@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Die zwei mächtigsten Krieger sind Geduld und Zeit. \ Leo Tolstoi

Zum Wohle unserer Gesundheit, unserer Leistungsfähigkeit und letztlich unseres Glücks ist es wichtig, die eigene Energie bewusst zu pflegen. Das gilt umso mehr für an gesellschaftlichen Themen interessierte, selbstbewusste und kritisch denkende Menschen. Denn für deren Wahrnehmung und Wohlbefinden waren und sind die rasanten, krisen- und propagandagefüllten letzten Jahre in Absurdistan eine harte Probe.

Nur wer regelmäßig Kraft tankt und Wege findet, mit den Herausforderungen umzugehen, kann eine solche Tortur überstehen, emotionale Erschöpfung vermeiden und trotz allem zufrieden sein. Dazu müssen wir erkunden, was uns Energie gibt und was sie uns raubt. Durch Selbstreflexion und Achtsamkeit finden wir sicher Dinge, die uns erfreuen und inspirieren, und andere, die uns eher stressen und belasten.

Die eigene Energie ist eng mit unserer körperlichen und mentalen Gesundheit verbunden. Methoden zur Förderung der körperlichen Gesundheit sind gut bekannt: eine ausgewogene Ernährung, regelmäßige Bewegung sowie ausreichend Schlaf und Erholung. Bei der nicht minder wichtigen emotionalen Balance wird es schon etwas komplizierter. Stress abzubauen, die eigenen Grenzen zu kennen oder solche zum Schutz zu setzen sowie die Konzentration auf Positives und Sinnvolles wären Ansätze.

Der emotionale ist auch der Bereich, über den «Energie-Räuber» bevorzugt attackieren. Das sind zum Beispiel Dinge wie Überforderung, Perfektionismus oder mangelhafte Kommunikation. Social Media gehören ganz sicher auch dazu. Sie stehlen uns nicht nur Zeit, sondern sind höchst manipulativ und erhöhen laut einer aktuellen Studie das Risiko für psychische Probleme wie Angstzustände und Depressionen.

Geben wir negativen oder gar bösen Menschen keine Macht über uns. Das Dauerfeuer der letzten Jahre mit Krisen, Konflikten und Gefahren sollte man zwar kennen, darf sich aber davon nicht runterziehen lassen. Das Ziel derartiger konzertierter Aktionen ist vor allem, unsere innere Stabilität zu zerstören, denn dann sind wir leichter zu steuern. Aber Geduld: Selbst vermeintliche «Sonnenköniginnen» wie EU-Kommissionspräsidentin von der Leyen fallen, wenn die Zeit reif ist.

Es ist wichtig, dass wir unsere ganz eigenen Bedürfnisse und Werte erkennen. Unsere Energiequellen müssen wir identifizieren und aktiv nutzen. Dazu gehören soziale Kontakte genauso wie zum Beispiel Hobbys und Leidenschaften. Umgeben wir uns mit Sinnhaftigkeit und lassen wir uns nicht die Energie rauben!

Mein Wahlspruch ist schon lange: «Was die Menschen wirklich bewegt, ist die Kultur.» Jetzt im Frühjahr beginnt hier in Andalusien die Zeit der «Ferias», jener traditionellen Volksfeste, die vor Lebensfreude sprudeln. Konzentrieren wir uns auf die schönen Dinge und auf unsere eigenen Talente – soziale Verbundenheit wird helfen, unsere innere Kraft zu stärken und zu bewahren.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Information ohne Reflexion ist geistiger Flugsand. \ Ernst Reinhardt

Der lateinische Ausdruck «Quo vadis» als Frage nach einer Entwicklung oder Ausrichtung hat biblische Wurzeln. Er wird aber auch in unserer Alltagssprache verwendet, laut Duden meist als Ausdruck von Besorgnis oder Skepsis im Sinne von: «Wohin wird das führen?»

Der Sinn und Zweck von so mancher politischen Entscheidung erschließt sich heutzutage nicht mehr so leicht, und viele Trends können uns Sorge bereiten. Das sind einerseits sehr konkrete Themen wie die zunehmende Militarisierung und die geschichtsvergessene Kriegstreiberei in Europa, deren Feindbildpflege aktuell beim Gedenken an das Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs beschämende Formen annimmt.

Auch das hohe Gut der Schweizer Neutralität scheint immer mehr in Gefahr. Die schleichende Bewegung der Eidgenossenschaft in Richtung NATO und damit weg von einer Vermittlerposition erhält auch durch den neuen Verteidigungsminister Anschub. Martin Pfister möchte eine stärkere Einbindung in die europäische Verteidigungsarchitektur, verwechselt bei der Argumentation jedoch Ursache und Wirkung.

Das Thema Gesundheit ist als Zugpferd für Geschäfte und Kontrolle offenbar schon zuverlässig etabliert. Die hauptsächlich privat finanzierte Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) ist dabei durch ein Netzwerk von sogenannten «Collaborating Centres» sogar so weit in nationale Einrichtungen eingedrungen, dass man sich fragen kann, ob diese nicht von Genf aus gesteuert werden.

Das Schweizer Bundesamt für Gesundheit (BAG) übernimmt in dieser Funktion ebenso von der WHO definierte Aufgaben und Pflichten wie das deutsche Robert Koch-Institut (RKI). Gegen die Covid-«Impfung» für Schwangere, die das BAG empfiehlt, obwohl es fehlende wissenschaftliche Belege für deren Schutzwirkung einräumt, formiert sich im Tessin gerade Widerstand.

Unter dem Stichwort «Gesundheitssicherheit» werden uns die Bestrebungen verkauft, essenzielle Dienste mit einer biometrischen digitalen ID zu verknüpfen. Das dient dem Profit mit unseren Daten und führt im Ergebnis zum Verlust unserer demokratischen Freiheiten. Die deutsche elektronische Patientenakte (ePA) ist ein Element mit solchem Potenzial. Die Schweizer Bürger haben gerade ein Referendum gegen das revidierte E-ID-Gesetz erzwungen. In Thailand ist seit Anfang Mai für die Einreise eine «Digital Arrival Card» notwendig, die mit ihrer Gesundheitserklärung einen Impfpass «durch die Hintertür» befürchten lässt.

Der massive Blackout auf der iberischen Halbinsel hat vermehrt Fragen dazu aufgeworfen, wohin uns Klimawandel-Hysterie und «grüne» Energiepolitik führen werden. Meine Kollegin Wiltrud Schwetje ist dem nachgegangen und hat in mehreren Beiträgen darüber berichtet. Wenig überraschend führen interessante Spuren mal wieder zu internationalen Großbanken, Globalisten und zur EU-Kommission.

Zunehmend bedenklich ist aber ganz allgemein auch die manifestierte Spaltung unserer Gesellschaften. Angesichts der tiefen und sorgsam gepflegten Gräben fällt es inzwischen schwer, eine zukunftsfähige Perspektive zu erkennen. Umso begrüßenswerter sind Initiativen wie die Kölner Veranstaltungsreihe «Neue Visionen für die Zukunft». Diese möchte die Diskussionskultur reanimieren und dazu beitragen, dass Menschen wieder ohne Angst und ergebnisoffen über kontroverse Themen der Zeit sprechen.

Quo vadis – Wohin gehen wir also? Die Suche nach Orientierung in diesem vermeintlichen Chaos führt auch zur Reflexion über den eigenen Lebensweg. Das ist positiv insofern, als wir daraus Kraft schöpfen können. Ob derweil der neue Papst, dessen «Vorgänger» Petrus unsere Ausgangsfrage durch die christliche Legende zugeschrieben wird, dabei eine Rolle spielt, muss jede/r selbst wissen. Mir persönlich ist allein schon ein Führungsanspruch wie der des Petrusprimats der römisch-katholischen Kirche eher suspekt.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ 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.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Du bist recht appetitlich oben anzuschauen, \ doch unten hin die Bestie macht mir Grauen. \ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Wie wenig bekömmlich sogenannte «Ultra-Processed Foods» wie Fertiggerichte, abgepackte Snacks oder Softdrinks sind, hat kürzlich eine neue Studie untersucht. Derweil kann Fleisch auch wegen des Einsatzes antimikrobieller Mittel in der Massentierhaltung ein Problem darstellen. Internationale Bemühungen, diesen Gebrauch zu reduzieren, um die Antibiotikaresistenz bei Menschen einzudämmen, sind nun möglicherweise gefährdet.

Leider ist Politik oft mindestens genauso unappetitlich und ungesund wie diverse Lebensmittel. Die «Corona-Zeit» und ihre Auswirkungen sind ein beredtes Beispiel. Der Thüringer Landtag diskutiert gerade den Entwurf eines «Coronamaßnahmen-Unrechtsbereinigungsgesetzes» und das kanadische Gesundheitsministerium versucht, tausende Entschädigungsanträge wegen Impfnebenwirkungen mit dem Budget von 75 Millionen Dollar unter einen Hut zu bekommen. In den USA soll die Zulassung von Covid-«Impfstoffen» überdacht werden, während man sich mit China um die Herkunft des Virus streitet.

Wo Corona-Verbrecher von Medien und Justiz gedeckt werden, verfolgt man Aufklärer und Aufdecker mit aller Härte. Der Anwalt und Mitbegründer des Corona-Ausschusses Reiner Fuellmich, der seit Oktober 2023 in Untersuchungshaft sitzt, wurde letzte Woche zu drei Jahren und neun Monaten verurteilt – wegen Veruntreuung. Am Mittwoch teilte der von vielen Impfschadensprozessen bekannte Anwalt Tobias Ulbrich mit, dass er vom Staatsschutz verfolgt wird und sich daher künftig nicht mehr öffentlich äußern werde.

Von der kommenden deutschen Bundesregierung aus Wählerbetrügern, Transatlantikern, Corona-Hardlinern und Russenhassern kann unmöglich eine Verbesserung erwartet werden. Nina Warken beispielsweise, die das Ressort Gesundheit übernehmen soll, diffamierte Maßnahmenkritiker als «Coronaleugner» und forderte eine Impfpflicht, da die wundersamen Injektionen angeblich «nachweislich helfen». Laut dem designierten Außenminister Johann Wadephul wird Russland «für uns immer der Feind» bleiben. Deswegen will er die Ukraine «nicht verlieren lassen» und sieht die Bevölkerung hinter sich, solange nicht deutsche Soldaten dort sterben könnten.

Eine wichtige Personalie ist auch die des künftigen Regierungssprechers. Wenngleich Hebestreit an Arroganz schwer zu überbieten sein wird, dürfte sich die Art der Kommunikation mit Stefan Kornelius in der Sache kaum ändern. Der Politikchef der Süddeutschen Zeitung «prägte den Meinungsjournalismus der SZ» und schrieb «in dieser Rolle auch für die Titel der Tamedia». Allerdings ist, anders als noch vor zehn Jahren, die Einbindung von Journalisten in Thinktanks wie die Deutsche Atlantische Gesellschaft (DAG) ja heute eher eine Empfehlung als ein Problem.

Ungesund ist definitiv auch die totale Digitalisierung, nicht nur im Gesundheitswesen. Lauterbachs Abschiedsgeschenk, die «abgesicherte» elektronische Patientenakte (ePA) ist völlig überraschenderweise direkt nach dem Bundesstart erneut gehackt worden. Norbert Häring kommentiert angesichts der Datenlecks, wer die ePA nicht abwähle, könne seine Gesundheitsdaten ebensogut auf Facebook posten.

Dass die staatlichen Kontrolleure so wenig auf freie Software und dezentrale Lösungen setzen, verdeutlicht die eigentlichen Intentionen hinter der Digitalisierungswut. Um Sicherheit und Souveränität geht es ihnen jedenfalls nicht – sonst gäbe es zum Beispiel mehr Unterstützung für Bitcoin und für Initiativen wie die der Spar-Supermärkte in der Schweiz.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ c9badfea:610f861a

1. Install Notally (it's free and open source)
2. Open the app, tap ≡, and select Settings
3. Tap View and switch to Grid
4. Return to the main screen
5. Tap ☑ to create a task list and ✏️ to create a note
6. Enjoy!

ℹ️ You can also add pictures and set reminders for notes and task lists

ℹ️ Add labels to the notes (e.g. "Diary", "Snippet" or "Knowledge")

ℹ️ Use emojis to enhance titles (e.g. "🛒 Purchases" and "🔗️ Links")

@ 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.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Die Wahrheit verletzt tiefer als jede Beleidigung. \ Marquis de Sade

Sagen Sie niemals «Terroristin B.», «Schwachkopf H.», «korrupter Drecksack S.» oder «Meinungsfreiheitshasserin F.» und verkneifen Sie sich Memes, denn so etwas könnte Ihnen als Beleidigung oder Verleumdung ausgelegt werden und rechtliche Konsequenzen haben. Auch mit einer Frau M.-A. S.-Z. ist in dieser Beziehung nicht zu spaßen, sie gehört zu den Top-Anzeigenstellern.

«Politikerbeleidigung» als Straftatbestand wurde 2021 im Kampf gegen «Rechtsextremismus und Hasskriminalität» in Deutschland eingeführt, damals noch unter der Regierung Merkel. Im Gesetz nicht festgehalten ist die Unterscheidung zwischen schlechter Hetze und guter Hetze – trotzdem ist das gängige Praxis, wie der Titel fast schon nahelegt.

