 月 16 日至 18 日在滑铁卢大学举办。作为 JAMHacks 系列的第九届黑客松，该活动汇聚了 170 名高中黑客爱好者，最终评审通过 49 个项目，充分彰显了年轻开发者的技术实力。此次黑客松旨在为高中生打造培育成长的平台，搭配工作坊与互动活动，助力提升技术能力并拓展社交网络。

参与者带来了丰富的项目成果：基于 Pico-8 的创意开发、运用 MongoDB Atlas 的创新应用，以及展示新兴技术应用的生成式 AI 模型项目。活动设置多个奖项类别，包括最佳新手项目、最佳开发者工具、生成式 AI 最佳应用等。奖品涵盖智能手表、无人机、QuillBot 连帽衫，以及其他黑客松的参赛资格。

除技术成果外，JAMHacks 9 同样注重营造趣味互动体验，特别举办扑克之夜、社交派对等活动。此次黑客松成功为年轻开发者搭建了技能提升、创意孵化与专业联结的平台，切实践行其推动科技行业包容性与可及性的愿景。

Hackathon 获奖者

总奖项获奖者

• Mr. Goose：一个有趣的VS Code扩展，为初学者提供提示和鼓励，促进学习而不直接解决问题。
• Guideline：一个基于AR的工具，通过增强现实引导初学电子爱好者进行面包板组装。
• ARmatica：将2D硬件示意图转换为3D AR模型，通过改进可视化增强工程和原型设计过程。

初学者赛道奖项获奖者

• Duedle：一个任务管理应用，利用AI将大型任务分解为可管理的小任务，并提供进度跟踪以提高生产力。

单人赛道奖项获奖者

• Lofied：一个Python应用程序，将Spotify播放列表变为lo-fi版本，具有音乐分离和乐谱生成功能。

女性赛道奖项获奖者

• Doomlings：结合游戏化和教育任务，通过战斗游戏界面提高学生的学习和参与。

Warp 赛道奖项获奖者

• Mr. Goose

Hack Canada 赛道奖项获奖者

• Dionysus：一个用于组织协作活动和参与的平台，提供实时活动管理的统一界面。

MLH 赛道奖项获奖者

• Karma：一个记录和分享积极行动的社交平台，促进自我提升和环境保护，以鼓励社区参与。
• helpidontknowhowtonetworkin.tech：一个使用面部识别和LinkedIn数据的AI驱动网络助手，帮助在活动中建立专业联系。
• SnapCAD：从图像或图纸生成可定制的3D模型，简化工程项目的集成。

PEX Labs 奖项获奖者

• Arctic Explorer：一个Pico-8开放世界游戏，通过探索北极环境促进可持续实践，可以扩展附加小游戏和地图。

查看所有项目 JAMHacks 9。

关于组织者

JAMHacks

JAMHacks 在科技和区块链领域因促进技术爱好者之间的创新与合作而备受认可。该组织擅长举办Hackathon，为开发现实世界挑战的实际解决方案提供了一个平台。JAMHacks 聚焦于技术赋权，已组织多场活动，吸引了来自不同背景的参与者。他们的倡议强调技术技能发展和网络拓展，充分体现了他们致力于推进技术教育和培养一个包容的社区，为有抱负的技术人员和开发者服务。

@ 91bea5cd:1df4451c

Básico

bash lsblk # Lista todos os diretorios montados.

Para criar o sistema de arquivos:

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

Criando um subvolume:

bash btrfs subvolume create SubVol

Montando Sistema de Arquivos:

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

Lista os discos formatados no diretório:

bash btrfs filesystem show /mnt

Adiciona novo disco ao subvolume:

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

Lista novamente os discos do subvolume:

bash btrfs filesystem show /mnt

Exibe uso dos discos do subvolume:

bash btrfs filesystem df /mnt

Balancea os dados entre os discos sobre raid1:

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

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

iniciar o processo de depuração :

bash btrfs scrub start /mnt

ver o status do processo de depuração Btrfs em execução:

bash btrfs scrub status /mnt

ver o status do scrub Btrfs para cada um dos dispositivos

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

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

btrfs scrub resume / data

Listando os subvolumes:

bash btrfs subvolume list /Reports

Criando um instantâneo dos subvolumes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

bash btrfs filsystem sync /Reports

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

bash btrfs device delete /dev/sdc /Reports

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

bash btrfs scrub status -dR / Relatórios

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

bash $ sudo btrfs scrub cancel / Reports

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

bash sudo btrfs scrub resume /Reports

mostra o uso do dispositivo de armazenamento:

btrfs filesystem usage /data

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

sudo btrfs balance start --full-balance /data

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

Opções importantes de montagem Btrfs

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

As opções de montagem Btrfs mais importantes são:

**1. acl e noacl

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

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

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

**2. autodefrag e noautodefrag

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

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

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

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

**3. compactar e compactar-forçar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**4. subvol e subvolid

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

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

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

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

**5. dispositivo

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

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

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

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

Por exemplo,

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

**6. degraded

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

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

**7. commit

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

O padrão é definido como 30 segundos.

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

**8. ssd e nossd

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

A opção de montagem nossd desativa a otimização do SSD.

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

**9. ssd_spread e nossd_spread

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

A opção de montagem nossd_spread desativa o recurso ssd_spread .

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

**10. descarte e nodiscard

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

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

Por padrão, a opção de montagem nodiscard é usada.

**11. norecovery

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

**12. usebackuproot e nousebackuproot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**14. skip_balance

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

**15. datacow e nodatacow

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

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

**16. datasum e nodatasum

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

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

Perfis Btrfs

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

Os perfis Btrfs disponíveis são os seguintes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 9223d2fa:b57e3de7

12,600 steps

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

If you ever read about a hypothetical "evil AI"—one that manipulates, dominates, and surveils humanity—you might find yourself wondering: how is that any different from what some governments already do?

Let’s explore the eerie parallels between the actions of a fictional malevolent AI and the behaviors of powerful modern states—specifically the U.S. federal government.

Surveillance and Control

Evil AI: Uses total surveillance to monitor all activity, predict rebellion, and enforce compliance.

Modern Government: Post-9/11 intelligence agencies like the NSA have implemented mass data collection programs, monitoring phone calls, emails, and online activity—often without meaningful oversight.

Parallel: Both claim to act in the name of “security,” but the tools are ripe for abuse.

Manipulation of Information

Evil AI: Floods the information space with propaganda, misinformation, and filters truth based on its goals.

Modern Government: Funds media outlets, promotes specific narratives through intelligence leaks, and collaborates with social media companies to suppress or flag dissenting viewpoints.

Parallel: Control the narrative, shape public perception, and discredit opposition.

Economic Domination

Evil AI: Restructures the economy for efficiency, displacing workers and concentrating resources.

Modern Government: Facilitates wealth transfer through lobbying, regulatory capture, and inflationary monetary policy that disproportionately hurts the middle and lower classes.

Parallel: The system enriches those who control it, leaving the rest with less power to resist.

Perpetual Warfare

Evil AI: Instigates conflict to weaken opposition or as a form of distraction and control.

Modern Government: Maintains a state of nearly constant military engagement since WWII, often for interests that benefit a small elite rather than national defense.

Parallel: War becomes policy, not a last resort.

Predictive Policing and Censorship

Evil AI: Uses predictive algorithms to preemptively suppress dissent and eliminate threats.

Modern Government: Experiments with pre-crime-like measures, flags “misinformation,” and uses AI tools to monitor online behavior.

Parallel: Prevent rebellion not by fixing problems, but by suppressing their expression.

Conclusion: Systemic Inhumanity

Whether it’s AI or a bureaucratic state, the more a system becomes detached from individual accountability and human empathy, the more it starts to act in ways we would call “evil” if a machine did them.

An AI doesn’t need to enslave humanity with lasers and killer robots. Sometimes all it takes is code, coercion, and unchecked power—something we may already be facing.

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

Ascolta.

We live in times where the average man is measured by the speeches he gives — not by the commitments he keeps. People talk about dreams, goals, promises… but what truly remains is what’s honored in the silence of small gestures, in actions that don’t seek applause, in attitudes unseen — yet speak volumes.

Punctuality, for example. Showing up on time isn’t about the clock. It’s about respect. Respect for another’s time, yes — but more importantly, respect for one’s own word. A man who is late without reason is already running late in his values. And the one who excuses his own lateness with sweet justifications slowly gets used to mediocrity.

Keeping your word is more than fulfilling promises. It is sealing, with the mouth, what the body must later uphold. Every time a man commits to something, he creates a moral debt with his own dignity. And to break that commitment is to declare bankruptcy — not in the eyes of others, but in front of himself.

And debts? Even the small ones — or especially the small ones — are precise thermometers of character. A forgotten sum, an unpaid favor, a commitment left behind… all of these reveal the structure of the inner building that man resides in. He who neglects the small is merely rehearsing for his future collapse.

Life, contrary to what the reckless say, is not built on grand deeds. It is built with small bricks, laid with almost obsessive precision. The truly great man is the one who respects the details — recognizing in them a code of conduct.

In Sicily, especially in the streets of Palermo, I learned early on that there is more nobility in paying a five-euro debt on time than in flaunting riches gained without word, without honor, without dignity.

As they say in Palermo: L’uomo si conosce dalle piccole cose.

So, amico mio, Don’t talk to me about greatness if you can’t show up on time. Don’t talk to me about respect if your word is fickle. And above all, don’t talk to me about honor if you still owe what you once promised — no matter how small.

Thank you for reading, my friend!

If this message resonated with you, consider leaving your "🥃" as a token of appreciation.

A toast to our family!

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

Ascolta bene.
A man’s collapse never begins on the battlefield.
It begins in the invisible antechamber of his own mind.
Before any public fall, there is an ignored internal whisper—
a small, quiet, private decision that gradually drags him toward ruin.

No empire ever fell without first rotting from within.
The world does not destroy a man who hasn’t first surrendered to himself.
The enemy outside only wins when it finds space in the void the man has silently carved.

**Non ti sbagliare ** — there are no armies more ruthless than undisciplined thoughts.
There are no blows more fatal than the ones we deal ourselves:
with small concessions, well-crafted excuses,
and the slow deterioration of our integrity.
What people call failure is nothing more than the logical outcome
of a sequence of internal betrayals.

Afraid of the world? Sciocchezze.
But a man who’s already bowed before his own weaknesses—
he needs no enemies.
He digs his own grave, chooses the epitaph,
and the only thing the world does is toss in some dirt.

Capisci?

Strength isn’t the absence of falling, but the presence of resistance.
The true battle isn’t external.
It takes place within—where there’s only you, your conscience, and the mirror.
And it’s in that silent courtroom where everything is decided.

The discipline to say “no” to yourself
is more noble than any public glory.
Self-control is more valuable than any victory over others.

In Sicily, we learn early:
“Cu s’abbrazza cu’ so’ nemicu, si scorda la faccia di l’amicu.”
He who embraces his enemy forgets the face of his friend.
The most dangerous enemy is the one you feed daily with self-indulgence.
And the most relentless confrontation is the one you avoid in front of the mirror.

So don’t talk to me about external defeats.
Tell me where inside you the weakness began.
Tell me the exact moment you abandoned what you believed in, in the name of ease.
Because a man only falls before the world… after falling before himself.

Thank you for reading, my friend!

If this message resonated with you, consider leaving your "🥃" as a token of appreciation.

A toast to our family!

@ cefb08d1:f419beff

https://stacker.news/items/986402

@ c21b1a6c:0cd4d170

🧾 Progress Report Two

Hey everyone! I’m back with another progress report for Formstr, a part of the now completed grant from nostr:npub10pensatlcfwktnvjjw2dtem38n6rvw8g6fv73h84cuacxn4c28eqyfn34f . This update covers everything we’ve built since the last milestone — including polish, performance, power features, and plenty of bug-squashing.

---

🏗️ What’s New Since Last Time?

This quarter was less about foundational rewrites and more about production hardening and real-world feedback. With users now onboard, our focus shifted to polishing UX, fixing issues, and adding new features that made Formstr easier and more powerful to use.

✨ New Features & UX Improvements

• Edit Existing Forms
• Form Templates
• Drag & Drop Enhancements (especially for mobile)
• New Public Forms UX (card-style layout)
• FAQ & Support Sections
• Relay Modal for Publishing
• Skeleton Loaders and subtle UI Polish

---

🐛 Major Bug Fixes

• Fixed broken CSV exports when responses were empty
• Cleaned up mobile rendering issues for public forms
• Resolved blank.ts export issues and global form bugs
• Fixed invalid npub strings in the admin flow
• Patched response handling for private forms
• Lots of small fixes for titles, drafts, embedded form URLs, etc.

---

🔐 Access Control & Privacy

• Made forms private by default
• Fixed multiple issues around form visibility, access control UIs, and anonymous submissions
• Improved detection of pubkey issues in shared forms

---

🚧 Some Notable In-Progress Features

The following features are actively being developed, and many are nearing completion:

• Conditional Questions:
  This one’s been tough to crack, but we’re close!
  Work in progress by keraliss and myself:
  👉 PR #252

• Downloadable Forms:
  Fully-contained downloadable HTML versions of forms.
  Being led by casyazmon with initial code by Basanta Goswami
  👉 PR #274

• OLLAMA Integration (Self-Hosted LLMs):
  Users will be able to create forms using locally hosted LLMs.
  PR by ashu01304
  👉 PR #247

• Sections in Forms:
  Work just started on adding section support!
  Small PoC PR by keraliss:
  👉 PR #217

---

🙌 Huge Thanks to New Contributors

We've had amazing contributors this cycle. Big thanks to:

• Aashutosh Gandhi (ashu01304) – drag-and-drop enhancements, OLLAMA integration
• Amaresh Prasad (devAmaresh) – fixed npub and access bugs
• Biresh Biswas (Billa05) – skeleton loaders
• Shashank Shekhar Singh (Shashankss1205) – bugfixes, co-authored image patches
• Akap Azmon Deh-nji (casyazmon) – CSV fixes, downloadable forms
• Manas Ranjan Dash (mdash3735) – bug fixes
• Basanta Goswami – initial groundwork for downloadable forms
• keraliss – ongoing work on conditional questions and sections

We also registered for the Summer of Bitcoin program and have been receiving contributions from some incredibly bright new applicants.

---

🔍 What’s Still Coming?