So dürfen Sie als Politikerin heute den Tesla als «Nazi-Auto» bezeichnen und dies ausdrücklich auf den Firmengründer Elon Musk und dessen «rechtsextreme Positionen» beziehen, welche Sie nicht einmal belegen müssen. [1] Vielleicht ernten Sie Proteste, jedoch vorrangig wegen der «gut bezahlten, unbefristeten Arbeitsplätze» in Brandenburg. Ihren Tweet hat die Berliner Senatorin Cansel Kiziltepe inzwischen offenbar dennoch gelöscht.

Dass es um die Meinungs- und Pressefreiheit in der Bundesrepublik nicht mehr allzu gut bestellt ist, befürchtet man inzwischen auch schon im Ausland. Der Fall des Journalisten David Bendels, der kürzlich wegen eines Faeser-Memes zu sieben Monaten Haft auf Bewährung verurteilt wurde, führte in diversen Medien zu Empörung. Die Welt versteckte ihre Kritik mit dem Titel «Ein Urteil wie aus einer Diktatur» hinter einer Bezahlschranke.

Unschöne, heutzutage vielleicht strafbare Kommentare würden mir auch zu einigen anderen Themen und Akteuren einfallen. Ein Kandidat wäre der deutsche Bundesgesundheitsminister (ja, er ist es tatsächlich immer noch). Während sich in den USA auf dem Gebiet etwas bewegt und zum Beispiel Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will, dass die Gesundheitsbehörde (CDC) keine Covid-Impfungen für Kinder mehr empfiehlt, möchte Karl Lauterbach vor allem das Corona-Lügengebäude vor dem Einsturz bewahren.

«Ich habe nie geglaubt, dass die Impfungen nebenwirkungsfrei sind», sagte Lauterbach jüngst der ZDF-Journalistin Sarah Tacke. Das steht in krassem Widerspruch zu seiner früher verbreiteten Behauptung, die Gen-Injektionen hätten keine Nebenwirkungen. Damit entlarvt er sich selbst als Lügner. Die Bezeichnung ist absolut berechtigt, dieser Mann dürfte keinerlei politische Verantwortung tragen und das Verhalten verlangt nach einer rechtlichen Überprüfung. Leider ist ja die Justiz anderweitig beschäftigt und hat außerdem selbst keine weiße Weste.

Obendrein kämpfte der Herr Minister für eine allgemeine Impfpflicht. Er beschwor dabei das Schließen einer «Impflücke», wie es die Weltgesundheitsorganisation – die «wegen Trump» in finanziellen Schwierigkeiten steckt – bis heute tut. Die WHO lässt aktuell ihre «Europäische Impfwoche» propagieren, bei der interessanterweise von Covid nicht mehr groß die Rede ist.

Einen «Klima-Leugner» würden manche wohl Nir Shaviv nennen, das ist ja nicht strafbar. Der Astrophysiker weist nämlich die Behauptung von einer Klimakrise zurück. Gemäß seiner Forschung ist mindestens die Hälfte der Erderwärmung nicht auf menschliche Emissionen, sondern auf Veränderungen im Sonnenverhalten zurückzuführen.

Das passt vielleicht auch den «Klima-Hysterikern» der britischen Regierung ins Konzept, die gerade Experimente zur Verdunkelung der Sonne angekündigt haben. Produzenten von Kunstfleisch oder Betreiber von Insektenfarmen würden dagegen vermutlich die Geschichte vom fatalen CO2 bevorzugen. Ihnen würde es besser passen, wenn der verantwortungsvolle Erdenbürger sein Verhalten gründlich ändern müsste.

In unserer völlig verkehrten Welt, in der praktisch jede Verlautbarung außerhalb der abgesegneten Narrative potenziell strafbar sein kann, gehört fast schon Mut dazu, Dinge offen anzusprechen. Im «besten Deutschland aller Zeiten» glaubten letztes Jahr nur noch 40 Prozent der Menschen, ihre Meinung frei äußern zu können. Das ist ein Armutszeugnis, und es sieht nicht gerade nach Besserung aus. Umso wichtiger ist es, dagegen anzugehen.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

--- Quellen: ---

[1] Zur Orientierung wenigstens ein paar Hinweise zur NS-Vergangenheit deutscher Automobilhersteller:

• Volkswagen
• Porsche
• Daimler-Benz
• BMW
• Audi
• Opel
• Heute: «Auto-Werke für die Rüstung? Rheinmetall prüft Übernahmen»

---

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

@ 4d4fb5ff:1e821f47

Sanger sequencing traces. I extracted DNA directly from my cells and determined a short genetic sequence, which is visualized by the bottom trace. In a second sample, I mutated my DNA enzymatically and used to same process to determine the sequence, shown in the top trace. Each peak and color represents a unique DNA base (A, T, C or G) in part of a gene with 13 bases shown here in total. This biogenerative process resulted in the center base changing from T to C, resulting in a slightly different, mixed peak by comparison. To further separate this work from being purely scientific, I did not record specific details about the experimental process.

https://ordiscan.com/inscription/96817755

@ 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.

@ 4d4fb5ff:1e821f47

Numerical heatmap derived from biologically-sourced data. I reversed the process of scientific discovery by stripping away the context of data collected in four of my published experiments, leaving only single digits. This makes the table appear to include only unrelated, random numbers. However, since the numbers come from real world data, there remains meaningful hidden structure in the grid. This invites the viewer to participate in parsing signal from noise.

https://ordiscan.com/inscription/96817034

@ 4d4fb5ff:1e821f47

Snapshot of a 3D molecular structure. In bacteria, the enzyme Peptidase E (PepE) is encoded by the gene PEPE. PEPEDASE is an atomic view of PepE enzyme’s spatial architecture based on publicly available scientific data, visually arranged to pay homage to Pepe the Frog. I made this piece in support of Matt Furie’s #SavePepe movement.

https://ordiscan.com/inscription/96817644

@ 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

@ c9badfea:610f861a

1. Install AnkiDroid (it's free and open source)
2. Launch the app, tap Get Started, then tap ≡ and select Settings
3. Select Sync and disable Display Synchronization Status
4. Return to the main screen
5. Create and download flashcard decks (see links below)
6. Tap ⁝, then Import, then Deck Package (.apkg), select the file and tap Add
7. Select Import
8. Wait for the import to finish and start learning!

Some Flashcard Deck Sources

• AnkiWeb
• Awesome Anki
• The Anki Ultimate Everything Deck

ℹ️ On GrapheneOS, you may need to enable the Network (used for localhost access) and Read And Write To The AnkiDroid Database permissions.

ℹ️ Also check this article on formulating knowledge

@ 8671a6e5:f88194d1

#### Dit is een reactie op dit artikel Dit is een reactie op dit artikel\ --\ Geachte redactie van De Tijd,

Met teleurstelling las ik uw recente artikel waarin Bitcoin onterecht wordt omschreven als een "hot wallet", en waarin de meldplicht voor de fiscus onnauwkeurig wordt voorgesteld.\ Maar wat vooral schrijnend is (naast het gebrek aan kennis inzake Bitcoin) is de lichte zweem van "onbehagen" die er omheen werd geweven.

Bitcoin is geen hot wallet, maar een gedecentraliseerd netwerk met bewezen digitale schaarste – hard money. Een "hot wallet" is eenvoudig gezegd een internet-verbonden opslagmethode voor bitcoin, zoals een app op een smartphone, terwijl een cold wallet offline private sleutels bewaart. Dit onderscheid is essentieel voor correcte berichtgeving, maar werd helaas onvoldoende uitgelegd aan uw lezers.

Daarnaast schetst het artikel een misleidend beeld van de meldplicht. \ Volgens de Belgische wetgeving moeten Belgische belastingplichtigen buitenlandse rekeningen melden bij het CAP en jaarlijks in hun belastingaangifte. De juridische status van zulke exchange in de EU-"junta" zone, is daarbij van belang. Dat werd in het artikel gewoon onder de mat geveegd zonder enige nuance.\ \ De Belgische fiscus biedt na zestien jaar trouwens nog steeds geen adequate manier om bitcoin bezit correct aan te geven, zoals een veld voor xpub- of zpub-sleutels (mensen die dit correct willen aangeven worden geconfronteerd met een gebrek aan kennis die overal in België op eenzelfde bedroevend laag niveau zit,... hier hebben we al vaker voorbeelden van gezien).\ \ Vertrouwen op zulke instanties om je cold-storage holdings te melden, is vragen om problemen. Toch meldt uw krant dat je dat maar beter WEL doet.\ Er is echter GEEN verplichting om non-custodial wallets aan te tegen. Het gaat hier voor alle duidelijkheid over bitcoin UTXO's waar de houder zelf in het bezit is van de eigen sleutels, ... echte bitcoin dus:)... \ Zulk hard money spontaan melden bij een instantie die daar niet klaar voor is, kan onnodige administratieve lasten opleggen zonder juridische basis en bovendien ook andere problemen veroorzaken. \ Dit advies van De Tijd, lijkt eerder ingegeven door overdreven voorzichtigheid, dan dan door een wettelijke verplichting. Maar vooral moet het een sfeertje scheppen alsof alle bitcoin houders die NIET via een gecapteerde derde partij werken (een exchange of een service) blijkbaar "louche" zijn. \ Dan kunnen we meteen ook iedereen die een waardevol schilderij in de privé woning heeft hangen "louche" noemen, om maar te zwijgen over fake-NGO's en dure wijn collecties niet?

Uw artikel schept naast het etaleren van een gebrek aan kennis inzake bitcoin, bovendien een sfeer van criminalisering, waarbij uw artikel gewag maakt van het oude refrein: “Wie niets te verbergen heeft...” \ Komaan, dit argument is intussen doorzichtig en dient enkel om mensen bang te maken en totalitaire controle als ‘normaal’ te doen aanvaarden. \ Net zoals de wildgroei aan flitspalen en de in oktober uit te rollen CBDC "Digitale Euro", die in essentie een programmeerbare, makkelijk uitschakelbare nep-euro zal zijn (een slechtere vorm van een kermis-jeton).

Het blijft vreemd dat er in De Tijd – net als bij andere mainstream media – zelden of nooit ruimte is voor een kritische stem hierover... het zal niet in de kraam passen.\ Net zoals het niet in de kraam past om de lamentabele BEL20 performantie of de laakbare promotie van rommel-aandelen op TV aan de kaak te stellen, of de huizenmarkt-zwendel eens een welverdiende kritiek te geven. Kritiek of nuances hierover zijn ook ... uit den boze.\ Neen, bij De Tijd gaan we het altijd op veilig spelen, en de paar mensen die de krant nog betalend lezen vooral niet wijzer maken?\ \ Er was nochtans goede hoop op meer en betere berichtgeven over bitcoin. Maar die hoop smelt zienderogen weg.

Het artikel plaatst bitcoin gebruikers impliciet in het kamp van potentiële overtreders, wat bijdraagt aan een negatieve en onterechte criminalisering. \ Dit patroon, ook zichtbaar in media zoals De Morgen en De Standaard, vertroebelt elementaire kennis en benadeelt uw betalende abonnees door hen foutieve en onvolledige informatie te verstrekken over het best presterende activum van het afgelopen decennium – en over de unieke rol van bitcoin als alternatief voor de steeds verder wegsmeltende koopkracht en waarde van fiat-munten van oude staten en unies.

Ik hoop dat u uw verantwoordelijkheid opneemt om abonnees objectief en feitelijk correct te informeren, zodat zij de échte opportunity cost van hun keuzes kunnen inschatten – een kost die, ironisch genoeg, met elk jaarabonnement verder oploopt.

Wie sinds 2015 maandelijks €50 aan bitcoin had gekocht in plaats van een abonnement op De Tijd te nemen, heeft zich alvast niet laten misleiden door uw doemverhalen en onjuiste informatie over dit activum. En het verschil in rendement is, op z’n zachtst gezegd, significant.

Jammer maar helaas, "De Tijd" lijkt anno 2025 nog steeds niet in staat om systematisch correct te berichten over "de" Bitcoin.\ \ Een paar Anonieme Bitcoiners

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

Manipulation erkennen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ist Russland aggressiv und expansiv?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was ist los in der Ukraine?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hasst der Westen die Russen?

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

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

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

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

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

Fazit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Quellen: ---

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

[2] Zwei nette Beispiele:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ 3c559080:a053153e

So firstly you should find an emulator for whatever you want to play on. There are many for desktop and mobile devices. Checkhere for a list of all the available consoles and their various emulators.

Next what game do you want to play? This is the like the homepage for a shit ton of roms.

Some of the more popular roms are there and other various list like Sony Nintendo

After narrowing down your selection you will end up on myrient i assume this is just some dope person hosting all these so if you get some use out of it, think of donating they even take corn, but other shitcoins too (but thats not the focus here)

Once you download the Rom of the game you want, you will get a compressed (zip) folder, unzip it and within it will be the rom, most systems will identify your emulator and use it open the game. If not, launch the emulator and within it should be an option to open a file, open the file in the unzipped folder.

Enjoy So you want to Mod?

So every Mod, is a mod for a specific game [ex. Pokemon Blue, Pokemon FireRed, Super Mario Bros.] so it requires you to get the Rom for that base game, the mod itself, and a tool to patch it. There is an online tool to easily patch the mod to the ROM. IMPORTANT, this will not change any naming, Id recommend having a folder with the base game roms, and a folder for the mods, and lastly a folder for the newly modded roms. Make sure to name or just save the game in modded roms folder after the patch.

Below are a few resource to find various Pokemon Rom mods(sometimes called hacks)

• r/PokemonROMhacks
• Good Compilations of Hacks and Resource/Guides

Personally, Pokemon Unbound is considered the best most polished hack. it runs on Pokemon Fire Red.

Pokemon Emerald Rouge is a cool take on the popular Rougelite genre. This runs on base game Pokemon Emerald

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na graduallythensuddenly.xyz

Autor: Parker Lewis

---

Bitkoin raste zauvek i kupovina stvari Bitkoinom je savršeno logična. Ove dve tvrdnje nisu suprotstavljene. Ovo je važno zato što mnogo ljudi (možda i većina) misli da je trošenje Bitkoina iracionalno. Zašto oni misle tako? Postoji kombinacija razloga:

1. Ukoliko Bitkoin raste, zašto biste ikada želeli da se rastanete od njega? Ako cena raste i vi ga potrošite, ostajete bez budućih "dobitaka".
2. Postoje poreske posledice kada kupujete Bitkoinom. Kada kupite nešto za Bitkoin, postoji porez na kapitalnu dobit zato što se to tretira kao da ste ga prodali, iz poreskih razloga (tako da tada plaćate više).

Ništa od ovoga nije racionalni razlog da ne potrošite Bitkoin. Zašto?

1. Prvi zaključak je iracionalan zato što se radi o drugačijoj dilemi od one na koju mislite. Ona se zapravo odnosi na svaku odluku u vezi sa potrošnjom ili štednjom, bez obzira da li trošite Bitkoin ili fiat novac. Na primer, ukoliko trošite fiat, mogli ste da se odreknete te potrošnje i umesto toga uštedite taj iznos u Bitkoinu. Vaša ekonomska računica je posve drugačija kada ste suočeni sa dilemom da li da potrošite novac fiksne količine u odnosu na novac koji konstantno gubi vrednost. Tačno je da se, bez obzira da li se odlučite (ili ne) da potrošite Bitkoin, radi o boljem testu potrošnje od štednje ili trošenja fiata. Ali svi moramo da svakodnevno trošimo novac.

2. Drugi zaključak je iracionalan zato što kapitalni dobitak ostvarujete samo u slučaju kada vaš novac dobije na vrednosti. Drugim rečima, kapitalni dobitak ste ostvarili samo ako vaš novac nije izgubio kupovnu moć. Da, bilo bi bolje kada bi promena politike dovela do ukidanja poreza na kapitalnu dobit na sve Bitkoin transakcije, ali to što plaćate porez na kapitalnu dobit ne znači da je stvar koju kupujete skuplja. Kako je to moguće? Zato što vi sada zapravo imate više novca nego u slučaju da ste izabrali put štednje u fiatu. Skuplje je štedeti u fiatu i trošiti u fiatu. Matematika je ubedljiva, a samim tim i logika.

Osnova rešavanja ove logičke dileme: ako mislite da je trošenje Bitkoina iracionalno, onda verovatno imate previše fiat novca. I pre nego što odemo dalje, volatilnost jeste stvarna. Njome morate upravljati. Ako je vaše razumevanje Bitkoina ograničeno, vaša sposobnost tolerancije prema volatilnosti Bitkoina je neminovno manja od nekoga ko je godinama štedeo u Bitkoinu i ko ima mnogo iskustva u upravljanju volatilnošću (i poseduje veće znanje o Bitkoinu od vas). Tako da ono što ću pokušati da objasnim, iako je 100% logično, ne odnosi se na svakoga zato što svačije znanje o Bitkoinu nije jednako, kao što nije jednaka ni svačija sposobnost da se toleriše volatilnost.

Sada možemo razmotriti nekoliko uporednih primera. Ukoliko imate 99% svoje štednje u fiatu (obliku novca koji gubi na vrednosti zato što se može sa lakoćom štampati) i 1% u Bitkoinu (obliku novca ograničene količine koji se ne može štampati), jeste veoma logično da štedite u Bitkoinu i trošite vaš fiat novac. Imate mnogo više fiata nego što imate Bitkoina. Ali ako imate 99% štednje u Bitkoinu i samo 1% u fiatu, bićete voljni da trošite Bitkoin. Pošto ste štedeli svoj novac u Bitkoinu koji čuva vrednost tokom vremena, nalazite se u boljoj poziciji od osobe koja je štedela u fiat novcu.

Hajmo da odemo u još veću krajnost da bismo izveli logičan zaključak, pre svega u vezi sa dve lažne ekonomske dileme. Pretpostavimo da imate 100% vaše štednje u Bitkoinu i 0 % u fiatu. Vi po definiciji morate da trošite tako da ste prinuđeni da trošite Bitkoin. Morate ga trošiti, bilo da kupujete proizvode i usluge direktno za Bitkoin, bilo da prodajete Bitkoin za fiat kojim ćete onda kupovati proizvode i usluge. Prva dilema je poništena. Ne radi se o tome da li treba da trošite Bitkoin. Radi se o tome da li uopšte treba da trošite (npr. da li je ono na šta trošite novac dobra potrošačka odluka).

Svi imamo i potrebe I želje. I jedno i drugo je validno. Život je kratak. Nikada ne trošiti novac je visoka vremenska preferencija. Ali nisu sve potrošačke odluke dobre odluke. U nekim slučajevima bi trebalo da štedite. Ali u oba slučaja, ako se radi o dobroj potrošačkoj odluci (o čemu samo vi odlučujete), dilema u vezi sa budućim rastom cene Bitkoina je poništena. Na primer, gotovo celokupna moja štednja je u Bitkoinu. Bila mi je neophodna popravka menjača na automobilu. Oko toga nije postojala dilema. Morao sam da popravim menjač i, s obzirom na to koliko malo fiat novca držim, bio sam prinuđen da potrošim Bitkoin. Nije mi bilo bitno da li će Bitkoin "rasti" u budućnosti. Bio mi je potreban moj automobil. U ovom konkretnom slučaju, prodao sam Bitkoin za fiat novac, zatim potrošio fiat, pa sam nabavio novi menjač kako ne bih morao svuda da pešačim.

Ovo nas sada vraća na drugu lažnu ekonomsku dilemu broj 2: kapitalne dobitke. Ukoliko pratite logiku, posledica kapitalnog dobitka je istovremeno i stvarna i nevažeća za dilemu rastanka sa Bitkoinom. Da bih ovo pokazao, zapravo ću proći kroz ekonomsku matematiku. Ovde dolazi do izražaja onaj zaključak da imate previše fiat novca ukoliko mislite da je trošenje Bitkoina iracionalno. Scenario A: tokom vremena štedite više u fiat novu i trošite fiat. Scenario B: tokom vremena štedite u Bitkoinu i trošite Bitkoin. Ovaj primer pretpostavlja ekstremne slučajeve da bi se naglasio ekonomski argument. 100% ušteđevine u fiatu naspram 100% ušteđevine u Bitkoinu:

Ekonomija štednje i trošenja u fiat novcu naspram štednje i trošenja u Bitkoinu

Tako da ono što ste smatrali dilemom o trošenju Bitkoina je zapravo dilema o štednji fiat novca. Štednja i potrošnja su suštinski povezane i, bez obzira na krajnosti (ili alokaciju), ekonomske posledice (izbora štednje u novcu koja gubi na vrednosti naspram štednje u novcu koji čuva kupovnu moć) se ne menjaju. U praktičnijem primeru, cene proizvoda i usluga "rastu" od sadašnjosti prema budućnosti kada su izražene u fiat valuti (fiat inflacija) tako da vam je potreban novac koji čuva kupovnu moć da biste se odbranili od obezvređivanja fiat novca. Ali štaviše, vaša dilema o trošenju je zapravo dilema o štednji i u stvarnom svetu ste ostvarili kapitalni dobitak koji treba da platite samo ako je vaša fiat štednja izgubila na vrednosti.

Sada mnogi od vas možda misle, "zašto jednostavno ne založite Bitkoin i pozajmite dolare koje ćete trošiti". Ovde se radi o potpuno drugačijoj ekonomskoj računici koja ne menja ništa u vezi sa matematikom ili ekonomskom logikom trošenja Bitkoina. To je samo dodavanje još jednog sloja na vrh. Da li možete potencijalno finansijski osmisliti bolji ishod preuzimanjem leveridža i duga i tako zakomplikovati svoj život? Možda. Ali to ne menja I) dilemu o potrošnji naspram štednje, II) posledice budućeg rasta Bitkoina (zato što ste mogli i da kupite Bitkoin sa leveridžom), ili III) posledice kapitalnog dobitka (koje su samo vremenski pomerene iz sadašnjosti u budućnost).

Suština je da je ekonomski pogled da je trošenje Bitkoina iracionalno - matematički nedosledan. Zapravo se radi o dilemi o štednji i vi jednostavno držite previše fiat novca. Ovde postoje i drugi logični razlozi za trošenje Bitkoina koje ću izložiti ali ih neću detaljnije objašnjavati (to ću učiniti u budućem članku).

• Ako niko ne troši Bitkoin, neće postojati ni alati za trošenje Bitkoina i kada fiat novac propadne, svima će biti potrebni ti alati zato što će Bitkoin biti jedina valuta koja funkcioniše.
• Ukoliko neki biznis želi da bude isplaćen u Bitkoinu, kupac poseduje Bitkoin za trošenje, trošenje fiat novca donosi nepotreban transakcioni trošak što dovodi do ekonomske neefikasnosti (veći trošak bez benefita)

Efikasnost Bitkoin transakcije između korisnika

• Ako cenite neki biznis (tj. proizvode i usluge koje vam omogućava) i želite da taj biznis opstane (da bi vam i dalje isporučivao proizvode i usluge), ako taj biznis želi da bude isplaćivan u Bitkoinu i ako vi razumete Bitkoin - u vašem je interesu da trošite Bitkoin zato što znate da će i taj biznis napredovati ako to učinite, a to omogućava i vaš napredak jer cenite proizvode i usluge tog biznisa.

Zaključak je da je trošenje Bitkoina lažna dilema. To je zapravo dilema o štednji. Matematika to i dokazuje. Ako se držite ove iracionalne pozicije (koja je iracionalna samo ako razumete Bitkoin zato što je volatilnost stvarna), onda verovatno imate previše fiat novca. Ipak, moram da naglasim da ovo nije molba da potrošite svoj Bitkoin. Ne postoji moralni imperativ za trošenje Bitkoina. Svaki Bitkoin (i satoši) je dragocen. Kada god trošite (ili investirate), potrudite se da trošite mudro jer je to ono što je zaista važno.

Do sledećeg puta. Srdačan pozdrav, Parker

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Vorlage Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ 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.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Spanien bleibt einer der Vorreiter im europäischen Prozess der totalen Überwachung per Digitalisierung. Seit Mittwoch ist dort der digitale Personalausweis verfügbar. Dabei handelt es sich um eine Regierungs-App, die auf dem Smartphone installiert werden muss und in den Stores von Google und Apple zu finden ist. Per Dekret von Regierungschef Pedro Sánchez und Zustimmung des Ministerrats ist diese Maßnahme jetzt in Kraft getreten.

Mit den üblichen Argumenten der Vereinfachung, des Komforts, der Effizienz und der Sicherheit preist das Innenministerium die «Innovation» an. Auch die Beteuerung, dass die digitale Variante parallel zum physischen Ausweis existieren wird und diesen nicht ersetzen soll, fehlt nicht. Während der ersten zwölf Monate wird «der Neue» noch nicht für alle Anwendungsfälle gültig sein, ab 2026 aber schon.

Dass die ganze Sache auch «Risiken und Nebenwirkungen» haben könnte, wird in den Mainstream-Medien eher selten thematisiert. Bestenfalls wird der Aspekt der Datensicherheit angesprochen, allerdings in der Regel direkt mit dem Regierungsvokabular von den «maximalen Sicherheitsgarantien» abgehandelt. Dennoch gibt es einige weitere Aspekte, die Bürger mit etwas Sinn für Privatsphäre bedenken sollten.

Um sich die digitale Version des nationalen Ausweises besorgen zu können (eine App mit dem Namen MiDNI), muss man sich vorab online registrieren. Dabei wird die Identität des Bürgers mit seiner mobilen Telefonnummer verknüpft. Diese obligatorische fixe Verdrahtung kennen wir von diversen anderen Apps und Diensten. Gleichzeitig ist das die Basis für eine perfekte Lokalisierbarkeit der Person.

Für jeden Vorgang der Identifikation in der Praxis wird später «eine Verbindung zu den Servern der Bundespolizei aufgebaut». Die Daten des Individuums werden «in Echtzeit» verifiziert und im Erfolgsfall von der Polizei signiert zurückgegeben. Das Ergebnis ist ein QR-Code mit zeitlich begrenzter Gültigkeit, der an Dritte weitergegeben werden kann.

Bei derartigen Szenarien sträuben sich einem halbwegs kritischen Staatsbürger die Nackenhaare. Allein diese minimale Funktionsbeschreibung lässt die totale Überwachung erkennen, die damit ermöglicht wird. Jede Benutzung des Ausweises wird künftig registriert, hinterlässt also Spuren. Und was ist, wenn die Server der Polizei einmal kein grünes Licht geben? Das wäre spätestens dann ein Problem, wenn der digitale doch irgendwann der einzig gültige Ausweis ist: Dann haben wir den abschaltbaren Bürger.

Dieser neue Vorstoß der Regierung von Pedro Sánchez ist ein weiterer Schritt in Richtung der «totalen Digitalisierung» des Landes, wie diese Politik in manchen Medien – nicht einmal kritisch, sondern sehr naiv – genannt wird. Ebenso verharmlosend wird auch erwähnt, dass sich das spanische Projekt des digitalen Ausweises nahtlos in die Initiativen der EU zu einer digitalen Identität für alle Bürger sowie des digitalen Euro einreiht.