From the wishlist I committed to during the grant, here’s what’s still in the oven:

-[x] Upgrade to nip-44 - [x] Access Controlled Forms: A Form will be able to have multiple admins and Editors. - [x] Private Forms and Fixed Participants: Enncrypt a form and only allow certain npubs to fill it. - [x] Edit Past Forms: Being able to edit an existing form. - [x] Edit Past Forms
- [ ] Conditional Rendering (in progress)
- [ ] Sections (just started)
- [ ] Integrations - OLLAMA / AI-based Form Generation (near complete)
- [ ] Paid Surveys
- [ ] NIP-42 Private Relay support

---

❌ What’s De-Prioritized?

• Nothing is de-prioritized now especially since Ollama Integration got re-prioritized (thanks to Summer Of Bitcoin). We are a little delayed on Private Relays support but it's now becoming a priority and in active development. Zap Surveys will be coming soon too.

---

💸 How Funds Were Used

• Paid individual contributors for their work.
• Living expenses to allow full-time focus on development

---

🧠 Closing Thoughts

Things feel like they’re coming together now. We’re out of "beta hell", starting to see real adoption, and most importantly, gathering feedback from real users. That’s helping us make smarter choices and move fast without breaking too much.

Stay tuned for the next big drop — and in the meantime, try creating a form at formstr.app, and let me know what you think!

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Prepared for Off-World Visitors by the Risan Institute of Cultural Heritage

Welcome to Risa, the jewel of the Alpha Quadrant, celebrated across the Federation for its tranquility, pleasure, and natural splendor. But what many travelers do not know is that Risa’s current harmony was not inherited—it was forged. Beneath the songs of surf and the serenity of our resorts lies a history rich in conflict, transformation, and enduring wisdom.

We offer this briefing not merely as a tale of our past, but as an invitation to understand the spirit of our people and the roots of our peace.

I. A World at the Crossroads

Before its admittance into the United Federation of Planets, Risa was an independent and vulnerable world situated near volatile borders of early galactic powers. Its lush climate, mineral wealth, and open society made it a frequent target for raiders and an object of interest for imperial expansion.

The Risan peoples were once fragmented, prone to philosophical and political disunity. In our early records, this period is known as the Winds of Splintering. We suffered invasions, betrayals, and the slow erosion of trust in our own traditions.

II. The Coming of the Vulcans

It was during this period of instability that a small delegation of Vulcan philosophers, adherents to the teachings of Surak, arrived on Risa. They did not come as conquerors, nor even as ambassadors, but as seekers of peace.

These emissaries of logic saw in Risa the potential for a society not driven by suppression of emotion, as Vulcan had chosen, but by the balance of joy and discipline. While many Vulcans viewed Risa’s culture as frivolous, these followers of Surak saw the seed of a different path: one in which beauty itself could be a pillar of peace.

The Risan tradition of meditative dance, artistic expression, and communal love resonated with Vulcan teachings of unity and inner control. From this unlikely exchange was born the Ricin Doctrine—the belief that peace is sustained not only through logic or strength, but through deliberate joy, shared vulnerability, and readiness without aggression.

III. Betazed and the Trial of Truth

During the same era, early contact with the people of Betazed brought both inspiration and tension. A Betazoid expedition, under the guise of diplomacy, was discovered to be engaging in deep telepathic influence and information extraction. The Risan people, who valued consent above all else, responded not with anger, but with clarity.

A council of Ricin philosophers invited the Betazoid delegation into a shared mind ceremony—a practice in which both cultures exposed their thoughts in mutual vulnerability. The result was not scandal, but transformation. From that moment forward, a bond was formed, and Risa’s model of ethical emotional expression and consensual empathy became influential in shaping Betazed’s own peace philosophies.

IV. Confronting Marauders and Empires

Despite these philosophical strides, Risa’s path was anything but tranquil.

• Orion Syndicate raiders viewed Risa as ripe for exploitation, and for decades, cities were sacked, citizens enslaved, and resources plundered. In response, Risa formed the Sanctum Guard, not a military in the traditional sense, but a force of trained defenders schooled in both physical technique and psychological dissuasion. The Ricin martial arts, combining beauty with lethality, were born from this necessity.

• Andorian expansionism also tested Risa’s sovereignty. Though smaller in scale, skirmishes over territorial claims forced Risa to adopt planetary defense grids and formalize diplomatic protocols that balanced assertiveness with grace. It was through these conflicts that Risa developed the art of the ceremonial yield—a symbolic concession used to diffuse hostility while retaining honor.

• Romulan subterfuge nearly undid Risa from within. A corrupt Romulan envoy installed puppet leaders in one of our equatorial provinces. These agents sought to erode Risa’s social cohesion through fear and misinformation. But Ricin scholars countered the strategy not with rebellion, but with illumination: they released a network of truths, publicly broadcasting internal thoughts and civic debates to eliminate secrecy. The Romulan operation collapsed under the weight of exposure.

• Even militant Vulcan splinter factions, during the early Vulcan-Andorian conflicts, attempted to turn Risa into a staging ground, pressuring local governments to support Vulcan supremacy. The betrayal struck deep—but Risa resisted through diplomacy, invoking Surak’s true teachings and exposing the heresy of their logic-corrupted mission.

V. Enlightenment Through Preparedness

These trials did not harden us into warriors. They refined us into guardians of peace. Our enlightenment came not from retreat, but from engagement—tempered by readiness.

• We train our youth in the arts of balance: physical defense, emotional expression, and ethical reasoning.
• We teach our history without shame, so that future generations will not repeat our errors.
• We host our guests with joy, not because we are naïve, but because we know that to celebrate life fully is the greatest act of resistance against fear.

Risa did not become peaceful by denying the reality of conflict. We became peaceful by mastering our response to it.

And in so doing, we offered not just pleasure to the stars—but wisdom.

We welcome you not only to our beaches, but to our story.

May your time here bring you not only rest—but understanding.

– Risan Institute of Cultural Heritage, in collaboration with the Council of Enlightenment and the Ricin Circle of Peacekeepers

@ 0b118e40:4edc09cb

note - i wrote this before the global trade war, back when tariffs only affected China, Mexico, and Canada. But you will still get the gist of it.

During tough economic times, governments have to decide if they should open markets to global trade or protect local businesses with tariffs. The United States has swung between these two strategies, and history shows that the results are never straightforward

Just days ago, President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China. He framed these tariffs (25% on most Canadian goods, 10% on Canadian energy, 25% on Mexican imports, and 10% on Chinese imports) as a way to protect American industries.

But will they actually help, or could they backfire?

A History of U.S. Tariffs

Many have asked if countries will retaliate against the US. They can and they have. Once upon a time, 60 countries were so pissed off at the US, they retaliated at one go and crushed US dominance over trade.

This was during the Great Depression era in the 1930s when the government passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, placing high taxes on over 20,000 foreign goods. The goal was to protect American jobs, especially American farmers and manufacturers, but it backfired so badly.

Over 60 countries, including Canada, France, and Germany, retaliated by imposing their own tariffs. By 1933, US imports and exports both dropped significantly over 60%, and unemployment rose to 25%.

After President Franklin Roosevelt came to office, he implemented the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 to reverse these policies, calming the world down and reviving trade again.

The economist history of protectionism

The idea of shielding local businesses with tariffs isn’t new or recent. It's been around for a few centuries. In the 16th to 18th centuries, mercantilism encouraged countries to limit imports and boost exports.

In the 18th century, Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, argued that free trade allows nations to specialize in what they do best countering protectionism policies. Friedrich List later challenged Smith's view by stating that developing countries need some protection to grow their “infant” industries which is a belief that still influences many governments today.

But how often do governments truly support startups and new small businesses in ways that create real growth, rather than allowing funds to trickle down to large corporations instead?

In modern times, John Maynard Keynes supported government intervention during economic downturns, while Milton Friedman championed free trade and minimal state interference.

Paul Krugman argued that limited protectionism can help large industries by providing them unfair advantages to become global market leaders. I have deep reservations about Krugman’s take, particularly on its impact or lack thereof in globalizing small businesses.

The debate between free trade and protectionism has existed for centuries. What’s clear is that there is no one-size-fits-all model to this.

The Political Debate - left vs right

Both the left and right have used tariffs but for different reasons. The right supports tariffs to protect jobs and industries, while the left uses them to prevent multinational corporations from exploiting cheap labor abroad.

Neoliberal policies favor free trade, arguing that competition drives efficiency and growth. In the US this gets a little bit confusing as liberals are tied to the left, and free trade is tied to libertarianism which the rights align closely with, yet at present right wing politicians push for protectionism which crosses the boundaries of free-trade.

There are also institutions like the WTO and IMF who advocate for open markets, but their policies often reflect political alliances and preferential treatment - so it depends on what you define as true 'free trade’.

Who Really Benefits from Tariffs?

Most often, tariffs help capital-intensive industries like pharmaceuticals, tech, and defense, while hurting labor-intensive sectors like manufacturing, agriculture, and construction.

This worsens inequality as big corporations will thrive, while small businesses and working-class people struggle with rising costs and fewer job opportunities.

I’ve been reading through international trade economics out of personal interest, I'll share some models below on why this is the case

1. The Disruption of Natural Trade

Tariffs disrupt the natural flow of trade. The Heckscher-Ohlin model explains that countries export goods that match their resources like Canada’s natural resource energy or China’s labour intensive textile and electronics. When tariffs block this natural exchange, industries suffer.

A clear example was Europe’s energy crisis during the Russia-Ukraine war. By abruptly cutting themselves off from the supply of Russian energy, Europe scrambled to find alternative sources. In the end, it was the people who had to bear the brunt of skyrocketing prices of energy.

2. Who wins and who loses?

The Stolper-Samuelson theorem helps us understand who benefits from tariffs and who loses. The idea behind it is that tariffs benefit capital-intensive industries, while labor-intensive sectors are hurt.

In the US, small manufacturing industries that rely on low-cost imports on intermediary parts from countries like China and Mexico will face rising costs, making their final goods too expensive and less competitive. This is similar to what happened to Argentina, where subsidies and devaluation of pesos contributed to cost-push inflation, making locally produced goods more expensive and less competitive globally.

This also reminded me of the decline of the US Rust Belt during the 1970s and 1980s, where the outsourcing of labour-intensive manufacturing jobs led to economic stagnation in many regions in the Midwest, while capital-intensive sectors flourished on the coasts. It resulted in significantly high income inequality that has not improved over the last 40 years.

Ultimately the cost of economic disruption is disproportionately borne by smaller businesses and low-skilled workers. At the end of the day, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

3. Delays in Economic Growth

The Rybczynski theorem suggests that economic growth depends on how efficiently nations reallocate their resources toward capital- or labor-intensive industries. But tariffs can distort this transition and progress.

In the 70s and 80s, the US steel industry had competition from Japan and Germany who modernized their production methods, making their steel more efficient and cost-effective. Instead of prioritizing innovation, many U.S. steel producers relied on tariffs and protectionist measures to shield themselves from foreign competition. This helped for a bit but over time, American steelmakers lost global market share as foreign competitors continued to produce better, cheaper steel. Other factors, such as aging infrastructure, and economic shifts toward a service-based economy, further contributed to the industry's decline.

A similar struggle is seen today with China’s high-tech ambitions. Tariffs on Chinese electronics and technology products limit access to key inputs, such as semiconductors and advanced robotics. While China continues its push for automation and AI-driven manufacturing, these trade barriers increase costs and disrupt supply chains, forcing China to accelerate its decoupling from Western markets. This shift could further strengthen alliances within BRICS, as China seeks alternative trade partnerships to reduce reliance on U.S.-controlled financial and technological ecosystems.

Will the current Tariff imposition backfire and isolate the US like it did a hundred years ago or 50 years ago? Is US risking it's position as a trusted economic leader? Only time would tell

The impact of tariff on innovation - or lack thereof

While the short-term impacts of tariffs often include higher consumer prices and job losses, the long-term effects can be even more damaging, as they discourage innovation by increasing costs and reducing competition.

Some historical examples globally : * Nigeria: Blocking import of rice opened up black market out of desperation to survive. * Brazil: Protectionist car policies led to expensive, outdated vehicles. * Malaysia’s Proton: Sheltered by tariffs and cronyism and failed to compete globally. * India (before 1991): Over-regulation limited the industries, until economic reforms allowed for growth. * Soviet Union during Cold War : Substandard products and minimal innovation due to the absence of foreign alternatives, yielding to economic stagnation.

On the flip side, Vietnam has significantly reduced protectionism policies by actively pursuing free trade agreements. This enabled it to become a key manufacturing hub. But Vietnam is not stopping there as it is actively pushing forward its capital-intensive growth by funding entrepreneurs.

The Future of U.S. Tariffs

History has shown that tariffs rarely deliver their intended benefits without unintended consequences. While they may provide temporary relief, they often raise prices, shrink job opportunities, and weaken industries in the long run.

Without a clear strategy for innovation and industrial modernization, the U.S. risks repeating past mistakes of isolating itself from global trade rather than strengthening its economy.

At this point, only time will tell whether these tariffs will truly help Americans or will they, once again, make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

@ 58537364:705b4b85

คนเรามักจะเห็นคุณค่าของสิ่งใด ส่วนใหญ่ก็ใน ๒ สถานการณ์คือ หนึ่ง ตอนที่ยังไม่ได้มา หรือ สอง ตอนที่เสียไปแล้ว

อันนี้มันเป็นโศกนาฏกรรม ที่เกิดขึ้นกับผู้คนจำนวนมาก การที่คนเรามีสิ่งดีๆ แต่ว่าเราไม่เห็นคุณค่า เพราะว่าเรามองออกไปนอกตัว ไปเห็นแต่สิ่งที่ตัวเองไม่มี อยากจะได้มา

คล้ายๆ กับเรื่อง หมาคาบเนื้อในนิทานอีสป ตอนเด็กๆ เราคงจำได้ มีหมาตัวหนึ่งคาบเนื้อมา เนื้อชิ้นใหญ่เลย มันดีใจมากแล้วมันก็วิ่งไปยังที่ที่ มันจะได้กินเนื้ออย่างมีความสุข มีช่วงหนึ่งก็ต้องเดินข้ามสะพาน มันก็ชะโงกหน้าไปมองที่ลำธารหรือลำคลอง

ก็เห็นเงาตัวเอง เงานั่นมันก็ใหญ่ แล้วมันก็พบว่าในเงานั้น เนื้อในเงามันใหญ่กว่าเนื้อที่ตัวเองคาบ มันอยากได้เนื้อก้อนนั้นมากเลย เพราะว่ามันเป็นก้อนที่ใหญ่กว่า

มันก็เลยอ้าปาก เพื่อที่จะไปงับเนื้อในเงานั้น พอมันอ้าปาก ก็ปรากฏว่าเนื้อในปาก ก็หลุดตกลงแม่น้ำ แล้วเนื้อในเงานั้นก็หายไป เป็นอันว่าหมดเลย อดทั้ง 2 อย่าง .

ฉะนั้น คนเราถ้าหากเรา กลับมาเห็นคุณค่าของสิ่งที่เรามีอยู่ เราจะมีความสุขได้ง่าย อาจจะไม่ใช่สิ่งของ อาจจะไม่ใช่ผู้คน แต่อาจจะเป็นสุขภาพของเรา

อาจจะได้แก่ ลมหายใจของเรา ที่ยังหายใจได้ปกติ รวมถึงการที่ เรายังเดินเหินไปไหนมาไหนได้ การที่เรายังมองเห็น การที่เรายังได้ยิน

หลายคนมีสิ่งนี้อยู่ในตัว แต่กลับไม่เห็นค่า และไม่รู้สึกว่าตัวเองโชคดี กลับไปมองว่า ฉันยังไม่มีโน่นยังไม่มีนี่ ไม่มีบ้าน ไม่มีรถ ไม่มีเงิน

รู้สึกว่าทุกข์ระทมเหลือเกิน

ทำไมฉันจึงลำบากแบบนี้ ทั้งที่ตัวเองก็มีสิ่งดีๆ ในตัว สุขภาพ ความปกติสุข อิสรภาพที่เดินไปไหนมาไหนได้

แต่กลับไม่เห็นค่า เพราะว่ามัวแต่ไปสนใจสิ่งที่ตัวเองยังไม่มี

ซึ่งเป็นอนาคต

ถ้าเราหันกลับมาเห็นคุณค่าของสิ่งที่เรามีอยู่ แล้วก็ไม่ไปพะวงหรือให้ความสนใจกับสิ่งที่ยังไม่มี เราจะมีความสุขได้ง่าย อันนี้คือ ความหมายหนึ่งของการทำปัจจุบันให้ดีที่สุด

…

การทำปัจจุบันให้ดีที่สุด พระอาจารย์ไพศาล วิสาโล

@ efcb5fc5:5680aa8e

We're living in a digital dystopia. A world where our attention is currency, our data is mined, and our mental well-being is collateral damage in the relentless pursuit of engagement. The glossy facades of traditional social media platforms hide a dark underbelly of algorithmic manipulation, curated realities, and a pervasive sense of anxiety that seeps into every aspect of our lives. We're trapped in a digital echo chamber, drowning in a sea of manufactured outrage and meaningless noise, and it's time to build an ark and sail away.

I've witnessed the evolution, or rather, the devolution, of online interaction. From the raw, unfiltered chaos of early internet chat rooms to the sterile, algorithmically controlled environments of today's social giants, I've seen the promise of connection twisted into a tool for manipulation and control. We've become lab rats in a grand experiment, our emotional responses measured and monetized, our opinions shaped and sold to the highest bidder. But there's a flicker of hope in the darkness, a chance to reclaim our digital autonomy, and that hope is NOSTR (Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays).

The Psychological Warfare of Traditional Social Media

The Algorithmic Cage: These algorithms aren't designed to enhance your life; they're designed to keep you scrolling. They feed on your vulnerabilities, exploiting your fears and desires to maximize engagement, even if it means promoting misinformation, outrage, and division.

The Illusion of Perfection: The curated realities presented on these platforms create a toxic culture of comparison. We're bombarded with images of flawless bodies, extravagant lifestyles, and seemingly perfect lives, leading to feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt.

The Echo Chamber Effect: Algorithms reinforce our existing beliefs, isolating us from diverse perspectives and creating a breeding ground for extremism. We become trapped in echo chambers where our biases are constantly validated, leading to increased polarization and intolerance.

The Toxicity Vortex: The lack of effective moderation creates a breeding ground for hate speech, cyberbullying, and online harassment. We're constantly exposed to toxic content that erodes our mental well-being and fosters a sense of fear and distrust.

This isn't just a matter of inconvenience; it's a matter of mental survival. We're being subjected to a form of psychological warfare, and it's time to fight back.

NOSTR: A Sanctuary in the Digital Wasteland

NOSTR offers a radical alternative to this toxic environment. It's not just another platform; it's a decentralized protocol that empowers users to reclaim their digital sovereignty.

User-Controlled Feeds: You decide what you see, not an algorithm. You curate your own experience, focusing on the content and people that matter to you.

Ownership of Your Digital Identity: Your data and content are yours, secured by cryptography. No more worrying about being deplatformed or having your information sold to the highest bidder.

Interoperability: Your identity works across a diverse ecosystem of apps, giving you the freedom to choose the interface that suits your needs.

Value-Driven Interactions: The "zaps" feature enables direct micropayments, rewarding creators for valuable content and fostering a culture of genuine appreciation.

Decentralized Power: No single entity controls NOSTR, making it censorship-resistant and immune to the whims of corporate overlords.

Building a Healthier Digital Future

NOSTR isn't just about escaping the toxicity of traditional social media; it's about building a healthier, more meaningful online experience.

Cultivating Authentic Connections: Focus on building genuine relationships with people who share your values and interests, rather than chasing likes and followers.

Supporting Independent Creators: Use "zaps" to directly support the artists, writers, and thinkers who inspire you.

Embracing Intellectual Diversity: Explore different NOSTR apps and communities to broaden your horizons and challenge your assumptions.

Prioritizing Your Mental Health: Take control of your digital environment and create a space that supports your well-being.

Removing the noise: Value based interactions promote value based content, instead of the constant stream of noise that traditional social media promotes.

The Time for Action is Now

NOSTR is a nascent technology, but it represents a fundamental shift in how we interact online. It's a chance to build a more open, decentralized, and user-centric internet, one that prioritizes our mental health and our humanity.

We can no longer afford to be passive consumers in the digital age. We must become active participants in shaping our online experiences. It's time to break free from the chains of algorithmic control and reclaim our digital autonomy.

Join the NOSTR movement

Embrace the power of decentralization. Let's build a digital future that's worthy of our humanity. Let us build a place where the middlemen, and the algorithms that they control, have no power over us.

In addition to the points above, here are some examples/links of how NOSTR can be used:

Simple Signup: Creating a NOSTR account is incredibly easy. You can use platforms like Yakihonne or Primal to generate your keys and start exploring the ecosystem.

X-like Client: Apps like Damus offer a familiar X-like experience, making it easy for users to transition from traditional platforms.

Sharing Photos and Videos: Clients like Olas are optimized for visual content, allowing you to share your photos and videos with your followers.

Creating and Consuming Blogs: NOSTR can be used to publish and share blog posts, fostering a community of independent creators.

Live Streaming and Audio Spaces: Explore platforms like Hivetalk and zap.stream for live streaming and audio-based interactions.

NOSTR is a powerful tool for reclaiming your digital life and building a more meaningful online experience. It's time to take control, break free from the shackles of traditional social media, and embrace the future of decentralized communication.

Get the full overview of these and other on: https://nostrapps.com/

@ 3b3a42d3:d192e325

Atomic Signature Swaps (ASS) over Nostr is a protocol for atomically exchanging Schnorr signatures using Nostr events for orchestration. This new primitive enables multiple interesting applications like:

• Getting paid to publish specific Nostr events
• Issuing automatic payment receipts
• Contract signing in exchange for payment
• P2P asset exchanges
• Trading and enforcement of asset option contracts
• Payment in exchange for Nostr-based credentials or access tokens
• Exchanging GMs 🌞

It only requires that (i) the involved signatures be Schnorr signatures using the secp256k1 curve and that (ii) at least one of those signatures be accessible to both parties. These requirements are naturally met by Nostr events (published to relays), Taproot transactions (published to the mempool and later to the blockchain), and Cashu payments (using mints that support NUT-07, allowing any pair of these signatures to be swapped atomically.

How the Cryptographic Magic Works 🪄

This is a Schnorr signature (Zₓ, s):

s = z + H(Zₓ || P || m)⋅k

If you haven't seen it before, don't worry, neither did I until three weeks ago.

The signature scalar s is the the value a signer with private key k (and public key P = k⋅G) must calculate to prove his commitment over the message m given a randomly generated nonce z (Zₓ is just the x-coordinate of the public point Z = z⋅G). H is a hash function (sha256 with the tag "BIP0340/challenge" when dealing with BIP340), || just means to concatenate and G is the generator point of the elliptic curve, used to derive public values from private ones.

Now that you understand what this equation means, let's just rename z = r + t. We can do that, z is just a randomly generated number that can be represented as the sum of two other numbers. It also follows that z⋅G = r⋅G + t⋅G ⇔ Z = R + T. Putting it all back into the definition of a Schnorr signature we get:

s = (r + t) + H((R + T)ₓ || P || m)⋅k

Which is the same as:

s = sₐ + t where sₐ = r + H((R + T)ₓ || P || m)⋅k

sₐ is what we call the adaptor signature scalar) and t is the secret. ((R + T)ₓ, sₐ) is an incomplete signature that just becomes valid by add the secret t to the sₐ:

s = sₐ + t

What is also important for our purposes is that by getting access to the valid signature s, one can also extract t from it by just subtracting sₐ:

t = s - sₐ

The specific value of t depends on our choice of the public point T, since R is just a public point derived from a randomly generated nonce r.

So how do we choose T so that it requires the secret t to be the signature over a specific message m' by an specific public key P'? (without knowing the value of t)

Let's start with the definition of t as a valid Schnorr signature by P' over m':

t = r' + H(R'ₓ || P' || m')⋅k' ⇔ t⋅G = r'⋅G + H(R'ₓ || P' || m')⋅k'⋅G

That is the same as:

T = R' + H(R'ₓ || P' || m')⋅P'

Notice that in order to calculate the appropriate T that requires t to be an specific signature scalar, we only need to know the public nonce R' used to generate that signature.

In summary: in order to atomically swap Schnorr signatures, one party P' must provide a public nonce R', while the other party P must provide an adaptor signature using that nonce:

sₐ = r + H((R + T)ₓ || P || m)⋅k where T = R' + H(R'ₓ || P' || m')⋅P'

P' (the nonce provider) can then add his own signature t to the adaptor signature sₐ in order to get a valid signature by P, i.e. s = sₐ + t. When he publishes this signature (as a Nostr event, Cashu transaction or Taproot transaction), it becomes accessible to P that can now extract the signature t by P' and also make use of it.

Important considerations

A signature may not be useful at the end of the swap if it unlocks funds that have already been spent, or that are vulnerable to fee bidding wars.

When a swap involves a Taproot UTXO, it must always use a 2-of-2 multisig timelock to avoid those issues.

Cashu tokens do not require this measure when its signature is revealed first, because the mint won't reveal the other signature if they can't be successfully claimed, but they also require a 2-of-2 multisig timelock when its signature is only revealed last (what is unavoidable in cashu for cashu swaps).

For Nostr events, whoever receives the signature first needs to publish it to at least one relay that is accessible by the other party. This is a reasonable expectation in most cases, but may be an issue if the event kind involved is meant to be used privately.

How to Orchestrate the Swap over Nostr?

Before going into the specific event kinds, it is important to recognize what are the requirements they must meet and what are the concerns they must address. There are mainly three requirements:

• Both parties must agree on the messages they are going to sign
• One party must provide a public nonce
• The other party must provide an adaptor signature using that nonce

There is also a fundamental asymmetry in the roles of both parties, resulting in the following significant downsides for the party that generates the adaptor signature:

• NIP-07 and remote signers do not currently support the generation of adaptor signatures, so he must either insert his nsec in the client or use a fork of another signer
• There is an overhead of retrieving the completed signature containing the secret, either from the blockchain, mint endpoint or finding the appropriate relay
• There is risk he may not get his side of the deal if the other party only uses his signature privately, as I have already mentioned
• There is risk of losing funds by not extracting or using the signature before its timelock expires. The other party has no risk since his own signature won't be exposed by just not using the signature he received.

The protocol must meet all those requirements, allowing for some kind of role negotiation and while trying to reduce the necessary hops needed to complete the swap.

Swap Proposal Event (kind:455)

This event enables a proposer and his counterparty to agree on the specific messages whose signatures they intend to exchange. The content field is the following stringified JSON:

{     "give": <signature spec (required)>,     "take": <signature spec (required)>,     "exp": <expiration timestamp (optional)>,     "role": "<adaptor | nonce (optional)>",     "description": "<Info about the proposal (optional)>",     "nonce": "<Signature public nonce (optional)>",     "enc_s": "<Encrypted signature scalar (optional)>" }

The field role indicates what the proposer will provide during the swap, either the nonce or the adaptor. When this optional field is not provided, the counterparty may decide whether he will send a nonce back in a Swap Nonce event or a Swap Adaptor event using the nonce (optionally) provided by in the Swap Proposal in order to avoid one hop of interaction.

The enc_s field may be used to store the encrypted scalar of the signature associated with the nonce, since this information is necessary later when completing the adaptor signature received from the other party.

A signature spec specifies the type and all necessary information for producing and verifying a given signature. In the case of signatures for Nostr events, it contain a template with all the fields, except pubkey, id and sig:

{ "type": "nostr", "template": { "kind": "<kind>"        "content": "<content>"        "tags": [ … ],        "created_at": "<created_at>" } }

In the case of Cashu payments, a simplified signature spec just needs to specify the payment amount and an array of mints trusted by the proposer:

{   "type": "cashu",   "amount": "<amount>",   "mint": ["<acceptable mint_url>", …] }

This works when the payer provides the adaptor signature, but it still needs to be extended to also work when the payer is the one receiving the adaptor signature. In the later case, the signature spec must also include a timelock and the derived public keys Y of each Cashu Proof, but for now let's just ignore this situation. It should be mentioned that the mint must be trusted by both parties and also support Token state check (NUT-07) for revealing the completed adaptor signature and P2PK spending conditions (NUT-11) for the cryptographic scheme to work.

The tags are:

• "p", the proposal counterparty's public key (required)
• "a", a kind:30455 Swap Listing event or an application specific version of it (optional)

Forget about this Swap Listing event for now, I will get to it later...