In Zukunft könnte der neue Ausweis «auch in andere staatliche und private digitale Plattformen integriert werden», wie das Medienportal Cope ganz richtig bemerkt. Das ist die Perspektive.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

Dazu passend:

Nur Abschied vom Alleinfahren? Monströse spanische Überwachungsprojekte gemäß EU-Norm

---

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

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

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

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

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

-- Denn es braucht keinen Untergrund mehr. --

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ c9badfea:610f861a

1. Install Currencies (it's free and open source)
2. Launch the app, tap ⋮ and select Settings
3. Enable the Foreign Transaction Fee to factor in conversion fees if necessary
4. Tap Data Provider and choose another provider if necessary
5. Enjoy ad-free conversion rates

ℹ️ Tap 📈 to open the exchange rate chart

@ ae1008d2:a166d760

This is part one in a series of long-form content of my ideas as to what we are entering into in my opinion;The Roaring '20's 2.0 (working title). I hope you'll join me on this journey together.
"History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes"; - Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain. My only class I received an A+ in high school was history, this opened up the opportunity for me to enroll in an AP (college level) history class my senior year. There was an inherent nature for me to study history. Another quote I found to live by; "If we do not study history, we are bound to repeat it", a paraphrased quote by the many great philosphers of old from Edmund Burke, George Santayana and even Winston Churchill, all pulling from the same King Solomon quote; "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun". My curiousity of human actions, psychological and therefore economical behavior, has benefitted me greatly throughout my life and career, at such a young age. Being able to 'see around the curves' ahead I thought was a gift many had, but was sorely mistaken. People are just built different. One, if not my hardest action for me is to share. I just do things; act, often without even thinking about writing down or sharing in anyway shape or form what I just did here with friends, what we just built or how we formed these startups, etc., I've finally made the time, mainly for myself, to share my thoughts and ideas as to where we are at, and what we can do moving forward. It's very easy for us living a sovereign-lifestyle in Bitcoin, Nostr and other P2P, cryptographically-signed sovereign tools and tech-stacks alike, permissionless and self-hostable, to take all these tools for granted. We just live with them. Use them everyday. Do you own property? Do you have to take care of the cattle everyday? To live a sovereign life is tough, but most rewarding. As mentioned above, I'm diving into the details in a several part series as to what the roaring '20's were about, how it got to the point it did, and the inevitable outcome we all know what came to be. How does this possibly repeat itself almost exactly a century later? How does Bitcoin play a role? Are we all really going to be replaced by AI robots (again, history rhymes here)? Time will tell, but I think most of us actually using the tools will also forsee many of these possible outcomes, as it's why we are using many of these tools today. The next parts of this series will be released periodically, maybe once per month, maybe once per quarter. I'll also be releasing these on other platforms like Medium for reach, but Nostr will always be first, most important and prioritized.
I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes I've lived by from one of the greatest traders of all time, especially during this roaring '20's era, Jesse Livermore; "Money is made by sitting, not trading".

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

I want to see Nostr succeed. If you can think of a way I can help make that happen, I’m open to it. I’d like your suggestions.

My schedule’s shifting soon, and I could volunteer a few hours a week to a Nostr project. I won’t have more total time, but how I use it will change.

Why help? I care about freedom. Nostr’s one of the most powerful freedom tools I’ve seen in my lifetime. If I believe that, I should act on it.

I don’t care about money or sats. I’m not rich, I don’t have extra cash. That doesn’t drive me—freedom does. I’m volunteering, not asking for pay.

I’m not here for clout. I’ve had enough spotlight in my life; it doesn’t move me. If I wanted clout, I’d be on Twitter dropping basic takes. Clout’s easy. Freedom’s hard. I’d rather help anonymously. No speaking at events—small meetups are cool for the vibe, but big conferences? Not my thing. I’ll never hit a huge Bitcoin conference. It’s just not my scene.

That said, I could be convinced to step up if it’d really boost Nostr—as long as it’s legal and gets results.

In this space, I’d watch for social engineering. I watch out for it. I’m not here to make friends, just to help. No shade—you all seem great—but I’ve got a full life and awesome friends irl. I don’t need your crew or to be online cool. Connect anonymously if you want; I’d encourage it.

I’m sick of watching other social media alternatives grow while Nostr kinda stalls. I could trash-talk, but I’d rather do something useful.

Skills? I’m good at spotting social media problems and finding possible solutions. I won’t overhype myself—that’s weird—but if you’re responding, you probably see something in me. Perhaps you see something that I don’t see in myself.

If you need help now or later with Nostr projects, reach out. Nostr only—nothing else. Anonymous contact’s fine. Even just a suggestion on how I can pitch in, no project attached, works too. 💜

Creeps or harassment will get blocked or I’ll nuke my simplex code if it becomes a problem.

https://simplex.chat/contact#/?v=2-4&smp=smp%3A%2F%2FSkIkI6EPd2D63F4xFKfHk7I1UGZVNn6k1QWZ5rcyr6w%3D%40smp9.simplex.im%2FbI99B3KuYduH8jDr9ZwyhcSxm2UuR7j0%23%2F%3Fv%3D1-2%26dh%3DMCowBQYDK2VuAyEAS9C-zPzqW41PKySfPCEizcXb1QCus6AyDkTTjfyMIRM%253D%26srv%3Djssqzccmrcws6bhmn77vgmhfjmhwlyr3u7puw4erkyoosywgl67slqqd.onion

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ 28ca019b:93fcb2cc

Introduction

“There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” -Victor Hugo

Early 1950’s America. Harry S. Truman is in office. The economy is booming and the middle class are comfortable. Shiny new television sets invite the first scenes of Hollywood into people’s homes. The Weavers, Tony Bennett, Vera Lynn and Perry Como play on the radio.

But on the fringes, in dance halls and late night clubs, a cultural revolution is brewing… A new musical fusion with influences from blues, R\&B, jazz, rockabilly, country and gospel music is about to give birth to not only a new genre, but a whole new way of life that will change society and culture, forever.

Rock & Roll

It becomes a symbol of freedom, a means of expression, and a catalyst for social change. It brings into existence a new type of counter-culture, filled with individuals who are driven to rebel against norms and authority. They don’t ask for permission. They push for change.

I believe we are witnessing such a shift now. And like rock & roll, the movement I’m speaking of is also ground up, grass roots, punk rock and will not look to authority to seek permission. The catalyst for this new social change, I believe, is Bitcoin. With its innate properties, it empowers and enables the individual like never before to achieve their fullest potential, expressed through an unprecedented freedom technology. It is an idea, like a song everyone can sing in their own way, that nobody can silence.

Revolution

"You say you got a real solution / Well you know / we’d all love to see the plan" -John Lennon

The rock & roll era helped bring about meaningful societal change through art, music, and film. It created a new social narrative. Today, the Bitcoin network is providing people with a different set of tools and ideas to build a better future in a much more practical and pragmatic way. Instead of trying to reshape social consensus and cultural norms through art forms, fashion, or lifestyle, bitcoin is achieving this through open source code.

For the first time, this technology gives individuals financial sovereignty and personal control over their own destiny, with the ability to self custody their own money that no corporation, government, dictator or king can tamper with. The individual has an opportunity to finally be freed from economic tyranny. And societies have the potential to avoid endless wars funded with printed government money. John Lennon said ‘give peace a chance’. If he were still here today and understood how bitcoin could subvert the military industrial complex would he not exclaim, ‘give bitcoin a chance’?

Natural Rights, Civil Rights, Digital Rights

"The times they are a-Changin’" -Bob Dylan

The civil rights movement was tightly interwoven with the history of rock & roll. The march on Washington, August 28th 1963, marked a seminal moment in American history for the advancement of equal rights before the law. Bob Dylan, along with Joan Baez, stood with over two hundred thousand other Americans and listened to Martin Luther King’s now immortal speech. 

People with the same values peacefully gathered in numbers to make a statement powerful enough to change the conversation. This is analogous to the same freedom-minded people today gathering in cyberspace and voting not in the traditional sense, but voting with their money – peacefully exiting and transferring their economic energy into a system where they can’t be expropriated.

The question of whether individual rights are granted or have to be secured by each individual remains a contested area of philosophy to this day. To outline each in a very crude and simplistic way, natural rights (sometimes referred to as inalienable rights) are derived from the belief that every person owns their own body, therefore their own labor, time, and energy. Civil rights, on the other hand, are granted by the state and are therefore not universal. The fact that they are rights granted to humans by other humans means they always have the potential to be revoked or withdrawn.

Digital rights granted by the power of asymmetric cryptography are based in the laws of mathematics. Combined with proof of work, based in the law of thermodynamics, this makes digital rights that bitcoin provides more akin to natural rights than civil rights, as no one person or group can unilaterally revoke those rights or confiscate your property through violence. No amount of fire power, tanks, fighter jets or nuclear weapons can break a bitcoin private key or rewrite the sunken cost of proof of work embedded into bitcoin’s timechain. This idea of securing rights without asking permission is, in itself, a revolution and achievable now in an egalitarian way. This implies a potentially huge shift in power from those with a monopoly on violence, to peaceful individuals who want to be treated fairly and with dignity.

Cypher Punk-Rock

Songwriters write songs. Cypherpunks write code.

To tie things back and look at a very narrow, but potentially huge use case of bitcoin, let’s examine the current broken incentives of the music industry, particularly recorded music. It is becoming increasingly apparent that an option other than a subscription model could find demand from content consumers and producers alike.

There is now a way, with Bitcoin and Lightning Network, for a music fan to pay artists directly and for any amount – dollars, cents or even fractions of cents. This model has positive outcomes for the music producer and fan who are the main two parties engaged in the transaction. The artist keeps all of what is sent and the listener can pay what they want. The listener can pay as they listen, rather than be locked into a rolling subscription that isn’t based on usage. This concept, called ‘value for value’, is finding its way into new music platforms such as Wavlake and Fountain. I believe this model will become the de-facto way of monetizing digital content in the coming years. This could bring an economic signal back to music that has been lost and cannot be achieved by streams alone. This will hopefully create a more meritocratic music system and shake up the entrenched streaming monoliths.

Art can shine a light on a certain truth. It can also make people look at things in a completely new way. Maybe then, Satoshi was the greatest artist who ever lived. Bitcoin smashed the conventional wisdom and theories of the most basic and prevalent thing everyone takes for granted: money. Using money as a lens to view the world can lead to distortions in your perception if the lens is warped. Removing the glasses makes you reevaluate economics, politics, religion, philosophy, morality, beauty, and almost every other aspect of life. The beauty of the Sistine Chapel, the Egyptian pyramids, the Mona Lisa, Beethoven’s 5th Symphony, Bohemian Rhapsody all intrinsically imply a certain degree of proof of work. The art, you could say, speaks for itself.

The Long and Winding Road Ahead

As a musician, I have found a new hope. The value for value movement gives me that hope. If this is truly a superior model of music distribution and consumption it will win out over time on the market.

Another point to touch on would be the possibility of this technology ushering in an artistic renaissance. I can honestly say my favorite music, the songs that have moved me the most, normally comes from a place of truth, honesty and sheer talent. Maybe I’m out of touch, but I feel popular music of late is devoid of soul, meaning and the biggest mainstream artists want to conform to the man (giant corporations/governments) instead of stick it to the man! Probably because there is nowhere else to turn now that streaming and social media platforms own their speech and art. We need to investigate and embrace new ways to own our speech and art, to make art interesting again. The powers that be, need to let it be, and leave alone individuals who wish to use this technology for their own interests if they do so in a peaceful way.

I want to leave you with a Frank Zappa quote that seems more relevant than ever:

“I’d say that today, dishonesty is the rule, and honesty the exception. It could be, statistically, that more people are honest than dishonest, but the few that really control things are not honest, and that tips the balance…” 

My charitable view is that the majority of people in power aren’t corrupt, it’s rather just a case of ‘no one is better than their incentives’. But when incentives are misaligned bad outcomes will inevitably result. With bitcoin and its incorruptible incentive structure, we have a chance to peacefully opt-out of a rigged game. I urge you to not trust, but verify with your own research that bitcoin is the answer to many of society’s current problems.

I think it’s fair to say, we all need to question ourselves and authority a little more than we’re comfortable doing, to hold truth as an ideal worth striving for, and live a little more rock & roll!

Link to original article**

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

19. März 2025

🔐 1. SHA-256 is Quantum-Resistant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

🕵️♂️ 2.1 The Public Key Never Appears

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

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

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

🔄 3. Bitcoin Can Upgrade

Even if quantum computers eventually become a real threat:

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

🔄 7. The Logarithmic Difficulty Adjustment Neutralizes Threats

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

---

🔥 Final Verdict: Quantum Computers Are Too Slow for Bitcoin

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

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

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

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

@ 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

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.

Usually stolen bitcoin for the reserve creates a perverse incentive. If governments see a 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.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

There is something quietly rebellious about stacking sats. In a world obsessed with instant gratification, choosing to patiently accumulate Bitcoin, one sat at a time, feels like a middle finger to the hype machine. But to do it right, you have got to stay humble. Stack too hard with your head in the clouds, and you will trip over your own ego before the next halving even hits.

Small Wins

Stacking sats is not glamorous. Discipline. Stacking every day, week, or month, no matter the price, and letting time do the heavy lifting. Humility lives in that consistency. You are not trying to outsmart the market or prove you are the next "crypto" prophet. Just a regular person, betting on a system you believe in, one humble stack at a time. Folks get rekt chasing the highs. They ape into some shitcoin pump, shout about it online, then go silent when they inevitably get rekt. The ones who last? They stack. Just keep showing up. Consistency. Humility in action. Know the game is long, and you are not bigger than it.

Ego is Volatile

Bitcoin’s swings can mess with your head. One day you are up 20%, feeling like a genius and the next down 30%, questioning everything. Ego will have you panic selling at the bottom or over leveraging the top. Staying humble means patience, a true bitcoin zen. Do not try to "beat” Bitcoin. Ride it. Stack what you can afford, live your life, and let compounding work its magic.

Simplicity

There is a beauty in how stacking sats forces you to rethink value. A sat is worth less than a penny today, but every time you grab a few thousand, you plant a seed. It is not about flaunting wealth but rather building it, quietly, without fanfare. That mindset spills over. Cut out the noise: the overpriced coffee, fancy watches, the status games that drain your wallet. Humility is good for your soul and your stack. I have a buddy who has been stacking since 2015. Never talks about it unless you ask. Lives in a decent place, drives an old truck, and just keeps stacking. He is not chasing clout, he is chasing freedom. That is the vibe: less ego, more sats, all grounded in life.

The Big Picture

Stack those sats. Do it quietly, do it consistently, and do not let the green days puff you up or the red days break you down. Humility is the secret sauce, it keeps you grounded while the world spins wild. In a decade, when you look back and smile, it will not be because you shouted the loudest. It will be because you stayed the course, one sat at a time. \ \ Stay Humble and Stack Sats. 🫡

@ 58537364:705b4b85

People often only realize the value of something in two situations: First, before they have it. Second, after they’ve lost it.

This is a tragedy that happens to many. People may have good things in their lives, but they don’t see their worth— because they’re always looking outward, focusing on what they don’t have, wishing for something else.

It’s similar to Aesop’s fable about the dog and the piece of meat. We probably remember it from childhood: A dog had a big piece of meat in its mouth. Delighted, it ran to a quiet place where it could enjoy the meat in peace.

At one point, it had to cross a bridge. Looking down into the stream below, it saw its reflection— but mistook it for another dog with an even bigger piece of meat. It wanted that bigger piece badly, so it opened its mouth to snatch it— and the meat in its own mouth fell into the water. The reflection disappeared too.

In the end, it lost both.

So, if we learn to value what we already have, happiness comes easily. It might not be possessions or people— it might simply be our health.

It could be as simple as our breath, the ability to breathe normally, to walk around freely, to see, to hear.

Many people already have these things but don’t recognize their value. They don’t feel lucky. Instead, they focus on what they still lack— no house, no car, no money— and feel miserable.

They ask, “Why is life so hard for me?” Even though they have so many good things already— health, normalcy, freedom of movement— they fail to see it, because their minds are lost in chasing what they don’t yet have, which belongs to the future.

If we turn back and learn to value what we already possess, and stop obsessing over what we don’t, we can find happiness more easily.

This is one of the meanings of “Doing your best in the present.”

…

Doing Your Best in the Present by Phra Paisal Visalo

@ 6389be64:ef439d32

GA, plebs. The latest episode of Bitcoin And is out, and, as always, the chicanery is running rampant. Let’s break down the biggest topics I covered, and if you want the full, unfiltered rant, make sure to listen to the episode linked below.

House Democrats’ MEME Act: A Bad Joke?

House Democrats are proposing a bill to ban presidential meme coins, clearly aimed at Trump’s and Melania’s ill-advised token launches. While grifters launching meme coins is bad, this bill is just as ridiculous. If this legislation moves forward, expect a retaliatory strike exposing how politicians like Pelosi and Warren mysteriously amassed their fortunes. Will it pass? Doubtful. But it’s another sign of the government’s obsession with regulating everything except itself.

Senate Banking’s First Digital Asset Hearing: The Real Target Is You

Cynthia Lummis chaired the first digital asset hearing, and—surprise!—it was all about control. The discussion centered on stablecoins, AML, and KYC regulations, with witnesses suggesting Orwellian measures like freezing stablecoin transactions unless pre-approved by authorities. What was barely mentioned? Bitcoin. They want full oversight of stablecoins, which is really about controlling financial freedom. Expect more nonsense targeting self-custody wallets under the guise of stopping “bad actors.”

Bank of America and PayPal Want In on Stablecoins

Bank of America’s CEO openly stated they’ll launch a stablecoin as soon as regulation allows. Meanwhile, PayPal’s CEO paid for a hat using Bitcoin—not their own stablecoin, Pi USD. Why wouldn’t he use his own product? Maybe he knows stablecoins aren’t what they’re hyped up to be. Either way, the legacy financial system is gearing up to flood the market with stablecoins, not because they love crypto, but because it’s a tool to extend U.S. dollar dominance.

MetaPlanet Buys the Dip

Japan’s MetaPlanet issued $13.4M in bonds to buy more Bitcoin, proving once again that institutions see the writing on the wall. Unlike U.S. regulators who obsess over stablecoins, some companies are actually stacking sats.

UK Expands Crypto Seizure Powers

Across the pond, the UK government is pushing legislation to make it easier to seize and destroy crypto linked to criminal activity. While they frame it as going after the bad guys, it’s another move toward centralized control and financial surveillance.

Bitcoin Tools & Tech: Arc, SatoChip, and Nunchuk

Some bullish Bitcoin developments: ARC v0.5 is making Bitcoin’s second layer more efficient, SatoChip now supports Taproot and Nostr, and Nunchuk launched a group wallet with chat, making multisig collaboration easier.

The Bottom Line

The state is coming for financial privacy and control, and stablecoins are their weapon of choice. Bitcoiners need to stay focused, keep their coins in self-custody, and build out parallel systems. Expect more regulatory attacks, but don’t let them distract you—just keep stacking and transacting in ways they can’t control.

🎧 Listen to the full episode here: https://fountain.fm/episode/PYITCo18AJnsEkKLz2Ks

💰 Support the show by boosting sats on Podcasting 2.0! and I will see you on the other side.

@ 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.

@ dc4cd086:cee77c06

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

Key Features:

Video Processing:

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

Content Summarization:

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

Diagram Extraction:

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

Going Forward:

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

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

Screenshots

Frame Selection

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

Diagram Extraction

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

Links

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

Output

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

Initially published as chained kind 1's nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzp5r5hd579v2sszvvzfel677c8dxgxm3skl773sujlsuft64c44ncqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctcpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0wd68ytnsw43z7qghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxummnw3ezucnpdejz7qgewaehxw309aex2mrp0yh8xmn0wf6zuum0vd5kzmp0qqsxunmjy20mvlq37vnrcshkf6sdrtkfjtjz3anuetmcuv8jswhezgc7hglpn

Or view on Coracle https://coracle.social /nevent1qqsxunmjy20mvlq37vnrcshkf6sdrtkfjtjz3anuetmcuv8jswhezgcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgsdqa9md83tz5yqnrqjw07hhkpmfjpkuv9hlh5v8yhu8z274w9dv7qnnq0s3

@ 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.

@ 6be5cc06:5259daf0

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

---

1. Instalar o Tor e o Privoxy

Abra o terminal e execute:

bash sudo apt update sudo apt install tor privoxy

Explicação:

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

---

2. Configurar o Privoxy

Abra o arquivo de configuração do Privoxy:

bash sudo nano /etc/privoxy/config

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

bash forward-socks5 / 127.0.0.1:9050 .

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

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

---

3. Iniciar o Tor e o Privoxy

Agora, inicie e habilite os serviços:

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

Explicação:

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

---

4. Configurar o Navegador Firefox

Para usar a rede Tor com o Firefox:

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

---

5. Verificar a Conexão com o Tor

Abra o navegador e acesse:

text https://check.torproject.org/

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

---

Dicas Extras

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

@ 9223d2fa:b57e3de7

2,143 steps

@ 58537364:705b4b85

พระอาจารย์ไพศาล วิสาโล วัดป่าสุคะโต แสดงธรรมเย็นวันที่ 28 กันยายน 2565

ที่ประเทศจีนเมื่อสัก 100 - 200 ปีก่อน ชายคนหนึ่งตาบอด แต่ก็สามารถใช้ชีวิตได้ตามปกติ วันหนึ่งก็เดินไปเยี่ยมเพื่อน ซึ่งอยู่ในเมืองเดียวกัน แต่ก็เดินไกลสักหน่อย แล้วชายตาบอดคนนี้ก็เดินได้โดยที่ไม่ต้องใช้ไม้เท้า ถึงบ้านเพื่อนก็สนทนากับเพื่อนหลายเรื่องหลายราว คุยกันถูกคอ จนกระทั่งค่ำ ก็ได้เวลาที่ชายตาบอดจะกลับบ้าน แต่ก่อนที่แกจะเดินออกจากบ้าน เพื่อนก็ยื่นโคมให้ โคมนี่เป็นคนที่จุดไฟให้แสงสว่างในเวลากลางคืน

ชายตาบอดก็บอกว่าฉันไม่ต้องใช้โคมหรอก เดินได้โดยที่ไม่เห็นอะไร ไม่ต้องใช้แสงสว่างก็เดินได้ ทางเส้นนี้ฉันก็คุ้นแล้ว เพื่อนก็บอกว่าที่ให้โคมนี่ ก็เพื่อเวลาคุณเดินกลับบ้านตามตรอกซอกซอย มันจะได้ให้แสงสว่าง คนที่เขาเดินสวนคุณมา เขาเห็นทาง เขาก็จะได้ไม่เดินชนคุณไงล่ะ เหตุผลนี้ก็ทำให้ชายตาบอดถือโคมกลับบ้าน ทั้งๆ ที่ตัวเองไม่จำเป็นต้องใช้โคมนั้นเลย

ระหว่างที่เดินกลับบ้านก็มีคนหลายคนเดินสวน เพราะมันเป็นตรอกซอกซอยที่มีคนเดินผ่านไปผ่านมาอยู่ แต่ว่าพอเดินมาพักหนึ่ง ปรากฏว่ามีผู้ชายคนหนึ่งเดินชนชายตาบอดอย่างแรงเลย จนล้มเลย ชายตาบอดก็โกรธมาก ก็พูดขึ้นมาว่าแกตาบอดหรือไง แกไม่เห็นหรือโคมที่ฉันถือนี่ ชายคนที่เดินชนชายตาบอดก็บอกว่าขอโทษครับ ขอโทษจริงๆ แต่โคมที่พี่จุดนี่มันดับไปนานแล้วนะ เรื่องก็จบเท่านี้นะ ฟังแล้วเราได้แง่คิดอะไรไหม

เรื่องนี้อาจจะเป็นนิทานนะ แต่มันไม่ใช่นิทานประเภทว่าสอน บอกเราในตอนท้ายว่านิทานเรื่องนี้สอนอะไร แต่ว่ามันจบลงโดยให้เราคิดเอง ฟังเรื่องนี้แล้วเราได้แง่คิดอะไร

แง่คิดอย่างหนึ่งก็คือว่าในการดำเนินชีวิตของคนเรา เราควรจะคิดถึงคนอื่นด้วย ของบางอย่างเราไม่จำเป็น แต่ว่ามันมีประโยชน์กับคนอื่น ถ้าเรานึกถึงคนอื่น มันก็ไม่ใช่ประโยชน์กับคนอื่นอย่างเดียว มันเป็นประโยชน์กับเราด้วย อย่างชายตาบอด เขาไม่จำเป็นต้องใช้โคมเลย ในการเดินกลับบ้านยามค่ำคืน แต่เพื่อนคะยั้นคะยอให้ถือโคมเพื่ออะไร ก็เพื่อประโยชน์ของคนอื่นที่เขาตาดี แล้วเขาต้องใช้แสงสว่างในการเดินสัญจร

การที่ชายตาบอดถือโคม ไม่ได้เพื่อประโยชน์ของตัวเอง แต่เพื่อประโยชน์ของคนอื่น แต่สุดท้ายมันก็เป็นประโยชน์กับตัวเอง เพราะถ้าหากว่าคนที่เขาเดินสวนมา เขาเห็นชายตาบอดถือโคม เขาก็ไม่เดินชน ฉะนั้นทีแรกชายตาบอดก็เดินได้สะดวกสบาย ไม่มีใครชน ก็เพราะว่าคนอื่นเขาเห็นแสงสว่างจากโคมนั้น

อันนี้เขาสอนว่าคนเราควรจะนึกถึงผู้อื่น ของบางอย่างแม้เราไม่จำเป็น แต่ว่ามันเป็นประโยชน์กับผู้อื่นก็ควรทำ หรือบางอย่างอาจจะไม่สะดวกกับเรา แต่ว่ามันช่วยคนอื่นได้ อย่างเช่นการถือโคม มันคงไม่สะดวกสบายเท่ากับเดินตัวเปล่า แต่ว่าเมื่อเดินถือโคมแล้ว มันก็เป็นประโยชน์กับคนที่เดินสวนมาด้วย แต่สุดท้ายมันก็กลับมาเป็นประโยชน์กับชายตาบอดนั่นเอง อย่างที่พูดไปแล้ว ไม่มีใครมาเดินชน

ในชีวิตของคนเรา เราควรจะคิดถึงคนอื่น ฉะนั้นการที่สังคมหรือบ้านเมืองมันน่าอยู่ ก็เพราะผู้คนไม่ได้คิดถึงแต่ตัวเองอย่างเดียว การกระทำบางอย่าง เราทำเพื่อประโยชน์ของส่วนรวม เพื่อผู้อื่น ยกตัวอย่างง่ายๆ เวลาเรากินอะไร มันมีขยะอยู่ในมือ จะเป็นถุงพลาสติก จะเป็นนมกล่อง หรือจะเป็นขวด ขวดน้ำที่กลายเป็นขยะเรียบร้อยแล้ว ทำไมเราควรจะถือขยะนั้นไว้กับตัว จนกว่าจะเห็นถังขยะจึงหย่อนลงถังขยะ