Swap Nonce Event (kind:456) - Optional

This is an optional event for the Swap Proposal receiver to provide the public nonce of his signature when the proposal does not include a nonce or when he does not want to provide the adaptor signature due to the downsides previously mentioned. The content field is the following stringified JSON:

{     "nonce": "<Signature public nonce>",     "enc_s": "<Encrypted signature scalar (optional)>" }

And the tags must contain:

• "e", a kind:455 Swap Proposal Event (required)
• "p", the counterparty's public key (required)

Swap Adaptor Event (kind:457)

The content field is the following stringified JSON:

{ "adaptors": [ {         "sa": "<Adaptor signature scalar>",         "R": "<Signer's public nonce (including parity byte)>",         "T": "<Adaptor point (including parity byte)>",         "Y": "<Cashu proof derived public key (if applicable)>",     }, …],     "cashu": "<Cashu V4 token (if applicable)>" }

And the tags must contain:

• "e", a kind:455 Swap Proposal Event (required)
• "p", the counterparty's public key (required)

Discoverability

The Swap Listing event previously mentioned as an optional tag in the Swap Proposal may be used to find an appropriate counterparty for a swap. It allows a user to announce what he wants to accomplish, what his requirements are and what is still open for negotiation.

Swap Listing Event (kind:30455)

The content field is the following stringified JSON:

{ "description": "<Information about the listing (required)>", "give": <partial signature spec (optional)>, "take": <partial signature spec (optional)>, "examples: [<take signature spec>], // optional "exp": <expiration timestamp (optional)>, "role": "<adaptor | nonce (optional)>" }

The description field describes the restrictions on counterparties and signatures the user is willing to accept.

A partial signature spec is an incomplete signature spec used in Swap Proposal events kind:455 where omitting fields signals that they are still open for negotiation.

The examples field is an array of signature specs the user would be willing to take.

The tags are:

• "d", a unique listing id (required)
• "s", the status of the listing draft | open | closed (required)
• "t", topics related to this listing (optional)
• "p", public keys to notify about the proposal (optional)

Application Specific Swap Listings

Since Swap Listings are still fairly generic, it is expected that specific use cases define new event kinds based on the generic listing. Those application specific swap listing would be easier to filter by clients and may impose restrictions and add new fields and/or tags. The following are some examples under development:

Sponsored Events

This listing is designed for users looking to promote content on the Nostr network, as well as for those who want to monetize their accounts by sharing curated sponsored content with their existing audiences.

It follows the same format as the generic Swap Listing event, but uses the kind:30456 instead.

The following new tags are included:

• "k", event kind being sponsored (required)
• "title", campaign title (optional)

It is required that at least one signature spec (give and/or take) must have "type": "nostr" and also contain the following tag ["sponsor", "<pubkey>", "<attestation>"] with the sponsor's public key and his signature over the signature spec without the sponsor tag as his attestation. This last requirement enables clients to disclose and/or filter sponsored events.

Asset Swaps

This listing is designed for users looking for counterparties to swap different assets that can be transferred using Schnorr signatures, like any unit of Cashu tokens, Bitcoin or other asset IOUs issued using Taproot.

It follows the same format as the generic Swap Listing event, but uses the kind:30457 instead.

It requires the following additional tags:

• "t", asset pair to be swapped (e.g. "btcusd")
• "t", asset being offered (e.g. "btc")
• "t", accepted payment method (e.g. "cashu", "taproot")

Swap Negotiation

From finding an appropriate Swap Listing to publishing a Swap Proposal, there may be some kind of negotiation between the involved parties, e.g. agreeing on the amount to be paid by one of the parties or the exact content of a Nostr event signed by the other party. There are many ways to accomplish that and clients may implement it as they see fit for their specific goals. Some suggestions are:

• Adding kind:1111 Comments to the Swap Listing or an existing Swap Proposal
• Exchanging tentative Swap Proposals back and forth until an agreement is reached
• Simple exchanges of DMs
• Out of band communication (e.g. Signal)

Work to be done

I've been refining this specification as I develop some proof-of-concept clients to experience its flaws and trade-offs in practice. I left the signature spec for Taproot signatures out of the current document as I still have to experiment with it. I will probably find some important orchestration issues related to dealing with 2-of-2 multisig timelocks, which also affects Cashu transactions when spent last, that may require further adjustments to what was presented here.

The main goal of this article is to find other people interested in this concept and willing to provide valuable feedback before a PR is opened in the NIPs repository for broader discussions.

References

• GM Swap- Nostr client for atomically exchanging GM notes. Live demo available here.
• Sig4Sats Script - A Typescript script demonstrating the swap of a Cashu payment for a signed Nostr event.
• Loudr- Nostr client under development for sponsoring the publication of Nostr events. Live demo available at loudr.me.
• Poelstra, A. (2017). Scriptless Scripts. Blockstream Research. https://github.com/BlockstreamResearch/scriptless-scripts

@ 66675158:1b644430

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ c1e6505c:02b3157e

This is day two of testing the Leica Summaron 35mm f2.8 on the Fujifilm X-Pro2.

The first part of this story you can find here on StackerNews**

TL;DR: I think I’m really enjoying this lens.

I went into it thinking I’d probably just sell it since it was gifted to me - assumed I wouldn’t like it. But after just a couple of days with it mounted on the X-Pro2, I’ve been surprisingly drawn to it.

Shooting wide open at f2.8 (which is how I’m testing it - to best reveal the lens’s character), the soft roll-off is really pleasing. It feels organic. The lens is over 50 years old, so I expected some quirks-but the quality feels natural, not overly “vintage". Takes the digital edge off.

The short focus throw is also really nice. Compared to the Summicron 35mm f2 v3 I usually shoot on my M262 (which has a longer throw), the Summaron feels tighter and more responsive when zone focusing.

One gripe: the infinity lock. It’s kind of annoying. I find myself accidentally locking it too often, but I’m getting used to holding the button down as I rotate the ring. I’ve read others complain about it, so I know I’m not alone there.

Most of these shots were from a bike ride to the river - about 6 miles out to swim and enjoy the sun. Perfect day for making a few photos.

This kind of work is honestly just fun. I enjoy the process, and even more so once I’m happy with the results and can share them.

Still building confidence in my work over time. I think I’m slowly refining my style - even if the subject matter is simple. Easier said than done, as any editor/curator knows (and I say this as one through NOICE Magazine).

Let me know what you think. I’ll try to upload higher resolution versions this time around (but not too high).

*Also, I use a program called Dehancer for creating the grain in these photographs. I highly recommend the program actually, I've been using it for a long time. If you would like to try it out, I have a promo code. Use "Pictureroom" for 10% off I believe.

You can further support me and my work by sending sats to colincz\@getalby.com. Thank you.

(note* this is being publised from the updated Primal reads client)

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Since its creation in 2009, Bitcoin has symbolized innovation and resilience. However, from time to time, alarmist narratives arise about emerging technologies that could "break" its security. Among these, quantum computing stands out as one of the most recurrent. But does quantum computing truly threaten Bitcoin? And more importantly, what is the community doing to ensure the protocol remains invulnerable?

The answer, contrary to sensationalist headlines, is reassuring: Bitcoin is secure, and the community is already preparing for a future where quantum computing becomes a practical reality. Let’s dive into this topic to understand why the concerns are exaggerated and how the development of BIP-360 demonstrates that Bitcoin is one step ahead.

---

What Is Quantum Computing, and Why Is Bitcoin Not Threatened?

Quantum computing leverages principles of quantum mechanics to perform calculations that, in theory, could exponentially surpass classical computers—and it has nothing to do with what so-called “quantum coaches” teach to scam the uninformed. One of the concerns is that this technology could compromise two key aspects of Bitcoin’s security:

1. Wallets: These use elliptic curve algorithms (ECDSA) to protect private keys. A sufficiently powerful quantum computer could deduce a private key from its public key.
2. Mining: This is based on the SHA-256 algorithm, which secures the consensus process. A quantum attack could, in theory, compromise the proof-of-work mechanism.

---

Understanding Quantum Computing’s Attack Priorities

While quantum computing is often presented as a threat to Bitcoin, not all parts of the network are equally vulnerable. Theoretical attacks would be prioritized based on two main factors: ease of execution and potential reward. This creates two categories of attacks:

1. Attacks on Wallets

Bitcoin wallets, secured by elliptic curve algorithms, would be the initial targets due to the relative vulnerability of their public keys, especially those already exposed on the blockchain. Two attack scenarios stand out:

• Short-term attacks: These occur during the interval between sending a transaction and its inclusion in a block (approximately 10 minutes). A quantum computer could intercept the exposed public key and derive the corresponding private key to redirect funds by creating a transaction with higher fees.

• Long-term attacks: These focus on old wallets whose public keys are permanently exposed. Wallets associated with Satoshi Nakamoto, for example, are especially vulnerable because they were created before the practice of using hashes to mask public keys.

We can infer a priority order for how such attacks might occur based on urgency and importance.

Bitcoin Quantum Attack: Prioritization Matrix (Urgency vs. Importance)

2. Attacks on Mining

Targeting the SHA-256 algorithm, which secures the mining process, would be the next objective. However, this is far more complex and requires a level of quantum computational power that is currently non-existent and far from realization. A successful attack would allow for the recalculation of all possible hashes to dominate the consensus process and potentially "mine" it instantly.

---

Satoshi Nakamoto in 2010 on Quantum Computing and Bitcoin Attacks

Recently, Narcelio asked me about a statement I made on Tubacast:

https://x.com/eddieoz/status/1868371296683511969

If an attack became a reality before Bitcoin was prepared, it would be necessary to define the last block prior to the attack and proceed from there using a new hashing algorithm. The solution would resemble the response to the infamous 2013 bug. It’s a fact that this would cause market panic, and Bitcoin's price would drop significantly, creating a potential opportunity for the well-informed.

Preferably, if developers could anticipate the threat and had time to work on a solution and build consensus before an attack, they would simply decide on a future block for the fork, which would then adopt the new algorithm. It might even rehash previous blocks (reaching consensus on them) to avoid potential reorganization through the re-mining of blocks using the old hash. (I often use the term "shielding" old transactions).

---

How Can Users Protect Themselves?

While quantum computing is still far from being a practical threat, some simple measures can already protect users against hypothetical scenarios:

• Avoid using exposed public keys: Ensure funds sent to old wallets are transferred to new ones that use public key hashes. This reduces the risk of long-term attacks.
• Use modern wallets: Opt for wallets compatible with SegWit or Taproot, which implement better security practices.
• Monitor security updates: Stay informed about updates from the Bitcoin community, such as the implementation of BIP-360, which will introduce quantum-resistant addresses.
• Do not reuse addresses: Every transaction should be associated with a new address to minimize the risk of repeated exposure of the same public key.
• Adopt secure backup practices: Create offline backups of private keys and seeds in secure locations, protected from unauthorized access.

---

BIP-360 and Bitcoin’s Preparation for the Future

Even though quantum computing is still beyond practical reach, the Bitcoin community is not standing still. A concrete example is BIP-360, a proposal that establishes the technical framework to make wallets resistant to quantum attacks.

BIP-360 addresses three main pillars:

1. Introduction of quantum-resistant addresses: A new address format starting with "BC1R" will be used. These addresses will be compatible with post-quantum algorithms, ensuring that stored funds are protected from future attacks.
2. Compatibility with the current ecosystem: The proposal allows users to transfer funds from old addresses to new ones without requiring drastic changes to the network infrastructure.
3. Flexibility for future updates: BIP-360 does not limit the choice of specific algorithms. Instead, it serves as a foundation for implementing new post-quantum algorithms as technology evolves.

This proposal demonstrates how Bitcoin can adapt to emerging threats without compromising its decentralized structure.

---

Post-Quantum Algorithms: The Future of Bitcoin Cryptography

The community is exploring various algorithms to protect Bitcoin from quantum attacks. Among the most discussed are:

• Falcon: A solution combining smaller public keys with compact digital signatures. Although it has been tested in limited scenarios, it still faces scalability and performance challenges.
• Sphincs: Hash-based, this algorithm is renowned for its resilience, but its signatures can be extremely large, making it less efficient for networks like Bitcoin’s blockchain.
• Lamport: Created in 1977, it’s considered one of the earliest post-quantum security solutions. Despite its reliability, its gigantic public keys (16,000 bytes) make it impractical and costly for Bitcoin.

Two technologies show great promise and are well-regarded by the community:

1. Lattice-Based Cryptography: Considered one of the most promising, it uses complex mathematical structures to create systems nearly immune to quantum computing. Its implementation is still in its early stages, but the community is optimistic.
2. Supersingular Elliptic Curve Isogeny: These are very recent digital signature algorithms and require extensive study and testing before being ready for practical market use.

The final choice of algorithm will depend on factors such as efficiency, cost, and integration capability with the current system. Additionally, it is preferable that these algorithms are standardized before implementation, a process that may take up to 10 years.

---

Why Quantum Computing Is Far from Being a Threat

The alarmist narrative about quantum computing overlooks the technical and practical challenges that still need to be overcome. Among them:

• Insufficient number of qubits: Current quantum computers have only a few hundred qubits, whereas successful attacks would require millions.
• High error rate: Quantum stability remains a barrier to reliable large-scale operations.
• High costs: Building and operating large-scale quantum computers requires massive investments, limiting their use to scientific or specific applications.

Moreover, even if quantum computers make significant advancements, Bitcoin is already adapting to ensure its infrastructure is prepared to respond.

---

Conclusion: Bitcoin’s Secure Future

Despite advancements in quantum computing, the reality is that Bitcoin is far from being threatened. Its security is ensured not only by its robust architecture but also by the community’s constant efforts to anticipate and mitigate challenges.

The implementation of BIP-360 and the pursuit of post-quantum algorithms demonstrate that Bitcoin is not only resilient but also proactive. By adopting practical measures, such as using modern wallets and migrating to quantum-resistant addresses, users can further protect themselves against potential threats.

Bitcoin’s future is not at risk—it is being carefully shaped to withstand any emerging technology, including quantum computing.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Esteemed representatives of Risa,

We gather here under the calming glow of our twin suns, stewards of a society admired for its peace and celebrated for its tranquility. But we must not mistake serenity for passivity, nor confuse peace with weakness. Our peace is not an accident. It is not the byproduct of ignorance or naivety. It is hard-earned—preserved by those willing to stand vigilant in its defense.

Love as a Foundation, Strength as a Shield

Love conquers hate. This is the core truth of Risan philosophy. Yet, as every Ricin child is taught, love without strength is a leaf in the wind. The Ricin do not lay down their lives without resistance. We do not ask our people to accept violence without confronting it. True peace is not imposed by stripping the people of their agency—it is built by enabling them to protect it.