ที่จริงถ้าเรานึกถึงแต่ตัวเอง เราก็แค่โยนมันทิ้งขยะนั้นข้างทาง สบายดีนะ หลายคนก็ทำอย่างนั้น คนเราถ้าคิดถึงแต่ตัวเอง เราไม่เก็บมันไว้กับตัว แล้วก็รอจนกว่าจะเดินเห็นถังขยะ แต่คนจำนวนมากเขาก็เก็บขยะเอาไว้ เพื่อที่จะไปทิ้งลงในถังขยะ

อันนี้เพราะอะไร เพราะนึกถึงผู้อื่น นึกถึงคนที่เก็บขยะบ้าง หรือนึกถึงสังคมส่วนรวม ว่าถ้าเราทิ้งขยะไม่เป็นที่ มันก็จะเลอะเทอะ ไม่น่าดู บางคนก็คิดถึงพนักงานเก็บขยะ หรือคิดถึงพนักงานทำความสะอาด ก็เลยช่วยเขาด้วยการทิ้งขยะเป็นที่ ทั้งที่ถ้าทิ้งข้างทาง กินเสร็จ ดื่มน้ำเสร็จ ดูดนมกล่องเสร็จ ทิ้งไปเลยนี่มันสบายกว่า แต่เป็นเพราะเราคิดถึงคนอื่น เราจึงเอาไปทิ้งเป็นที่

หรือการปิดไฟ บางทีเราก็เห็นไฟเปิดอยู่ที่ห้องน้ำ หรือที่ห้องที่โล่ง เราก็อุตส่าห์เดินไป แทนที่เราจะกลับบ้านเลย เราก็เดินไปที่ห้องน้ำเพื่อที่จะปิดสวิตช์ไฟ เรายอมเสียเวลาเพื่ออะไร ก็เพื่อส่วนรวม หรืออาจจะเป็นเพราะว่าเราอยากจะช่วยพนักงานที่เขาดูแลสถานที่นั้น ไม่ต้องเหนื่อยกับการวิ่งการเดินตามปิดไฟ ที่วัดเราเป็นระเบียบ ก็เพราะผู้คนจำนวนมากคิดถึงผู้อื่นด้วย ไม่ได้คิดถึงแต่ตัวเอง และสุดท้ายมันก็เป็นประโยชน์กับตัวเรา เพราะว่าพอสถานที่มันสะอาดหมดจด มันก็สบายหูสบายตา น่าอยู่

แต่ว่านิทานเรื่องนี้เขาสอนมากกว่านั้น ในการดำเนินชีวิตประจำวัน เราควรจะคิดถึงผู้อื่น มองไปที่ประโยชน์ของคนอื่นก่อนตัวเอง แต่เวลามีปัญหาขึ้นมา ก่อนที่จะไปโทษคนอื่น ต้องกลับมามองที่ตัวเองก่อน ไม่เหมือนกันนะ ยามปกติเรามองไปที่คนอื่นก่อน นึกถึงประโยชน์ของคนอื่นก่อน ประโยชน์ของตัวเองเอาไว้ทีหลัง แต่ว่าเวลามีปัญหา เราควรมองที่ตัวเองก่อนที่จะไปโทษคนอื่น

อย่างชายตาบอดนี่ พอมีคนมาชน แกก็ว่าชายคนนั้นเลยทีเดียว ว่าตาบอดหรือไง มาชนเขา แต่เขาไม่รู้ว่าที่เขาถูกชน เป็นเพราะว่าโคมของเขามันดับไปแล้ว ชายคนนั้นก็เลยมองไม่เห็น แต่ชายตาบอดจะรู้ได้อย่างไร ว่าโคมของตัวเองนี่ดับไปแล้ว อันนี้เหมือนกับสอนเป็นนัยว่าคนที่โทษคนอื่น แทนที่จะมองมาที่ตัวเอง จะว่าไปก็เหมือนกับคนตาบอด คือมองไม่เห็นความบกพร่อง ความผิดพลาดของตัวเอง อันนี้ก็รวมถึงคนตาดีด้วยนะ คนตาดีถ้าเกิดปัญหาขึ้นมาแล้ว ไปโทษคนอื่น แต่มองไม่เห็นความบกพร่อง ความผิดพลาดของตัวเอง ก็ไม่ต่างจากคนตาบอดเหมือนกัน

อันนี้ก็เป็นข้อคิดที่ดีมากเลย ในยามปกติเราควรนึกถึงผู้อื่น มองไปที่คนอื่นก่อน แต่เวลามีปัญหาควรจะกลับมามองที่ตัวเอง ก่อนที่จะไปโทษคนอื่น อันนี้จะเรียกว่าเป็นวิสัยของนักปฏิบัติธรรมก็ได้ จะเรียกว่าเป็นวิสัยของผู้ใฝ่ธรรม ซึ่งต่างจากวิสัยของชาวโลกทั่วๆ ไป ชาวโลกทั่วไปเขามองตัวเองก่อน เขามองถึงประโยชน์ตัวเองก่อน คิดถึงตัวเองก่อน ส่วนคนอื่น ประโยชน์ของคนอื่นเอาไว้ทีหลัง แต่เวลามีปัญหาขึ้นมา ก็โทษคนอื่นก่อนเลย แทนที่จะกลับมามองที่ตัวเอง

บ่อยครั้งเวลางานมีปัญหา เราจะเห็นคนก็จะไปโทษคนโน้นคนนี้ ว่าเป็นเหตุทำให้งานมีปัญหา ทำให้งานตัวเองมีปัญหา เจ้านายไม่ดี เพื่อนร่วมงานไม่ได้เรื่อง บางทีก็โทษดินฟ้าอากาศ แต่ว่าสิ่งที่ไม่ได้มองคือความผิดพลาดของตัวเอง เวลานัดเพื่อน เพื่อนไม่มาตามนัดตามเวลา ก็โกรธเพื่อน พอเจอเพื่อนก็ไปด่าเพื่อนเลย ว่าทำไมนัด 4 โมงเย็น ทำไมไม่มา อุตส่าห์รอ

เพื่อนบอกอ้าวจะไปรู้เหรอ นึกว่านัด 4 โมงเช้า ผมก็อุตส่าห์ไปรอตั้งแต่ 4 โมงเช้า คือ 10 โมง ปรากฏว่าคนนัดบอกเวลาไม่ละเอียด แทนที่จะบอก 4 โมงเย็น ก็ไปพูดว่า 4 โมง เพื่อนก็เลยนึกว่า 4 โมงเช้า เป็นความผิดพลาดของคนนัดแท้ๆ แต่ว่าก็ไปด่าเพื่อนเสียแล้ว ตัวเองพูดไม่ละเอียด ก็ไปโทษเพื่อน ว่าเพื่อนไม่รับผิดชอบ เพื่อนไม่เอาใจใส่

อันนี้เรียกว่าไปโทษคนอื่นก่อนที่จะมามองที่ตัวเอง ถ้าจะให้ดีก็ควรจะถามเขาก่อนว่าทำไมถึงไม่มาตามนัด พอรู้คำอธิบายของเพื่อน ก็อาจจะพบว่าเป็นเพราะเราผิดเองนะ เราพูดไม่รัดกุมเพียงพอ ที่จริงมันไม่ใช่เฉพาะเวลามีความผิดพลาด หรือเวลามีปัญหาในงานการ เวลามีความทุกข์ก็เหมือนกัน เวลามีความทุกข์ก่อนที่จะไปโทษใคร ต้องกลับมามองที่ตัวเองก่อน แต่คนส่วนใหญ่เวลามีความทุกข์ ไปโทษข้างนอก ไปโทษเสียงดังจากข้างนอก ไปโทษการกระทำของคนนั้นคนนี้ แต่ลืมหรือไม่ได้กลับมามองที่ตัวเอง ว่าเป็นที่เราหรือเปล่า

เวลามีความทุกข์ใจ สาเหตุหลักๆ มันล้วนแล้วแต่อยู่ที่ตัวเองทั้งนั้นแหละ ไม่ได้อยู่ที่คนอื่น ทุกข์กายอาจจะเป็นเพราะของแหลมมาแทง อาจจะเป็นเพราะเชื้อโรค เพราะอาหารเป็นพิษ หรือเพราะมีคนมาทำร้าย แต่ถ้าทุกข์ใจแล้วนี่ มันน่าจะเกิดจากตัวเอง หรือใจของตัวเองเป็นหลักเลยทีเดียว

เมื่อสัก 40 กว่าปีก่อน หลวงพ่อชาท่านได้รับนิมนต์ให้มาแสดงธรรมที่ประเทศอังกฤษ ตอนนั้นท่านก็มากับลูกศิษย์ที่เป็นพระฝรั่ง เช่นหลวงพ่อสุเมโธ ซึ่งตอนนั้นยังไม่ได้สร้างวัดอมราวดีที่อังกฤษ เจ้าภาพก็ให้หลวงพ่อชากับลูกศิษย์พักที่วิหารกลางกรุงลอนดอน ย่านนั้นมีสถานบันเทิง เช่น ผับ บาร์ กลางคืนก็จะมีเสียงดนตรี

สมัยนั้นดิสโก้ก็เริ่มเป็นที่นิยมแล้ว เพราะฉะนั้นเสียงดังก็จะกระหึ่มเลยตอนกลางคืน มาถึงวิหารแฮมสเตทที่หลวงพ่อชาและลูกศิษย์พัก ซึ่งก็พอดีเป็นช่วงที่ท่านพาคนนั่งสมาธิ พระและโยมหลายคนนั่งสมาธิไม่เป็นสุขเลย เพราะเสียงดนตรีมันดัง

แต่หลวงพ่อชาท่านนั่งสมาธิอย่างสงบ เหมือนกับไม่ได้ยินอะไรเลย จนกระทั่งนั่งสมาธิเสร็จ ก็มีโยมซึ่งเป็นฝรั่ง เป็นเจ้าภาพ ก็มาหาท่านแล้วก็บอกขอโทษ ที่เสียดนตรีรบกวนการนั่งสมาธิ หลวงพ่อชาท่านฟังแล้วก็ยิ้ม แล้วท่านก็พูดว่าโยมอย่าไปคิดว่าเสียงดนตรีรบกวนเรา ที่จริงเราต่างหากที่ไปรบกวนเสียงดนตรี

บางคนฟังแล้วก็งงนะ แต่ที่จริงที่ท่านพูดนี่มันเป็นสัจธรรมเลยนะ ที่คนมีความทุกข์ หงุดหงิด เมื่อเสียงมากระทบหู มันไม่ใช่เพราะเสียง แต่เป็นเพราะใจมันไปทะเลาะกับเสียงนั้น ใจมันไปต่อสู้ ไปทะเลาะเบาะแว้งกับเสียงนั้น มันไปผลักไสเสียงนั้น ถ้าเพียงแต่ยอมรับเสียงนั้น มันก็ไม่หงุดหงิด แต่พอใจมันทะเลาะกับเสียง เพราะว่ามีความรู้สึกเป็นลบต่อเสียงนั้น ว่าเป็นเสียงดัง เสียงรบกวน พอใจรู้สึกเป็นลบ มันหงุดหงิดขึ้นมาเลย ความหงุดหงิดจนนั่งสมาธิไม่เป็นสุข เป็นเพราะใจของคนฟัง ที่วางใจไม่ถูกต้องต่อเสียง ถ้าหากว่าเพียงแต่รู้สึกเป็นกลางๆ มันก็ไม่ทุกข์

มีนักปฏิบัติธรรมคนหนึ่ง แกก็มาปฏิบัติอยู่ที่สำนักหรือวัดแห่งหนึ่ง ก็ค้างคืนอยู่ประมาณ 2-3 คืน คืนแรกเลย พักเสร็จตื่นเช้าขึ้นมา เจ้าอาวาสก็ถามว่า เป็นยังไง หลับดีไหม ชายคนนั้นก็บอกว่าหลับไม่ค่อยดี โดยเฉพาะช่วงแรกๆ เพราะว่าเสียงห่านมันดัง

เสียงห่านมันดัง ตอนกลางคืนนอนไม่ค่อยหลับเลยช่วงแรก แต่ว่านึกขึ้นมาได้ว่าตัวเองพกโทรศัพท์มือถือมา แล้วในโทรศัพท์มือถือก็มีการอัดเทปคำบรรยายธรรมะของครูบาอาจารย์หลายท่าน ก็เลยเอาหูฟังใส่ไว้ในหู แล้วก็ฟัง เปิดเทปธรรมะ เปิดคำบรรยายของครูบาอาจารย์ จนกระทั่งหลับได้ กระทั่งเช้าก็เป็นอันว่าได้พัก ได้หลับดีหน่อยช่วงครึ่งหลัง

สิ่งที่น่าสนใจคือว่า ระหว่างเสียงห่านกับเสียงบรรยาย อะไรดังกว่ากัน ชายคนนั้นบอกว่าหลับไม่ได้ เพราะว่าเสียงห่านมันดัง แต่เสียงบรรยายที่ฟังมันไม่ดังหรือ ที่จริงมันดังกว่าเสียงห่าน เพราะว่าเอาหูฟังใส่เข้าไปในรูหู อย่างไรมันดังกว่าเสียงห่านอยู่แล้วล่ะ แต่ทำไมหลับ ก็เพราะใจมันยอมรับเสียงบรรยายธรรมะ หรือว่ารู้สึกดีกับเสียงนั้น ขณะที่เสียงห่านนี่ ใจมองว่าเป็นเสียงรบกวน การที่ใจไปตีค่าว่าเสียงห่านเป็นเสียงรบกวน ก็ทำให้เกิดอาการต่อสู้ผลักไสกับเสียงนั้น