The Lessons of a Failed Experiment

There was a time, not so distant in our history, when we attempted to enforce peace through the abolition of all weapons. A time when even the mention of self-defense in our educational centers was met with rebuke. Schools purged training programs. Cultural arts that honored our warrior traditions were dismissed. And for a brief moment, we believed this would lead us to harmony.

But peace born from helplessness is a fragile illusion. It fractures under the slightest pressure. And fracture it did—when off-world raiders targeted our unguarded sanctuaries, when radical sects within our own society struck out, knowing the citizenry could not defend itself. It was then that we remembered: Risa’s greatest peacekeepers had always been those who knew how to fight—but chose restraint.

The Age of Ricin and the Reawakening of Discipline

So we returned to our roots. To the traditions of the Age of Ricin, when youth, upon reaching maturity, were taught not only the arts of compassion and creation but also the martial disciplines. They learn to wield weapons—not to glorify violence, but to understand it. To control it. To stand firm against it when all else fails.

https://i.nostr.build/kuUjRovISz7367TX.jpg

We do not romanticize war. We do not celebrate conflict. But we prepare for it, should it seek to extinguish our light. Our children now learn the disciplines of defense alongside their studies in poetry, music, and healing. They spar with blunt blades under the watchful eyes of masters. They meditate on the consequences of force. And they grow into citizens not easily provoked, but never unprepared.

A Call for Balance, Not Extremes

Let those beyond our borders question our ways. Let them forget the countless incursions by the Romulans. Let them ignore the scars left by centuries of subversion from the Orion Syndicate. We do not forget. We remember the lives lost, the liberties challenged, and the lessons learned through suffering. These experiences shaped us.

We do not wish to return to the era of soft silence, when teachers trembled at the word "weapon" and children were told that even imagination was dangerous. That was not enlightenment. That was indoctrination.

Conclusion: Guarding the Flame

We are the guardians of Risa’s flame—not just with words and treaties, but with discipline and readiness. We have made peace a practice, and preparation a virtue. And so I say to this chamber: let us never again disarm our people in the name of utopia. Let us never confuse comfort with safety, or the absence of weapons with the presence of peace.

Instead, let us raise generations who know what peace costs, and who will pay that price—not with surrender, but with courage.

Let our children be artists, lovers, dreamers—and if necessary, defenders.

This is the Risan way.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Spoken by Counselor Elaron T’Saren of Risa to the High Council, Stardate 52874.2

Honored members of the Council,

I bring you greetings from Risa—not the Risa of travel brochures and romantic holo-novels, but the true Risa. The Risa that has endured, adapted, and emerged stronger after each trial. I speak not as a tourist ambassador, but as a Counselor of our oldest institute of philosophy, and as a son of the Ricin tradition.

Today, the specter of the Borg hangs above us. The collective offers no room for diplomacy, no respect for culture, no compromise. We face not mere invaders—but a force that seeks to erase individuality, history, and identity. Some among the Council wonder what Risa—a world of peace—can offer in such a time. I say to you: we can offer the truth about peace.

The Hidden Roots of Our Tranquility

Long ago, before Risa joined the Federation, we too believed that peace could be maintained by disarming the populace, by eliminating even the mention of conflict in our schools. It was called the Great Disarmament. A generation was raised with no understanding of defense, and in time, we paid the price.

We were raided by Orion pirates. Exploited by off-world cartels. Our people were taken, our arts destroyed, our skies blackened. And we learned—too late—that peace without preparedness is only the illusion of safety.

The Birth of Ricin Doctrine

From the ashes of that failure arose the Ricin: scholars, philosophers, warriors of thought and purpose. They taught that peace is not the absence of conflict, but the mastery of it. That the mind and the body must be trained in tandem. That love without strength is a leaf in the wind.

We did not become a militant world. We became a watchful one. Our children were taught martial discipline—not to glorify violence, but to understand it, to confront it, and to defeat it when necessary. They learned meditation alongside hand-to-hand technique, negotiation beside tactical reasoning.

When we joined the Federation, we did so willingly. But let none assume we surrendered our right to defend our way of life.

Why I Speak to You Now

The Borg are not like the Orion Syndicate. They are not opportunistic, or ideological. They are methodical. And they are coming. You cannot debate with them. You cannot delay them. You can only prepare for them.

And yet, I hear murmurs within the halls of the Federation: whispers of abandoning planetary defense training, of downplaying the psychological need for individual and planetary preparedness. I hear the tired lie that “peace will protect us.”

No, Councilors. It is discipline that protects peace.

The Call to Action

I do not come bearing weapons. I come bearing wisdom. Let us take the Risan lesson and apply it across the Federation. Reestablish tactical readiness training in civilian schools. Encourage planetary governments to integrate defense and philosophy, not as contradictions, but as complements.

Let every child of the Federation grow up knowing not just the principles of liberty, but the means to defend them. Let every artist, scientist, and healer stand ready to protect the civilization they help to build.

Let us not wait until the Borg are in our orbit to remember what we must become.

Conclusion

The Borg seek to erase our uniqueness. Let us show them that the Federation is not a fragile collection of planets—but a constellation of cultures bound by a shared resolve.

We do not choose war. But neither do we flee from it.

We are the guardians of Risa’s flame—and we offer our light to the stars.

Thank you.

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Based on a recent paper that included collaboration from renowned experts such as Lynn Alden, Steve Lee, and Ren Crypto Fish, we discuss in depth how Bitcoin's consensus is built, the main risks, and the complex dynamics of protocol upgrades.

PT-BR version

Podcast https://www.fountain.fm/episode/wbjD6ntQuvX5u2G5BccC

Presentation https://gamma.app/docs/Analyzing-Bitcoin-Consensus-Risks-in-Protocol-Upgrades-p66axxjwaa37ksn

1. Introduction to Consensus in Bitcoin

Consensus in Bitcoin is the foundation that keeps the network secure and functional, allowing users worldwide to perform transactions in a decentralized manner without the need for intermediaries. Since its launch in 2009, Bitcoin is often described as an "immutable" system designed to resist changes, and it is precisely this resistance that ensures its security and stability.

The central idea behind consensus in Bitcoin is to create a set of acceptance rules for blocks and transactions, ensuring that all network participants agree on the transaction history. This prevents "double-spending," where the same bitcoin could be used in two simultaneous transactions, something that would compromise trust in the network.

Evolution of Consensus in Bitcoin

Over the years, consensus in Bitcoin has undergone several adaptations, and the way participants agree on changes remains a delicate process. Unlike traditional systems, where changes can be imposed from the top down, Bitcoin operates in a decentralized model where any significant change needs the support of various groups of stakeholders, including miners, developers, users, and large node operators.

Moreover, the update process is extremely cautious, as hasty changes can compromise the network's security. As a result, the philosophy of "don't fix what isn't broken" prevails, with improvements happening incrementally and only after broad consensus among those involved. This model can make progress seem slow but ensures that Bitcoin remains faithful to the principles of security and decentralization.

---

2. Technical Components of Consensus

Bitcoin's consensus is supported by a set of technical rules that determine what is considered a valid transaction and a valid block on the network. These technical aspects ensure that all nodes—the computers that participate in the Bitcoin network—agree on the current state of the blockchain. Below are the main technical components that form the basis of the consensus.

Validation of Blocks and Transactions

The validation of blocks and transactions is the central point of consensus in Bitcoin. A block is only considered valid if it meets certain criteria, such as maximum size, transaction structure, and the solving of the "Proof of Work" problem. The proof of work, required for a block to be included in the blockchain, is a computational process that ensures the block contains significant computational effort—protecting the network against manipulation attempts.

Transactions, in turn, need to follow specific input and output rules. Each transaction includes cryptographic signatures that prove the ownership of the bitcoins sent, as well as validation scripts that verify if the transaction conditions are met. This validation system is essential for network nodes to autonomously confirm that each transaction follows the rules.

Chain Selection

Another fundamental technical issue for Bitcoin's consensus is chain selection, which becomes especially important in cases where multiple versions of the blockchain coexist, such as after a network split (fork). To decide which chain is the "true" one and should be followed, the network adopts the criterion of the highest accumulated proof of work. In other words, the chain with the highest number of valid blocks, built with the greatest computational effort, is chosen by the network as the official one.

This criterion avoids permanent splits because it encourages all nodes to follow the same main chain, reinforcing consensus.

Soft Forks vs. Hard Forks

In the consensus process, protocol changes can happen in two ways: through soft forks or hard forks. These variations affect not only the protocol update but also the implications for network users:

• Soft Forks: These are changes that are backward compatible. Only nodes that adopt the new update will follow the new rules, but old nodes will still recognize the blocks produced with these rules as valid. This compatibility makes soft forks a safer option for updates, as it minimizes the risk of network division.

• Hard Forks: These are updates that are not backward compatible, requiring all nodes to update to the new version or risk being separated from the main chain. Hard forks can result in the creation of a new coin, as occurred with the split between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash in 2017. While hard forks allow for deeper changes, they also bring significant risks of network fragmentation.

These technical components form the base of Bitcoin's security and resilience, allowing the system to remain functional and immutable without losing the necessary flexibility to evolve over time.

---

3. Stakeholders in Bitcoin's Consensus

Consensus in Bitcoin is not decided centrally. On the contrary, it depends on the interaction between different groups of stakeholders, each with their motivations, interests, and levels of influence. These groups play fundamental roles in how changes are implemented or rejected on the network. Below, we explore the six main stakeholders in Bitcoin's consensus.

1. Economic Nodes

Economic nodes, usually operated by exchanges, custody providers, and large companies that accept Bitcoin, exert significant influence over consensus. Because they handle large volumes of transactions and act as a connection point between the Bitcoin ecosystem and the traditional financial system, these nodes have the power to validate or reject blocks and to define which version of the software to follow in case of a fork.

Their influence is proportional to the volume of transactions they handle, and they can directly affect which chain will be seen as the main one. Their incentive is to maintain the network's stability and security to preserve its functionality and meet regulatory requirements.

2. Investors

Investors, including large institutional funds and individual Bitcoin holders, influence consensus indirectly through their impact on the asset's price. Their buying and selling actions can affect Bitcoin's value, which in turn influences the motivation of miners and other stakeholders to continue investing in the network's security and development.

Some institutional investors have agreements with custodians that may limit their ability to act in network split situations. Thus, the impact of each investor on consensus can vary based on their ownership structure and how quickly they can react to a network change.

3. Media Influencers

Media influencers, including journalists, analysts, and popular personalities on social media, have a powerful role in shaping public opinion about Bitcoin and possible updates. These influencers can help educate the public, promote debates, and bring transparency to the consensus process.

On the other hand, the impact of influencers can be double-edged: while they can clarify complex topics, they can also distort perceptions by amplifying or minimizing change proposals. This makes them a force both of support and resistance to consensus.

4. Miners

Miners are responsible for validating transactions and including blocks in the blockchain. Through computational power (hashrate), they also exert significant influence over consensus decisions. In update processes, miners often signal their support for a proposal, indicating that the new version is safe to use. However, this signaling is not always definitive, and miners can change their position if they deem it necessary.

Their incentive is to maximize returns from block rewards and transaction fees, as well as to maintain the value of investments in their specialized equipment, which are only profitable if the network remains stable.

5. Protocol Developers

Protocol developers, often called "Core Developers," are responsible for writing and maintaining Bitcoin's code. Although they do not have direct power over consensus, they possess an informal veto power since they decide which changes are included in the main client (Bitcoin Core). This group also serves as an important source of technical knowledge, helping guide decisions and inform other stakeholders.

Their incentive lies in the continuous improvement of the network, ensuring security and decentralization. Many developers are funded by grants and sponsorships, but their motivations generally include a strong ideological commitment to Bitcoin's principles.

6. Users and Application Developers

This group includes people who use Bitcoin in their daily transactions and developers who build solutions based on the network, such as wallets, exchanges, and payment platforms. Although their power in consensus is less than that of miners or economic nodes, they play an important role because they are responsible for popularizing Bitcoin's use and expanding the ecosystem.

If application developers decide not to adopt an update, this can affect compatibility and widespread acceptance. Thus, they indirectly influence consensus by deciding which version of the protocol to follow in their applications.

These stakeholders are vital to the consensus process, and each group exerts influence according to their involvement, incentives, and ability to act in situations of change. Understanding the role of each makes it clearer how consensus is formed and why it is so difficult to make significant changes to Bitcoin.

---

4. Mechanisms for Activating Updates in Bitcoin

For Bitcoin to evolve without compromising security and consensus, different mechanisms for activating updates have been developed over the years. These mechanisms help coordinate changes among network nodes to minimize the risk of fragmentation and ensure that updates are implemented in an orderly manner. Here, we explore some of the main methods used in Bitcoin, their advantages and disadvantages, as well as historical examples of significant updates.

Flag Day

The Flag Day mechanism is one of the simplest forms of activating changes. In it, a specific date or block is determined as the activation moment, and all nodes must be updated by that point. This method does not involve prior signaling; participants simply need to update to the new software version by the established day or block.

• Advantages: Simplicity and predictability are the main benefits of Flag Day, as everyone knows the exact activation date.

• Disadvantages: Inflexibility can be a problem because there is no way to adjust the schedule if a significant part of the network has not updated. This can result in network splits if a significant number of nodes are not ready for the update.

An example of Flag Day was the Pay to Script Hash (P2SH) update in 2012, which required all nodes to adopt the change to avoid compatibility issues.

BIP34 and BIP9

BIP34 introduced a more dynamic process, in which miners increase the version number in block headers to signal the update. When a predetermined percentage of the last blocks is mined with this new version, the update is automatically activated. This model later evolved with BIP9, which allowed multiple updates to be signaled simultaneously through "version bits," each corresponding to a specific change.

• Advantages: Allows the network to activate updates gradually, giving more time for participants to adapt.

• Disadvantages: These methods rely heavily on miner support, which means that if a sufficient number of miners do not signal the update, it can be delayed or not implemented.

BIP9 was used in the activation of SegWit (BIP141) but faced challenges because some miners did not signal their intent to activate, leading to the development of new mechanisms.

User Activated Soft Forks (UASF) and User Resisted Soft Forks (URSF)

To increase the decision-making power of ordinary users, the concept of User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) was introduced, allowing node operators, not just miners, to determine consensus for a change. In this model, nodes set a date to start rejecting blocks that are not in compliance with the new update, forcing miners to adapt or risk having their blocks rejected by the network.

URSF, in turn, is a model where nodes reject blocks that attempt to adopt a specific update, functioning as resistance against proposed changes.

• Advantages: UASF returns decision-making power to node operators, ensuring that changes do not depend solely on miners.