เหมือนอย่างที่หลวงพ่อชาท่านว่าไปทะเลาะกับเสียง ส่วนเสียงบรรยายธรรมะที่ฟังทางโทรศัพท์มือถือ ใจมันยอมรับ ใจมันรู้สึกเป็นบวก เลยไม่รู้สึกว่าดัง ทั้งที่ถ้าพูดถึงเดซิเบลแล้ว มันดังกว่าเสียงห่านอยู่แล้วแต่ก็เป็นอันหลับได้ ฉะนั้นที่หลับไม่ได้ ไม่ใช่เพราะเสียงดัง ไม่ใช่เพราะเสียงห่าน แต่เพราะใจมันไปทะเลาะกับเสียงห่าน ในขณะที่เสียงบรรยายใจไม่ได้ทะเลาะ ใจไปเคลิ้มคล้อยกับเสียงบรรยายธรรมเลยหลับ

นี่เป็นตัวอย่างง่ายๆ ในชีวิตของคนเรา เวลามีความทุกข์ ทุกข์ใจ เรามักโทษข้างนอก โทษเสียงดนตรี โทษเสียงห่าน โทษคนนั้นคนนี้ แต่นั่นเป็นเพราะเราไม่ได้กลับมาดูใจของเรา ไม่ได้กลับมาสังเกตปฎิกริยาของใจเรา ฉะนั้นถ้าเรากลับมาสังเกต ก็จะพบว่ามันเป็นเพราะใจของเราต่างหาก ที่เป็นตัวการทำให้เกิดทุกข์

ฉะนั้นถ้าเกิดว่าเรามีทุกข์ หรือมีปัญหาขึ้นมาในใจ แล้วเราไปมองออกนอกตัว ไม่กลับมามองที่ตัว ก็ไม่ต่างจากชายตาบอด ที่ไปต่อว่าคนที่มาชนตัวเอง ทั้งที่โคมที่ตัวเองถือ ไฟมันดับไปนานแล้ว แต่มองไม่เห็น วิถีธรรมกับวิถีโลกมันต่างกัน วิถีโลก มีปัญหาอะไรก็โทษคนอื่น แต่เวลาสบายก็คิดถึงแต่ตัวเอง ส่วนวิถีธรรม เวลาสบายๆ เวลาปกติก็นึกถึงคนอื่น แต่เวลามีปัญหาก็กลับมองที่ตัวเองก่อน

แล้วที่จริงถ้าเราดู มันสะท้อนให้เห็นว่า วิถีโลกเขาเน้นในเรื่องการเปลี่ยนแปลง จัดการกับภายนอก แต่ว่าวิถีธรรมหรือวิถีของผู้ใฝ่ธรรม จะเน้นที่การเปลี่ยนแปลงที่ตัวเอง โดยเฉพาะการปรับเปลี่ยนใจของตัว เวลามีความทุกข์ก็ลองปรับเปลี่ยนใจ

เหมือนมีผู้ชายคนหนึ่งที่เขานั่งสมาธิทุกเช้าเป็นประจำ แล้วเขาก็นั่งได้ดีด้วย แต่วันหนึ่งปรากฏว่าพอนั่งไปได้สักครู่หนึ่ง ก็มีเสียงค้อนดัง ทีแรกก็เสียงค้อน ตอนหลังก็เสียงเลื่อยยนต์ เพราะมีการก่อสร้างใกล้ๆ ตอนที่เสียงค้อน เสียงเลื่อยยนต์มากระทบหู ใจนี่ก็กระเพื่อมเลย แต่เขามีสติเห็น สติรู้ทัน พอมีสติรู้ทัน ใจก็สงบ แต่พอเผลอ ใจก็กระเพื่อม ทุกครั้งที่เสียงเลื่อยยนต์ดังกระทบหู แล้วมันก็สงบลงพอมีสติรู้ทัน เป็นอย่างนี้พักหนึ่ง

เขาก็เลยลองไปพิจารณาที่เสียงเลื่อยยนต์ พอพิจารณาไปก็สังเกตว่าบางครั้งมันก็กระชากกระชั้น บางครั้งมันก็ลากยาว บางครั้งเสียงสูง บางครั้งเสียงต่ำ บางครั้งเสียงดัง บางครั้งเสียงเบา ดูๆไปแล้วมันเหมือนกับเสียงเพลงเลยนะ เพลงประเภท heavy metal พอทันทีที่มองว่ามันเป็นเสียงเพลง ใจก็สงบเลย สงบประเภทที่ว่าเพลินเลย

ที่จริงเพลินก็ไม่ดี แต่เขาก็อดฉุกคิดไม่ได้ เอ๊ะ เมื่อกี้ใจยังกระเพื่อมขึ้นกระเพื่อมลง แถมมีความหงุดหงิดด้วย ตอนนี้ทำไมใจมันสงบ มีบางช่วงเสียงเลื่อยยนต์มันหายไป เขาอยากให้เสียงมันดังกลับมาใหม่ เขาก็เลยแปลกใจ ทีแรกเราอยากให้เสียงมันดับไปหายไป แต่ทำไมตอนนี้อยากให้เสียงมันดังใหม่ เสียงมันก็ยังดังเหมือนเดิม แต่ทำไมความรู้สึกเปลี่ยนไป

ที่ความรู้สึกเปลี่ยนไปเพราะอะไร เพราะว่าไม่ได้มองว่ามันเป็นเสียงดังอีกต่อไป แต่มองว่ามันเป็นเสียงเพลง พอมองว่าเป็นเสียงเพลง ความรู้สึกมันเป็นความรู้สึกในทางบวก ใจก็สงบเลย อันนี้มันก็ชี้ให้เห็นว่าความสงบมันอยู่ที่ใจ มากกว่าอยู่ที่สิ่งภายนอก และที่หงุดหงิด ที่ไม่สงบ มันไม่ใช่เพราะสิ่งภายนอก แต่เป็นเพราะใจ ใจรู้สึกลบกับเสียง มันก็กระเพื่อม มันก็หงุดหงิด ไม่สงบ ไม่เป็นสุข แต่พอใจรู้สึกเป็นบวก ความรู้สึกก็เปลี่ยนเป็นตรงกันข้าม

ฉะนั้นแทนที่จะไปตะโกนโวกเวกว่าให้หยุดส่งเสียง ให้เลิกตอกตะปู ให้เลิกใช้เลื่อยยนต์ มันจะดีกว่าหรือเปล่า ถ้ากลับมาดูที่ใจของเรา กลับมาสังเกตที่ใจของเรา หรือกลับมาปรับใจของเรา ใจของเรานี่อาจจะเป็นปัญหา

อันนี้คล้ายๆ กับเมื่อ 2-3 วันก่อน มีพระรูปหนึ่งเล่าให้ฟัง ได้ยินเสียงตอนเช้าๆ ที่วัด ตอนสายๆ วันกรรมกร มันมีเสียงเครื่องยนต์ดัง ตอนนั้นก็คิดว่าเป็นเสียงมอเตอร์ไซค์ ทันทีที่คิดว่าเป็นเสียงมอเตอร์ไซค์ ไม่พอใจขึ้นมาทันทีเลย มันมาขี่มอเตอร์ไซค์อะไรกันตรงนี้ ในวัด

แต่สักประเดี๋ยวเดียวฉุกขึ้นมาว่าเอ๊ะ มันอาจจะไม่ใช่เสียงมอเตอร์ไซค์ก็ได้ อาจจะเป็นเสียงเลื่อย เลื่อยที่เขากำลังตัดไม้ที่โค่น เพราะว่าก่อนหน้านั้นมีไม้โค่น ทันทีที่นึกว่าเป็นเสียงเลื่อย ที่ใช้ตัดไม้ที่ล้มลง ใจมันสงบเลย กลับอนุโมทนาด้วย เขามาช่วยกันทำงาน เสียงก็เสียงเดิม แต่ทำไมทีแรกหงุดหงิด เพราะไปคิดว่าเสียงมอเตอร์ไซค์ และคิดต่อไปว่ามันมาขี่อะไรแถวนี้ ในวัด แต่พอมองว่าเป็นเสียงเลื่อยที่ใช้เลื่อยไม้ที่ล้ม ความรู้สึกมันเปลี่ยนไป เพราะเกิดความรู้สึกว่าเขากำลังทำหน้าที่ของเขา

ฉะนั้นสุขหรือทุกข์อยู่ที่ใจแท้ๆ เลย หงุดหงิดหรือว่าสงบ อยู่ที่ใจ ไม่ใช่อยู่ที่เสียง อยู่ที่ว่าเราจะมองมันอย่างไร ฉะนั้นถ้าเราเข้าใจตรงนี้ สังเกตใจของเรา เราจะพบว่าจะไปแก้ทุกข์ก็ต้องแก้ที่ใจนั่นแหละ ไม่ต้องไปแก้ที่คนอื่น เป็นเพราะใจเราวางไว้ผิด มันจึงทุกข์ มันจึงเกิดความหงุดหงิด เกิดความรำคาญ แต่พอเราปรับใจ เปลี่ยนมุมมอง ความรู้สึกก็เปลี่ยนไป

zen sukato บันทึกเสียง Nun & oi ถอดเสียง nok edit

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 52b4a076:e7fad8bd

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

Regular relays have challenges

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

NFDB: A scalable database for large relays

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

Search

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

Personalization

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

Other

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

Calcite: A local microrelay database

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

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

For zero-downtime, NFDB is recommended.

Noswhere SmartCache

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

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

routerd

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

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

Ending notes

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

A lot more is to come. 👀️️️️️️

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

A new report from the National Sports Shooting Foundation (NSSF) shows that civilian firearm possession exceeded 490 million in 2022. The total from 1990 to 2022 is estimated at 491.3 million firearms. In 2022, over ten million firearms were domestically produced, leading to a total of 16,045,911 firearms available in the U.S. market.

Of these, 9,873,136 were handguns, 4,195,192 were rifles, and 1,977,583 were shotguns. Handgun availability aligns with the concealed carry and self-defense market, as all states allow concealed carry, with 29 having constitutional carry laws.

@ 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.

@ 26769dac:498e333b

Here's to the ones who can\ Feel there cause\ Surrender\ Change their ways\ But keep their fire\ And never give up

We will transform this world\ Restructuring\ One belief at a time

@ ba3b4b1d:eadff0d3

por Gedaliah Braun

Sou um americano que leccionou filosofia em várias universidades africanas entre 1976 e 1988, e desde então vivo na África do Sul. Quando cheguei a África, praticamente não sabia nada sobre o continente ou os seus povos, mas comecei a aprender rapidamente. Notei, por exemplo, que os africanos raramente cumpriam promessas e não viam necessidade de se desculpar quando as quebravam. Era como se não tivessem consciência de que haviam feito algo que exigisse um pedido de desculpas.

Demorei muitos anos a compreender por que os africanos se comportavam assim, mas penso que agora posso explicar este e outros comportamentos que caracterizam África. Acredito que a moralidade requer pensamento abstrato — tal como o planeamento para o futuro — e que uma relativa deficiência no pensamento abstrato pode explicar muitas coisas que são tipicamente africanas.

O que se segue não são descobertas científicas. Pode haver explicações alternativas para o que observei, mas as minhas conclusões baseiam-se em mais de 30 anos a viver entre africanos.

As minhas primeiras suspeitas sobre o que pode ser uma deficiência no pensamento abstrato surgiram do que comecei a aprender sobre as línguas africanas. Numa conversa com estudantes na Nigéria, perguntei como se diria, na sua língua local, que um coco está a meio caminho da árvore. “Não se pode dizer isso”, explicaram. “Tudo o que se pode dizer é que está ‘lá em cima’.” “E no topo da árvore?” “Também não; apenas ‘lá em cima’.” Por outras palavras, parecia não haver forma de expressar gradações.

Alguns anos depois, em Nairobi, aprendi algo mais sobre as línguas africanas quando duas mulheres se mostraram surpreendidas com o meu dicionário de inglês. “O inglês não é a tua língua?”, perguntaram. “Sim”, respondi. “É a minha única língua.” “Então por que precisas de um dicionário?”

Elas estavam intrigadas com o facto de eu precisar de um dicionário, e eu estava intrigado com a sua perplexidade. Expliquei que há momentos em que ouvimos uma palavra da qual não temos a certeza e, por isso, a procuramos. “Mas se o inglês é a tua língua”, insistiram, “como pode haver palavras que não conheces?” “O quê?”, disse eu. “Ninguém conhece todas as palavras da sua língua.”

Concluí que uma relativa deficiência no pensamento abstrato pode explicar muitas coisas que são tipicamente africanas.

Línguas africanas e conceitos limitados “Mas nós conhecemos todas as palavras de Kikuyu; todos os Kikuyu as conhecem”, responderam. Fiquei ainda mais surpreendido, mas gradualmente percebi que, como a sua língua é totalmente oral, ela existe apenas nas mentes dos falantes de Kikuyu. Como há um limite para o que o cérebro humano pode reter, o tamanho total da língua permanece mais ou menos constante. Uma língua escrita, por outro lado, existindo parcialmente nas milhões de páginas do registo escrito, cresce muito além da capacidade de qualquer pessoa a conhecer na totalidade. Mas se o tamanho de uma língua é limitado, segue-se que o número de conceitos que ela contém também será limitado e, portanto, tanto a língua como o pensamento serão empobrecidos.