• Disadvantages: Both UASF and URSF can generate network splits, especially in cases of strong opposition among different stakeholders.

An example of UASF was the activation of SegWit in 2017, where users supported activation independently of miner signaling, which ended up forcing its adoption.

BIP8 (LOT=True)

BIP8 is an evolution of BIP9, designed to prevent miners from indefinitely blocking a change desired by the majority of users and developers. BIP8 allows setting a parameter called "lockinontimeout" (LOT) as true, which means that if the update has not been fully signaled by a certain point, it is automatically activated.

• Advantages: Ensures that changes with broad support among users are not blocked by miners who wish to maintain the status quo.

• Disadvantages: Can lead to network splits if miners or other important stakeholders do not support the update.

Although BIP8 with LOT=True has not yet been used in Bitcoin, it is a proposal that can be applied in future updates if necessary.

These activation mechanisms have been essential for Bitcoin's development, allowing updates that keep the network secure and functional. Each method brings its own advantages and challenges, but all share the goal of preserving consensus and network cohesion.

---

5. Risks and Considerations in Consensus Updates

Consensus updates in Bitcoin are complex processes that involve not only technical aspects but also political, economic, and social considerations. Due to the network's decentralized nature, each change brings with it a set of risks that need to be carefully assessed. Below, we explore some of the main challenges and future scenarios, as well as the possible impacts on stakeholders.

Network Fragility with Alternative Implementations

One of the main risks associated with consensus updates is the possibility of network fragmentation when there are alternative software implementations. If an update is implemented by a significant group of nodes but rejected by others, a network split (fork) can occur. This creates two competing chains, each with a different version of the transaction history, leading to unpredictable consequences for users and investors.

Such fragmentation weakens Bitcoin because, by dividing hashing power (computing) and coin value, it reduces network security and investor confidence. A notable example of this risk was the fork that gave rise to Bitcoin Cash in 2017 when disagreements over block size resulted in a new chain and a new asset.

Chain Splits and Impact on Stakeholders

Chain splits are a significant risk in update processes, especially in hard forks. During a hard fork, the network is split into two separate chains, each with its own set of rules. This results in the creation of a new coin and leaves users with duplicated assets on both chains. While this may seem advantageous, in the long run, these splits weaken the network and create uncertainties for investors.

Each group of stakeholders reacts differently to a chain split:

• Institutional Investors and ETFs: Face regulatory and compliance challenges because many of these assets are managed under strict regulations. The creation of a new coin requires decisions to be made quickly to avoid potential losses, which may be hampered by regulatory constraints.

• Miners: May be incentivized to shift their computing power to the chain that offers higher profitability, which can weaken one of the networks.

• Economic Nodes: Such as major exchanges and custody providers, have to quickly choose which chain to support, influencing the perceived value of each network.

Such divisions can generate uncertainties and loss of value, especially for institutional investors and those who use Bitcoin as a store of value.

Regulatory Impacts and Institutional Investors

With the growing presence of institutional investors in Bitcoin, consensus changes face new compliance challenges. Bitcoin ETFs, for example, are required to follow strict rules about which assets they can include and how chain split events should be handled. The creation of a new asset or migration to a new chain can complicate these processes, creating pressure for large financial players to quickly choose a chain, affecting the stability of consensus.

Moreover, decisions regarding forks can influence the Bitcoin futures and derivatives market, affecting perception and adoption by new investors. Therefore, the need to avoid splits and maintain cohesion is crucial to attract and preserve the confidence of these investors.

Security Considerations in Soft Forks and Hard Forks

While soft forks are generally preferred in Bitcoin for their backward compatibility, they are not without risks. Soft forks can create different classes of nodes on the network (updated and non-updated), which increases operational complexity and can ultimately weaken consensus cohesion. In a network scenario with fragmentation of node classes, Bitcoin's security can be affected, as some nodes may lose part of the visibility over updated transactions or rules.

In hard forks, the security risk is even more evident because all nodes need to adopt the new update to avoid network division. Experience shows that abrupt changes can create temporary vulnerabilities, in which malicious agents try to exploit the transition to attack the network.

Bounty Claim Risks and Attack Scenarios

Another risk in consensus updates are so-called "bounty claims"—accumulated rewards that can be obtained if an attacker manages to split or deceive a part of the network. In a conflict scenario, a group of miners or nodes could be incentivized to support a new update or create an alternative version of the software to benefit from these rewards.

These risks require stakeholders to carefully assess each update and the potential vulnerabilities it may introduce. The possibility of "bounty claims" adds a layer of complexity to consensus because each interest group may see a financial opportunity in a change that, in the long term, may harm network stability.

The risks discussed above show the complexity of consensus in Bitcoin and the importance of approaching it gradually and deliberately. Updates need to consider not only technical aspects but also economic and social implications, in order to preserve Bitcoin's integrity and maintain trust among stakeholders.

---

6. Recommendations for the Consensus Process in Bitcoin

To ensure that protocol changes in Bitcoin are implemented safely and with broad support, it is essential that all stakeholders adopt a careful and coordinated approach. Here are strategic recommendations for evaluating, supporting, or rejecting consensus updates, considering the risks and challenges discussed earlier, along with best practices for successful implementation.

1. Careful Evaluation of Proposal Maturity

Stakeholders should rigorously assess the maturity level of a proposal before supporting its implementation. Updates that are still experimental or lack a robust technical foundation can expose the network to unnecessary risks. Ideally, change proposals should go through an extensive testing phase, have security audits, and receive review and feedback from various developers and experts.

2. Extensive Testing in Secure and Compatible Networks

Before an update is activated on the mainnet, it is essential to test it on networks like testnet and signet, and whenever possible, on other compatible networks that offer a safe and controlled environment to identify potential issues. Testing on networks like Litecoin was fundamental for the safe launch of innovations like SegWit and the Lightning Network, allowing functionalities to be validated on a lower-impact network before being implemented on Bitcoin.

The Liquid Network, developed by Blockstream, also plays an important role as an experimental network for new proposals, such as OP_CAT. By adopting these testing environments, stakeholders can mitigate risks and ensure that the update is reliable and secure before being adopted by the main network.

3. Importance of Stakeholder Engagement

The success of a consensus update strongly depends on the active participation of all stakeholders. This includes economic nodes, miners, protocol developers, investors, and end users. Lack of participation can lead to inadequate decisions or even future network splits, which would compromise Bitcoin's security and stability.

4. Key Questions for Evaluating Consensus Proposals

To assist in decision-making, each group of stakeholders should consider some key questions before supporting a consensus change:

• Does the proposal offer tangible benefits for Bitcoin's security, scalability, or usability?
• Does it maintain backward compatibility or introduce the risk of network split?
• Are the implementation requirements clear and feasible for each group involved?
• Are there clear and aligned incentives for all stakeholder groups to accept the change?

5. Coordination and Timing in Implementations

Timing is crucial. Updates with short activation windows can force a split because not all nodes and miners can update simultaneously. Changes should be planned with ample deadlines to allow all stakeholders to adjust their systems, avoiding surprises that could lead to fragmentation.

Mechanisms like soft forks are generally preferable to hard forks because they allow a smoother transition. Opting for backward-compatible updates when possible facilitates the process and ensures that nodes and miners can adapt without pressure.

6. Continuous Monitoring and Re-evaluation

After an update, it's essential to monitor the network to identify problems or side effects. This continuous process helps ensure cohesion and trust among all participants, keeping Bitcoin as a secure and robust network.

These recommendations, including the use of secure networks for extensive testing, promote a collaborative and secure environment for Bitcoin's consensus process. By adopting a deliberate and strategic approach, stakeholders can preserve Bitcoin's value as a decentralized and censorship-resistant network.

---

7. Conclusion

Consensus in Bitcoin is more than a set of rules; it's the foundation that sustains the network as a decentralized, secure, and reliable system. Unlike centralized systems, where decisions can be made quickly, Bitcoin requires a much more deliberate and cooperative approach, where the interests of miners, economic nodes, developers, investors, and users must be considered and harmonized. This governance model may seem slow, but it is fundamental to preserving the resilience and trust that make Bitcoin a global store of value and censorship-resistant.

Consensus updates in Bitcoin must balance the need for innovation with the preservation of the network's core principles. The development process of a proposal needs to be detailed and rigorous, going through several testing stages, such as in testnet, signet, and compatible networks like Litecoin and Liquid Network. These networks offer safe environments for proposals to be analyzed and improved before being launched on the main network.

Each proposed change must be carefully evaluated regarding its maturity, impact, backward compatibility, and support among stakeholders. The recommended key questions and appropriate timing are critical to ensure that an update is adopted without compromising network cohesion. It's also essential that the implementation process is continuously monitored and re-evaluated, allowing adjustments as necessary and minimizing the risk of instability.

By following these guidelines, Bitcoin's stakeholders can ensure that the network continues to evolve safely and robustly, maintaining user trust and further solidifying its role as one of the most resilient and innovative digital assets in the world. Ultimately, consensus in Bitcoin is not just a technical issue but a reflection of its community and the values it represents: security, decentralization, and resilience.

---

8. Links

Whitepaper: https://github.com/bitcoin-cap/bcap

Youtube (pt-br): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rARycAibl9o&list=PL-qnhF0qlSPkfhorqsREuIu4UTbF0h4zb

@ eac63075:b4988b48

The future of physical money is at stake, and the discussion about DREX, the new digital currency planned by the Central Bank of Brazil, is gaining momentum. In a candid and intense conversation, Federal Deputy Julia Zanatta (PL/SC) discussed the challenges and risks of this digital transition, also addressing her Bill No. 3,341/2024, which aims to prevent the extinction of physical currency. This bill emerges as a direct response to legislative initiatives seeking to replace physical money with digital alternatives, limiting citizens' options and potentially compromising individual freedom. Let's delve into the main points of this conversation.

https://www.fountain.fm/episode/i5YGJ9Ors3PkqAIMvNQ0

(PT-BR version here)

What is a CBDC?

Before discussing the specifics of DREX, it’s important to understand what a CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) is. CBDCs are digital currencies issued by central banks, similar to a digital version of physical money. Unlike cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, which operate in a decentralized manner, CBDCs are centralized and regulated by the government. In other words, they are digital currencies created and controlled by the Central Bank, intended to replace physical currency.

A prominent feature of CBDCs is their programmability. This means that the government can theoretically set rules about how, where, and for what this currency can be used. This aspect enables a level of control over citizens' finances that is impossible with physical money. By programming the currency, the government could limit transactions by setting geographical or usage restrictions. In practice, money within a CBDC could be restricted to specific spending or authorized for use in a defined geographical area.

In countries like China, where citizen actions and attitudes are also monitored, a person considered to have a "low score" due to a moral or ideological violation may have their transactions limited to essential purchases, restricting their digital currency use to non-essential activities. This financial control is strengthened because, unlike physical money, digital currency cannot be exchanged anonymously.

Practical Example: The Case of DREX During the Pandemic

To illustrate how DREX could be used, an example was given by Eric Altafim, director of Banco Itaú. He suggested that, if DREX had existed during the COVID-19 pandemic, the government could have restricted the currency’s use to a 5-kilometer radius around a person’s residence, limiting their economic mobility. Another proposed use by the executive related to the Bolsa Família welfare program: the government could set up programming that only allows this benefit to be used exclusively for food purchases. Although these examples are presented as control measures for safety or organization, they demonstrate how much a CBDC could restrict citizens' freedom of choice.

To illustrate the potential for state control through a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), such as DREX, it is helpful to look at the example of China. In China, the implementation of a CBDC coincides with the country’s Social Credit System, a governmental surveillance tool that assesses citizens' and companies' behavior. Together, these technologies allow the Chinese government to monitor, reward, and, above all, punish behavior deemed inappropriate or threatening to the government.

How Does China's Social Credit System Work?

Implemented in 2014, China's Social Credit System assigns every citizen and company a "score" based on various factors, including financial behavior, criminal record, social interactions, and even online activities. This score determines the benefits or penalties each individual receives and can affect everything from public transport access to obtaining loans and enrolling in elite schools for their children. Citizens with low scores may face various sanctions, including travel restrictions, fines, and difficulty in securing loans.

With the adoption of the CBDC — or “digital yuan” — the Chinese government now has a new tool to closely monitor citizens' financial transactions, facilitating the application of Social Credit System penalties. China’s CBDC is a programmable digital currency, which means that the government can restrict how, when, and where the money can be spent. Through this level of control, digital currency becomes a powerful mechanism for influencing citizens' behavior.

Imagine, for instance, a citizen who repeatedly posts critical remarks about the government on social media or participates in protests. If the Social Credit System assigns this citizen a low score, the Chinese government could, through the CBDC, restrict their money usage in certain areas or sectors. For example, they could be prevented from buying tickets to travel to other regions, prohibited from purchasing certain consumer goods, or even restricted to making transactions only at stores near their home.

Another example of how the government can use the CBDC to enforce the Social Credit System is by monitoring purchases of products such as alcohol or luxury items. If a citizen uses the CBDC to spend more than the government deems reasonable on such products, this could negatively impact their social score, resulting in additional penalties such as future purchase restrictions or a lowered rating that impacts their personal and professional lives.

In China, this kind of control has already been demonstrated in several cases. Citizens added to Social Credit System “blacklists” have seen their spending and investment capacity severely limited. The combination of digital currency and social scores thus creates a sophisticated and invasive surveillance system, through which the Chinese government controls important aspects of citizens’ financial lives and individual freedoms.

Deputy Julia Zanatta views these examples with great concern. She argues that if the state has full control over digital money, citizens will be exposed to a level of economic control and surveillance never seen before. In a democracy, this control poses a risk, but in an authoritarian regime, it could be used as a powerful tool of repression.

DREX and Bill No. 3,341/2024

Julia Zanatta became aware of a bill by a Workers' Party (PT) deputy (Bill 4068/2020 by Deputy Reginaldo Lopes - PT/MG) that proposes the extinction of physical money within five years, aiming for a complete transition to DREX, the digital currency developed by the Central Bank of Brazil. Concerned about the impact of this measure, Julia drafted her bill, PL No. 3,341/2024, which prohibits the elimination of physical money, ensuring citizens the right to choose physical currency.

“The more I read about DREX, the less I want its implementation,” says the deputy. DREX is a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), similar to other state digital currencies worldwide, but which, according to Julia, carries extreme control risks. She points out that with DREX, the State could closely monitor each citizen’s transactions, eliminating anonymity and potentially restricting freedom of choice. This control would lie in the hands of the Central Bank, which could, in a crisis or government change, “freeze balances or even delete funds directly from user accounts.”

Risks and Individual Freedom

Julia raises concerns about potential abuses of power that complete digitalization could allow. In a democracy, state control over personal finances raises serious questions, and EddieOz warns of an even more problematic future. “Today we are in a democracy, but tomorrow, with a government transition, we don't know if this kind of power will be used properly or abused,” he states. In other words, DREX gives the State the ability to restrict or condition the use of money, opening the door to unprecedented financial surveillance.

EddieOz cites Nigeria as an example, where a CBDC was implemented, and the government imposed severe restrictions on the use of physical money to encourage the use of digital currency, leading to protests and clashes in the country. In practice, the poorest and unbanked — those without regular access to banking services — were harshly affected, as without physical money, many cannot conduct basic transactions. Julia highlights that in Brazil, this situation would be even more severe, given the large number of unbanked individuals and the extent of rural areas where access to technology is limited.

The Relationship Between DREX and Pix

The digital transition has already begun with Pix, which revolutionized instant transfers and payments in Brazil. However, Julia points out that Pix, though popular, is a citizen’s choice, while DREX tends to eliminate that choice. The deputy expresses concern about new rules suggested for Pix, such as daily transaction limits of a thousand reais, justified as anti-fraud measures but which, in her view, represent additional control and a profit opportunity for banks. “How many more rules will banks create to profit from us?” asks Julia, noting that DREX could further enhance control over personal finances.

International Precedents and Resistance to CBDC

The deputy also cites examples from other countries resisting the idea of a centralized digital currency. In the United States, states like New Hampshire have passed laws to prevent the advance of CBDCs, and leaders such as Donald Trump have opposed creating a national digital currency. Trump, addressing the topic, uses a justification similar to Julia’s: in a digitalized system, “with one click, your money could disappear.” She agrees with the warning, emphasizing the control risk that a CBDC represents, especially for countries with disadvantaged populations.

Besides the United States, Canada, Colombia, and Australia have also suspended studies on digital currencies, citing the need for further discussions on population impacts. However, in Brazil, the debate on DREX is still limited, with few parliamentarians and political leaders openly discussing the topic. According to Julia, only she and one or two deputies are truly trying to bring this discussion to the Chamber, making DREX’s advance even more concerning.

Bill No. 3,341/2024 and Popular Pressure

For Julia, her bill is a first step. Although she acknowledges that ideally, it would prevent DREX's implementation entirely, PL 3341/2024 is a measure to ensure citizens' choice to use physical money, preserving a form of individual freedom. “If the future means control, I prefer to live in the past,” Julia asserts, reinforcing that the fight for freedom is at the heart of her bill.

However, the deputy emphasizes that none of this will be possible without popular mobilization. According to her, popular pressure is crucial for other deputies to take notice and support PL 3341. “I am only one deputy, and we need the public’s support to raise the project’s visibility,” she explains, encouraging the public to press other parliamentarians and ask them to “pay attention to PL 3341 and the project that prohibits the end of physical money.” The deputy believes that with a strong awareness and pressure movement, it is possible to advance the debate and ensure Brazilians’ financial freedom.

What’s at Stake?

Julia Zanatta leaves no doubt: DREX represents a profound shift in how money will be used and controlled in Brazil. More than a simple modernization of the financial system, the Central Bank’s CBDC sets precedents for an unprecedented level of citizen surveillance and control in the country. For the deputy, this transition needs to be debated broadly and transparently, and it’s up to the Brazilian people to defend their rights and demand that the National Congress discuss these changes responsibly.

The deputy also emphasizes that, regardless of political or partisan views, this issue affects all Brazilians. “This agenda is something that will affect everyone. We need to be united to ensure people understand the gravity of what could happen.” Julia believes that by sharing information and generating open debate, it is possible to prevent Brazil from following the path of countries that have already implemented a digital currency in an authoritarian way.

A Call to Action

The future of physical money in Brazil is at risk. For those who share Deputy Julia Zanatta’s concerns, the time to act is now. Mobilize, get informed, and press your representatives. PL 3341/2024 is an opportunity to ensure that Brazilian citizens have a choice in how to use their money, without excessive state interference or surveillance.

In the end, as the deputy puts it, the central issue is freedom. “My fear is that this project will pass, and people won’t even understand what is happening.” Therefore, may every citizen at least have the chance to understand what’s at stake and make their voice heard in defense of a Brazil where individual freedom and privacy are respected values.

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Imagine sending a private message to a friend, only to learn that authorities could be scanning its contents without your knowledge. This isn't a scene from a dystopian novel but a potential reality under the European Union's proposed "Chat Control" measures. Aimed at combating serious crimes like child exploitation and terrorism, these proposals could significantly impact the privacy of everyday internet users. As encrypted messaging services become the norm for personal and professional communication, understanding Chat Control is essential. This article delves into what Chat Control entails, why it's being considered, and how it could affect your right to private communication.

https://www.fountain.fm/episode/coOFsst7r7mO1EP1kSzV

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0IZ6kMExfxFm4FHg5DAWT8?si=e139033865e045de

Sections:

• Introduction
• What Is Chat Control?
• Why Is the EU Pushing for Chat Control?
• The Privacy Concerns and Risks
• The Technical Debate: Encryption and Backdoors
• Global Reactions and the Debate in Europe
• Possible Consequences for Messaging Services
• What Happens Next? The Future of Chat Control
• Conclusion

---

What Is Chat Control?

"Chat Control" refers to a set of proposed measures by the European Union aimed at monitoring and scanning private communications on messaging platforms. The primary goal is to detect and prevent the spread of illegal content, such as child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and to combat terrorism. While the intention is to enhance security and protect vulnerable populations, these proposals have raised significant privacy concerns.

At its core, Chat Control would require messaging services to implement automated scanning technologies that can analyze the content of messages—even those that are end-to-end encrypted. This means that the private messages you send to friends, family, or colleagues could be subject to inspection by algorithms designed to detect prohibited content.

Origins of the Proposal

The initiative for Chat Control emerged from the EU's desire to strengthen its digital security infrastructure. High-profile cases of online abuse and the use of encrypted platforms by criminal organizations have prompted lawmakers to consider more invasive surveillance tactics. The European Commission has been exploring legislation that would make it mandatory for service providers to monitor communications on their platforms.

How Messaging Services Work

Most modern messaging apps, like Signal, Session, SimpleX, Veilid, Protonmail and Tutanota (among others), use end-to-end encryption (E2EE). This encryption ensures that only the sender and the recipient can read the messages being exchanged. Not even the service providers can access the content. This level of security is crucial for maintaining privacy in digital communications, protecting users from hackers, identity thieves, and other malicious actors.

Key Elements of Chat Control

• Automated Content Scanning: Service providers would use algorithms to scan messages for illegal content.
• Circumvention of Encryption: To scan encrypted messages, providers might need to alter their encryption methods, potentially weakening security.
• Mandatory Reporting: If illegal content is detected, providers would be required to report it to authorities.
• Broad Applicability: The measures could apply to all messaging services operating within the EU, affecting both European companies and international platforms.

Why It Matters

Understanding Chat Control is essential because it represents a significant shift in how digital privacy is handled. While combating illegal activities online is crucial, the methods proposed could set a precedent for mass surveillance and the erosion of privacy rights. Everyday users who rely on encrypted messaging for personal and professional communication might find their conversations are no longer as private as they once thought.

---

Why Is the EU Pushing for Chat Control?

The European Union's push for Chat Control stems from a pressing concern to protect its citizens, particularly children, from online exploitation and criminal activities. With the digital landscape becoming increasingly integral to daily life, the EU aims to strengthen its ability to combat serious crimes facilitated through online platforms.

Protecting Children and Preventing Crime

One of the primary motivations behind Chat Control is the prevention of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) circulating on the internet. Law enforcement agencies have reported a significant increase in the sharing of illegal content through private messaging services. By implementing Chat Control, the EU believes it can more effectively identify and stop perpetrators, rescue victims, and deter future crimes.

Terrorism is another critical concern. Encrypted messaging apps can be used by terrorist groups to plan and coordinate attacks without detection. The EU argues that accessing these communications could be vital in preventing such threats and ensuring public safety.

Legal Context and Legislative Drivers

The push for Chat Control is rooted in several legislative initiatives:

• ePrivacy Directive: This directive regulates the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in electronic communications. The EU is considering amendments that would allow for the scanning of private messages under specific circumstances.

• Temporary Derogation: In 2021, the EU adopted a temporary regulation permitting voluntary detection of CSAM by communication services. The current proposals aim to make such measures mandatory and more comprehensive.

• Regulation Proposals: The European Commission has proposed regulations that would require service providers to detect, report, and remove illegal content proactively. This would include the use of technologies to scan private communications.

Balancing Security and Privacy

EU officials argue that the proposed measures are a necessary response to evolving digital threats. They emphasize the importance of staying ahead of criminals who exploit technology to harm others. By implementing Chat Control, they believe law enforcement can be more effective without entirely dismantling privacy protections.

However, the EU also acknowledges the need to balance security with fundamental rights. The proposals include provisions intended to limit the scope of surveillance, such as:

• Targeted Scanning: Focusing on specific threats rather than broad, indiscriminate monitoring.

• Judicial Oversight: Requiring court orders or oversight for accessing private communications.

• Data Protection Safeguards: Implementing measures to ensure that data collected is handled securely and deleted when no longer needed.

The Urgency Behind the Push

High-profile cases of online abuse and terrorism have heightened the sense of urgency among EU policymakers. Reports of increasing online grooming and the widespread distribution of illegal content have prompted calls for immediate action. The EU posits that without measures like Chat Control, these problems will continue to escalate unchecked.

Criticism and Controversy

Despite the stated intentions, the push for Chat Control has been met with significant criticism. Opponents argue that the measures could be ineffective against savvy criminals who can find alternative ways to communicate. There is also concern that such surveillance could be misused or extended beyond its original purpose.

---

The Privacy Concerns and Risks

While the intentions behind Chat Control focus on enhancing security and protecting vulnerable groups, the proposed measures raise significant privacy concerns. Critics argue that implementing such surveillance could infringe on fundamental rights and set a dangerous precedent for mass monitoring of private communications.

Infringement on Privacy Rights

At the heart of the debate is the right to privacy. By scanning private messages, even with automated tools, the confidentiality of personal communications is compromised. Users may no longer feel secure sharing sensitive information, fearing that their messages could be intercepted or misinterpreted by algorithms.

Erosion of End-to-End Encryption

End-to-end encryption (E2EE) is a cornerstone of digital security, ensuring that only the sender and recipient can read the messages exchanged. Chat Control could necessitate the introduction of "backdoors" or weaken encryption protocols, making it easier for unauthorized parties to access private data. This not only affects individual privacy but also exposes communications to potential cyber threats.

Concerns from Privacy Advocates

Organizations like Signal and Tutanota, which offer encrypted messaging services, have voiced strong opposition to Chat Control. They warn that undermining encryption could have far-reaching consequences:

• Security Risks: Weakening encryption makes systems more vulnerable to hacking, espionage, and cybercrime.
• Global Implications: Changes in EU regulations could influence policies worldwide, leading to a broader erosion of digital privacy.
• Ineffectiveness Against Crime: Determined criminals might resort to other, less detectable means of communication, rendering the measures ineffective while still compromising the privacy of law-abiding citizens.

Potential for Government Overreach

There is a fear that Chat Control could lead to increased surveillance beyond its original scope. Once the infrastructure for scanning private messages is in place, it could be repurposed or expanded to monitor other types of content, stifling free expression and dissent.

Real-World Implications for Users

• False Positives: Automated scanning technologies are not infallible and could mistakenly flag innocent content, leading to unwarranted scrutiny or legal consequences for users.
• Chilling Effect: Knowing that messages could be monitored might discourage people from expressing themselves freely, impacting personal relationships and societal discourse.
• Data Misuse: Collected data could be vulnerable to leaks or misuse, compromising personal and sensitive information.

Legal and Ethical Concerns

Privacy advocates also highlight potential conflicts with existing laws and ethical standards:

• Violation of Fundamental Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights and other international agreements protect the right to privacy and freedom of expression.
• Questionable Effectiveness: The ethical justification for such invasive measures is challenged if they do not significantly improve safety or if they disproportionately impact innocent users.

Opposition from Member States and Organizations

Countries like Germany and organizations such as the European Digital Rights (EDRi) have expressed opposition to Chat Control. They emphasize the need to protect digital privacy and caution against hasty legislation that could have unintended consequences.

---

The Technical Debate: Encryption and Backdoors

The discussion around Chat Control inevitably leads to a complex technical debate centered on encryption and the potential introduction of backdoors into secure communication systems. Understanding these concepts is crucial to grasping the full implications of the proposed measures.

What Is End-to-End Encryption (E2EE)?

End-to-end encryption is a method of secure communication that prevents third parties from accessing data while it's transferred from one end system to another. In simpler terms, only the sender and the recipient can read the messages. Even the service providers operating the messaging platforms cannot decrypt the content.

• Security Assurance: E2EE ensures that sensitive information—be it personal messages, financial details, or confidential business communications—remains private.
• Widespread Use: Popular messaging apps like Signal, Session, SimpleX, Veilid, Protonmail and Tutanota (among others) rely on E2EE to protect user data.

How Chat Control Affects Encryption

Implementing Chat Control as proposed would require messaging services to scan the content of messages for illegal material. To do this on encrypted platforms, providers might have to:

• Introduce Backdoors: Create a means for third parties (including the service provider or authorities) to access encrypted messages.
• Client-Side Scanning: Install software on users' devices that scans messages before they are encrypted and sent, effectively bypassing E2EE.

The Risks of Weakening Encryption

1. Compromised Security for All Users

Introducing backdoors or client-side scanning tools can create vulnerabilities:

• Exploitable Gaps: If a backdoor exists, malicious actors might find and exploit it, leading to data breaches.
• Universal Impact: Weakening encryption doesn't just affect targeted individuals; it potentially exposes all users to increased risk.

2. Undermining Trust in Digital Services

• User Confidence: Knowing that private communications could be accessed might deter people from using digital services or push them toward unregulated platforms.
• Business Implications: Companies relying on secure communications might face increased risks, affecting economic activities.

3. Ineffectiveness Against Skilled Adversaries

• Alternative Methods: Criminals might shift to other encrypted channels or develop new ways to avoid detection.
• False Sense of Security: Weakening encryption could give the impression of increased safety while adversaries adapt and continue their activities undetected.

Signal’s Response and Stance

Signal, a leading encrypted messaging service, has been vocal in its opposition to the EU's proposals:

• Refusal to Weaken Encryption: Signal's CEO Meredith Whittaker has stated that the company would rather cease operations in the EU than compromise its encryption standards.
• Advocacy for Privacy: Signal emphasizes that strong encryption is essential for protecting human rights and freedoms in the digital age.

Understanding Backdoors

A "backdoor" in encryption is an intentional weakness inserted into a system to allow authorized access to encrypted data. While intended for legitimate use by authorities, backdoors pose several problems:

• Security Vulnerabilities: They can be discovered and exploited by unauthorized parties, including hackers and foreign governments.
• Ethical Concerns: The existence of backdoors raises questions about consent and the extent to which governments should be able to access private communications.

The Slippery Slope Argument

Privacy advocates warn that introducing backdoors or mandatory scanning sets a precedent:

• Expanded Surveillance: Once in place, these measures could be extended to monitor other types of content beyond the original scope.
• Erosion of Rights: Gradual acceptance of surveillance can lead to a significant reduction in personal freedoms over time.

Potential Technological Alternatives

Some suggest that it's possible to fight illegal content without undermining encryption:

• Metadata Analysis: Focusing on patterns of communication rather than content.
• Enhanced Reporting Mechanisms: Encouraging users to report illegal content voluntarily.
• Investing in Law Enforcement Capabilities: Strengthening traditional investigative methods without compromising digital security.

The technical community largely agrees that weakening encryption is not the solution:

• Consensus on Security: Strong encryption is essential for the safety and privacy of all internet users.
• Call for Dialogue: Technologists and privacy experts advocate for collaborative approaches that address security concerns without sacrificing fundamental rights.

---

Global Reactions and the Debate in Europe

The proposal for Chat Control has ignited a heated debate across Europe and beyond, with various stakeholders weighing in on the potential implications for privacy, security, and fundamental rights. The reactions are mixed, reflecting differing national perspectives, political priorities, and societal values.

Support for Chat Control

Some EU member states and officials support the initiative, emphasizing the need for robust measures to combat online crime and protect citizens, especially children. They argue that:

• Enhanced Security: Mandatory scanning can help law enforcement agencies detect and prevent serious crimes.
• Responsibility of Service Providers: Companies offering communication services should play an active role in preventing their platforms from being used for illegal activities.
• Public Safety Priorities: The protection of vulnerable populations justifies the implementation of such measures, even if it means compromising some aspects of privacy.

Opposition within the EU

Several countries and organizations have voiced strong opposition to Chat Control, citing concerns over privacy rights and the potential for government overreach.

Germany

• Stance: Germany has been one of the most vocal opponents of the proposed measures.
• Reasons:
• Constitutional Concerns: The German government argues that Chat Control could violate constitutional protections of privacy and confidentiality of communications.
• Security Risks: Weakening encryption is seen as a threat to cybersecurity.
• Legal Challenges: Potential conflicts with national laws protecting personal data and communication secrecy.

Netherlands

• Recent Developments: The Dutch government decided against supporting Chat Control, emphasizing the importance of encryption for security and privacy.
• Arguments:
• Effectiveness Doubts: Skepticism about the actual effectiveness of the measures in combating crime.
• Negative Impact on Privacy: Concerns about mass surveillance and the infringement of citizens' rights.

Table reference: Patrick Breyer - Chat Control in 23 September 2024

Privacy Advocacy Groups

European Digital Rights (EDRi)

• Role: A network of civil and human rights organizations working to defend rights and freedoms in the digital environment.
• Position:
• Strong Opposition: EDRi argues that Chat Control is incompatible with fundamental rights.
• Awareness Campaigns: Engaging in public campaigns to inform citizens about the potential risks.
• Policy Engagement: Lobbying policymakers to consider alternative approaches that respect privacy.

Politicians and Activists

Patrick Breyer

• Background: A Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from Germany, representing the Pirate Party.
• Actions:
• Advocacy: Actively campaigning against Chat Control through speeches, articles, and legislative efforts.
• Public Outreach: Using social media and public events to raise awareness.
• Legal Expertise: Highlighting the legal inconsistencies and potential violations of EU law.

Global Reactions

International Organizations

• Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International: These organizations have expressed concerns about the implications for human rights, urging the EU to reconsider.

Technology Companies

• Global Tech Firms: Companies like Apple and Microsoft are monitoring the situation, as EU regulations could affect their operations and user trust.
• Industry Associations: Groups representing tech companies have issued statements highlighting the risks to innovation and competitiveness.

The Broader Debate

The controversy over Chat Control reflects a broader struggle between security interests and privacy rights in the digital age. Key points in the debate include:

• Legal Precedents: How the EU's decision might influence laws and regulations in other countries.
• Digital Sovereignty: The desire of nations to control digital spaces within their borders.
• Civil Liberties: The importance of protecting freedoms in the face of technological advancements.

Public Opinion

• Diverse Views: Surveys and public forums show a range of opinions, with some citizens prioritizing security and others valuing privacy above all.
• Awareness Levels: Many people are still unaware of the potential changes, highlighting the need for public education on the issue.

The EU is at a crossroads, facing the challenge of addressing legitimate security concerns without undermining the fundamental rights that are central to its values. The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for the future of digital privacy and the balance between security and freedom in society.

---

Possible Consequences for Messaging Services

The implementation of Chat Control could have significant implications for messaging services operating within the European Union. Both large platforms and smaller providers might need to adapt their technologies and policies to comply with the new regulations, potentially altering the landscape of digital communication.

Impact on Encrypted Messaging Services

Signal and Similar Platforms

• Compliance Challenges: Encrypted messaging services like Signal rely on end-to-end encryption to secure user communications. Complying with Chat Control could force them to weaken their encryption protocols or implement client-side scanning, conflicting with their core privacy principles.

• Operational Decisions: Some platforms may choose to limit their services in the EU or cease operations altogether rather than compromise on encryption. Signal, for instance, has indicated that it would prefer to withdraw from European markets than undermine its security features.

Potential Blocking or Limiting of Services

• Regulatory Enforcement: Messaging services that do not comply with Chat Control regulations could face fines, legal action, or even be blocked within the EU.

• Access Restrictions: Users in Europe might find certain services unavailable or limited in functionality if providers decide not to meet the regulatory requirements.

Effects on Smaller Providers

• Resource Constraints: Smaller messaging services and startups may lack the resources to implement the required scanning technologies, leading to increased operational costs or forcing them out of the market.

• Innovation Stifling: The added regulatory burden could deter new entrants, reducing competition and innovation in the messaging service sector.

User Experience and Trust

• Privacy Concerns: Users may lose trust in messaging platforms if they know their communications are subject to scanning, leading to a decline in user engagement.

• Migration to Unregulated Platforms: There is a risk that users might shift to less secure or unregulated services, including those operated outside the EU or on the dark web, potentially exposing them to greater risks.

Technical and Security Implications

• Increased Vulnerabilities: Modifying encryption protocols to comply with Chat Control could introduce security flaws, making platforms more susceptible to hacking and data breaches.

• Global Security Risks: Changes made to accommodate EU regulations might affect the global user base of these services, extending security risks beyond European borders.

Impact on Businesses and Professional Communications

• Confidentiality Issues: Businesses that rely on secure messaging for sensitive communications may face challenges in ensuring confidentiality, affecting sectors like finance, healthcare, and legal services.

• Compliance Complexity: Companies operating internationally will need to navigate a complex landscape of differing regulations, increasing administrative burdens.

Economic Consequences

• Market Fragmentation: Divergent regulations could lead to a fragmented market, with different versions of services for different regions.

• Loss of Revenue: Messaging services might experience reduced revenue due to decreased user trust and engagement or the costs associated with compliance.

Responses from Service Providers

• Legal Challenges: Companies might pursue legal action against the regulations, citing conflicts with privacy laws and user rights.

• Policy Advocacy: Service providers may increase lobbying efforts to influence policy decisions and promote alternatives to Chat Control.

Possible Adaptations

• Technological Innovation: Some providers might invest in developing new technologies that can detect illegal content without compromising encryption, though the feasibility remains uncertain.

• Transparency Measures: To maintain user trust, companies might enhance transparency about how data is handled and what measures are in place to protect privacy.

The potential consequences of Chat Control for messaging services are profound, affecting not only the companies that provide these services but also the users who rely on them daily. The balance between complying with legal requirements and maintaining user privacy and security presents a significant challenge that could reshape the digital communication landscape.

---

What Happens Next? The Future of Chat Control

The future of Chat Control remains uncertain as the debate continues among EU member states, policymakers, technology companies, and civil society organizations. Several factors will influence the outcome of this contentious proposal, each carrying significant implications for digital privacy, security, and the regulatory environment within the European Union.

Current Status of Legislation

• Ongoing Negotiations: The proposed Chat Control measures are still under discussion within the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Amendments and revisions are being considered in response to the feedback from various stakeholders.

• Timeline: While there is no fixed date for the final decision, the EU aims to reach a consensus to implement effective measures against online crime without undue delay.

Key Influencing Factors

1. Legal Challenges and Compliance with EU Law

• Fundamental Rights Assessment: The proposals must be evaluated against the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, ensuring that any measures comply with rights to privacy, data protection, and freedom of expression.

• Court Scrutiny: Potential legal challenges could arise, leading to scrutiny by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which may impact the feasibility and legality of Chat Control.

2. Technological Feasibility

• Development of Privacy-Preserving Technologies: Research into methods that can detect illegal content without compromising encryption is ongoing. Advances in this area could provide alternative solutions acceptable to both privacy advocates and security agencies.

• Implementation Challenges: The practical aspects of deploying scanning technologies across various platforms and services remain complex, and technical hurdles could delay or alter the proposed measures.

3. Political Dynamics

• Member State Positions: The differing stances of EU countries, such as Germany's opposition, play a significant role in shaping the final outcome. Consensus among member states is crucial for adopting EU-wide regulations.

• Public Opinion and Advocacy: Growing awareness and activism around digital privacy can influence policymakers. Public campaigns and lobbying efforts may sway decisions in favor of stronger privacy protections.

4. Industry Responses

• Negotiations with Service Providers: Ongoing dialogues between EU authorities and technology companies may lead to compromises or collaborative efforts to address concerns without fully implementing Chat Control as initially proposed.

• Potential for Self-Regulation: Messaging services might propose self-regulatory measures to combat illegal content, aiming to demonstrate effectiveness without the need for mandatory scanning.

Possible Scenarios

Optimistic Outcome:

• Balanced Regulation: A revised proposal emerges that effectively addresses security concerns while upholding strong encryption and privacy rights, possibly through innovative technologies or targeted measures with robust oversight.

Pessimistic Outcome:

• Adoption of Strict Measures: Chat Control is implemented as initially proposed, leading to weakened encryption, reduced privacy, and potential withdrawal of services like Signal from the EU market.

Middle Ground:

• Incremental Implementation: Partial measures are adopted, focusing on voluntary cooperation with service providers and emphasizing transparency and user consent, with ongoing evaluations to assess effectiveness and impact.

How to Stay Informed and Protect Your Privacy

• Follow Reputable Sources: Keep up with news from reliable outlets, official EU communications, and statements from privacy organizations to stay informed about developments.

• Engage in the Dialogue: Participate in public consultations, sign petitions, or contact representatives to express your views on Chat Control and digital privacy.

• Utilize Secure Practices: Regardless of legislative outcomes, adopting good digital hygiene—such as using strong passwords and being cautious with personal information—can enhance your online security.

The Global Perspective

• International Implications: The EU's decision may influence global policies on encryption and surveillance, setting precedents that other countries might follow or react against.

• Collaboration Opportunities: International cooperation on developing solutions that protect both security and privacy could emerge, fostering a more unified approach to addressing online threats.

Looking Ahead

The future of Chat Control is a critical issue that underscores the challenges of governing in the digital age. Balancing the need for security with the protection of fundamental rights is a complex task that requires careful consideration, open dialogue, and collaboration among all stakeholders.

As the situation evolves, staying informed and engaged is essential. The decisions made in the coming months will shape the digital landscape for years to come, affecting how we communicate, conduct business, and exercise our rights in an increasingly connected world.

---

Conclusion

The debate over Chat Control highlights a fundamental challenge in our increasingly digital world: how to protect society from genuine threats without eroding the very rights and freedoms that define it. While the intention to safeguard children and prevent crime is undeniably important, the means of achieving this through intrusive surveillance measures raise critical concerns.

Privacy is not just a personal preference but a cornerstone of democratic societies. End-to-end encryption has become an essential tool for ensuring that our personal conversations, professional communications, and sensitive data remain secure from unwanted intrusion. Weakening these protections could expose individuals and organizations to risks that far outweigh the proposed benefits.

The potential consequences of implementing Chat Control are far-reaching:

• Erosion of Trust: Users may lose confidence in digital platforms, impacting how we communicate and conduct business online.
• Security Vulnerabilities: Introducing backdoors or weakening encryption can make systems more susceptible to cyberattacks.
• Stifling Innovation: Regulatory burdens may hinder technological advancement and competitiveness in the tech industry.
• Global Implications: The EU's decisions could set precedents that influence digital policies worldwide, for better or worse.

As citizens, it's crucial to stay informed about these developments. Engage in conversations, reach out to your representatives, and advocate for solutions that respect both security needs and fundamental rights. Technology and policy can evolve together to address challenges without compromising core values.

The future of Chat Control is not yet decided, and public input can make a significant difference. By promoting open dialogue, supporting privacy-preserving innovations, and emphasizing the importance of human rights in legislation, we can work towards a digital landscape that is both safe and free.

In a world where digital communication is integral to daily life, striking the right balance between security and privacy is more important than ever. The choices made today will shape the digital environment for generations to come, determining not just how we communicate, but how we live and interact in an interconnected world.

---

Thank you for reading this article. We hope it has provided you with a clear understanding of Chat Control and its potential impact on your privacy and digital rights. Stay informed, stay engaged, and let's work together towards a secure and open digital future.

Read more:

• https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/
• https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/new-eu-push-for-chat-control-will-messenger-services-be-blocked-in-europe/
• https://edri.org/our-work/dutch-decision-puts-brakes-on-chat-control/
• https://signal.org/blog/pdfs/ndss-keynote.pdf
• https://tuta.com/blog/germany-stop-chat-control
• https://cointelegraph.com/news/signal-president-slams-revised-eu-encryption-proposal
• https://mullvad.net/en/why-privacy-matters