As línguas africanas eram, por necessidade, suficientes no seu contexto pré-colonial. São empobrecidas apenas por comparação com as línguas ocidentais e numa África que tenta emular o Ocidente. Embora tenham sido compilados numerosos dicionários entre línguas europeias e africanas, há poucos dicionários dentro de uma única língua africana, precisamente porque os falantes nativos não precisam deles. Encontrei um dicionário Zulu-Zulu, mas era um livro de bolso de pequeno formato com 252 páginas.

As minhas indagações sobre o Zulu começaram quando liguei para o Departamento de Línguas Africanas da Universidade de Witwatersrand, em Joanesburgo, e falei com um homem Branco. Existia “precisão” na língua Zulu antes do contacto com os europeus? “Oh”, disse ele, “essa é uma pergunta muito eurocêntrica!” e simplesmente não respondeu. Liguei novamente, falei com outro homem branco e recebi uma resposta praticamente idêntica.

Então, contactei a Universidade da África do Sul, uma grande universidade por correspondência em Pretória, e falei com um jovem negro. Como tantas vezes aconteceu na minha experiência em África, conectámo-nos imediatamente. Ele compreendeu o meu interesse pelo Zulu e achou as minhas perguntas muito interessantes. Explicou que a palavra Zulu para “precisão” significa “fazer como uma linha reta”. Era isso parte do Zulu indígena? Não; isso foi adicionado pelos compiladores do dicionário.

Mas, assegurou-me, era diferente com “promessa”. Eu estava céptico. E quanto a “obrigação”? Ambos tínhamos o mesmo dicionário (Dicionário Inglês-Zulu, Zulu-Inglês, publicado pela Witwatersrand University Press em 1958), e procurámos. A entrada Zulu para “obrigação” significa “como se estivesse a atar os pés”. Ele disse que isso não era indígena, mas foi adicionado pelos compiladores. Mas se o Zulu não tinha o conceito de obrigação, como poderia ter o conceito de promessa, já que uma promessa é simplesmente o compromisso oral de uma obrigação? Estava interessado nisso, disse eu, porque os africanos frequentemente não cumpriam promessas e nunca se desculpavam — como se isso não justificasse um pedido de desculpas.

Pareceu acender-se uma luz na sua mente. Sim, disse ele; de facto, a palavra Zulu para promessa — isithembiso — não é a palavra correcta. Quando uma pessoa negra “promete”, quer dizer “talvez o faça, talvez não”. Mas, disse eu, isso torna o ato de prometer sem sentido, já que o objetivo de uma promessa é vincular alguém a um curso de ação. Quando não se tem a certeza de poder fazer algo, pode-se dizer: “Vou tentar, mas não posso prometer.” Ele disse que tinha ouvido brancos dizerem isso e nunca o entendera até agora. Como um jovem amigo romeno resumiu tão apropriadamente, quando uma pessoa negra “promete”, quer dizer “vou tentar”. O incumprimento de promessas não é, portanto, um problema linguístico. É difícil acreditar que, após conviverem tanto tempo com os brancos, não aprendessem o significado correcto, e é demasiada coincidência que o mesmo fenómeno se encontre na Nigéria, no Quénia e na Papua-Nova Guiné, onde também vivi. É muito mais provável que os africanos, em geral, careçam do próprio conceito e, portanto, não possam dar à palavra o seu significado correcto. Isso parece indicar alguma diferença na capacidade intelectual.

Note-se a entrada Zulu para obrigação: “como se estivesse a atar os pés”. Uma obrigação vincula, mas fá-lo moralmente, não fisicamente. É um conceito abstrato, razão pela qual não há palavra para isso em Zulu. Então, o que fizeram os autores do dicionário? Pegaram neste conceito abstrato e tornaram-no concreto. Pés, corda e atar são coisas tangíveis e observáveis, e, portanto, coisas que todos os negros entenderão, enquanto muitos não compreenderão o que é uma obrigação. O facto de terem definido a palavra desta forma é, por si só, uma evidência convincente para a minha conclusão de que o pensamento Zulu tem poucos conceitos abstratos e uma evidência indirecta para a visão de que os africanos podem ser deficientes no pensamento abstrato.

Pensamento abstrato

Entidades abstratas não existem no espaço ou no tempo; são tipicamente intangíveis e não podem ser percebidas pelos sentidos. Muitas vezes, são coisas que não existem. “O que aconteceria se todos deitassem lixo por todo o lado?” refere-se a algo que esperamos que não aconteça, mas ainda podemos pensar sobre isso.

Tudo o que observamos com os nossos sentidos ocorre no tempo e tudo o que vemos existe no espaço; no entanto, não podemos perceber o tempo nem o espaço com os nossos sentidos, mas apenas com a mente. A precisão também é abstrata; embora possamos ver e tocar coisas feitas com precisão, a precisão em si só pode ser percebida pela mente.

Como adquirimos conceitos abstratos? É suficiente fazer coisas com precisão para ter o conceito de precisão? Os africanos fazem excelentes esculturas, feitas com precisão, então por que não está o conceito na sua língua? Para ter este conceito, não devemos apenas fazer coisas com precisão, mas estar cientes deste fenómeno e depois dar-lhe um nome.

Como, por exemplo, adquirimos conceitos como crença e dúvida? Todos temos crenças; até os animais as têm. Quando um cão abana a cauda ao ouvir os passos do seu dono, acredita que ele está a chegar. Mas não tem o conceito de crença porque não tem consciência de que tem essa crença e, portanto, não tem consciência da crença em si. Em resumo, não tem autoconsciência e, assim, não está ciente dos seus próprios estados mentais.

Há muito tempo me parece que os negros tendem a carecer de autoconsciência. Se tal consciência é necessária para desenvolver conceitos abstratos, não é surpreendente que as línguas africanas tenham tão poucos termos abstratos. A falta de autoconsciência — ou introspecção — tem vantagens. Na minha experiência, o comportamento neurótico, caracterizado por uma autoconsciência excessiva e pouco saudável, é incomum entre os negros. Também estou confiante de que a disfunção sexual, caracterizada por uma autoconsciência excessiva, é menos comum entre os negros do que entre os brancos.

O tempo é outro conceito abstrato com o qual os africanos parecem ter dificuldades. Comecei a pensar sobre isso em 1998. Vários africanos chegaram num carro e estacionaram mesmo à frente do meu, bloqueando-o. “Ei”, disse eu, “não podem estacionar aqui.” “Oh, estás prestes a sair?”, perguntaram de forma perfeitamente educada e amigável. “Não”, respondi, “mas posso querer sair mais tarde. Estacionem ali” — e eles o fizeram.

Embora a possibilidade de eu querer sair mais tarde fosse óbvia para mim, o pensamento deles parecia abranger apenas o aqui e agora: “Se estás a sair agora, entendemos, mas caso contrário, qual é o problema?” Tive outros encontros semelhantes e a questão-chave parecia ser sempre: “Estás a sair agora?” O futuro, afinal, não existe. Existirá, mas não existe agora. Pessoas que têm dificuldade em pensar em coisas que não existem terão, ipso facto, dificuldade em pensar no futuro.

Parece que a palavra Zulu para “futuro” — isikhati — é a mesma que para tempo, assim como para espaço. Realisticamente, isso significa que esses conceitos provavelmente não existem no pensamento Zulu. Também parece não haver palavra para o passado — ou seja, o tempo anterior ao presente. O passado existiu, mas já não existe. Assim, pessoas que podem ter problemas em pensar em coisas que não existem terão dificuldade em pensar no passado, assim como no futuro.

Isso tem um impacto óbvio em sentimentos como gratidão e lealdade, que há muito notei serem incomuns entre os africanos. Sentimos gratidão por coisas que aconteceram no passado, mas para aqueles com pouco senso do passado, tais sentimentos são menos prováveis de surgir. Por que demorei mais de 20 anos a notar tudo isso? Penso que é porque as nossas suposições sobre o tempo estão tão profundamente enraizadas que nem sequer temos consciência de as fazer e, portanto, a possibilidade de outros não as partilharem simplesmente não nos ocorre. E assim, não o vemos, mesmo quando a evidência está diante dos nossos olhos.

Matemática e manutenção Cito um artigo da imprensa sul-africana sobre os problemas que os negros têm com a matemática:

“[Xhosa] é uma língua onde polígono e plano têm a mesma definição … onde conceitos como triângulo, quadrilátero, pentágono, hexágono são definidos por uma única palavra.” (“Finding New Languages for Maths and Science,” Star [Joanesburgo], 24 de Julho de 2002, p. 8.)

Mais precisamente, esses conceitos simplesmente não existem em Xhosa, que, juntamente com o Zulu, é uma das duas línguas mais faladas na África do Sul. Na América, diz-se que os negros têm uma “tendência a aproximar espaço, números e tempo em vez de visar a precisão completa.” (Star, 8 de Junho de 1988, p.10.) Por outras palavras, também são fracos em matemática. Note-se o trio idêntico — espaço, números e tempo. Será apenas uma coincidência que esses três conceitos altamente abstratos sejam aqueles com os quais os negros — em todo o lado — parecem ter tantas dificuldades?

A entrada no dicionário Zulu para “número” — ningi — significa “numeroso”, o que não é de todo o mesmo que o conceito de número. Fica claro, portanto, que não há conceito de número em Zulu.

O domínio branco na África do Sul terminou em 1994. Cerca de dez anos depois, começaram os cortes de energia, que eventualmente atingiram proporções de crise. A principal razão para isso é simplesmente a falta de manutenção no equipamento de geração. A manutenção é orientada para o futuro, e a entrada Zulu no dicionário para isso é ondla, que significa: “1. Nutrir, criar; educar; 2. Vigiar; observar (a tua colheita).” Em resumo, não há tal coisa como manutenção no pensamento Zulu, e seria difícil argumentar que isso não está totalmente relacionado com o facto de que, quando as pessoas em África dizem “nada funciona”, é apenas um exagero.

O New York Times relata que a cidade de Nova Iorque está a considerar um plano (desde implementado) destinado a fazer com que os negros “se saiam bem em testes padronizados e compareçam às aulas”, pagando-lhes para fazer essas coisas e que poderiam “ganhar até 500 dólares por ano”. Os alunos receberiam dinheiro por frequentar regularmente a escola, por cada livro que lessem, por se saírem bem nos testes e, às vezes, apenas por os fazerem. Os pais seriam pagos por “manter um emprego a tempo inteiro … ter seguro de saúde … e assistir a conferências de pais e professores.” (Jennifer Medina, “Schools Plan to Pay Cash for Marks,” New York Times, 19 de Junho de 2007.) A implicação clara é que os negros não são muito motivados. A motivação envolve pensar no futuro e, portanto, em coisas que não existem. Dadas as deficiências dos negros neste aspecto, não é surpreendente que lhes falte motivação, e ter de os incentivar desta forma é mais uma evidência para tal deficiência.

A entrada Zulu para “motivar” é banga, sob a qual encontramos: “1. Fazer, causar, produzir algo desagradável; … causar problemas. … 2. Disputar uma reivindicação; … lutar por herança; … 3. Dirigir-se a, apontar para, viajar em direção a … .” No entanto, quando pergunto aos africanos o que banga significa, não fazem ideia. De facto, nenhuma palavra Zulu poderia referir-se à motivação pela simples razão de que não há tal conceito em Zulu; e se não há tal conceito, não pode haver uma palavra para ele. Isso ajuda a explicar a necessidade de pagar aos negros para se comportarem como se estivessem motivados.

Zulus O mesmo artigo do New York Times cita Darwin Davis, da Urban League, que “adverte que o … dinheiro oferecido [por frequentar as aulas] era relativamente insignificante … e questiona … quantos testes os alunos precisariam de passar para comprar o mais recente videojogo.” Em vez de se envergonhar pela própria necessidade de tal plano, este activista negro queixa-se de que os pagamentos não são suficientes! Se ele realmente não tem consciência de como as suas observações serão percebidas pela maioria dos leitores, é moralmente obtuso, mas as suas opiniões podem reflectir uma compreensão comum entre os negros do que é a moralidade: não algo internalizado, mas algo que os outros impõem de fora. Daí a sua queixa de que pagar às crianças para fazerem coisas que deveriam estar motivadas a fazer por si próprias não é suficiente.

Neste contexto, lembro-me de algumas descobertas notáveis do falecido linguista americano William Stewart, que passou muitos anos no Senegal a estudar línguas locais. Enquanto as culturas ocidentais internalizam normas — “Não faças isso!” para uma criança torna-se eventualmente “Eu não devo fazer isso” para um adulto — as culturas africanas não o fazem. Dependem inteiramente de controlos externos sobre o comportamento, vindos de anciãos tribais e outras fontes de autoridade. Quando os africanos foram destribalizados, esses controlos externos desapareceram, e como nunca houve controlos internos, os resultados foram crime, drogas, promiscuidade, etc. Onde houve outras formas de controlo — como na África do Sul governada por brancos, na África colonial ou no Sul segregado dos EUA — este comportamento foi mantido dentro de limites toleráveis. Mas quando mesmo esses controlos desaparecem, muitas vezes há violência desenfreada.

Stewart aparentemente nunca perguntou por que as culturas africanas não internalizavam normas, ou seja, por que nunca desenvolveram uma consciência moral, mas é improvável que isso tenha sido apenas um acidente histórico. Mais provavelmente, foi o resultado de deficiências na capacidade de pensamento abstrato.

Evolução e pensamento abstrato Uma explicação para esta falta de pensamento abstrato, incluindo a compreensão diminuída do tempo, é que os africanos evoluíram num clima onde podiam viver dia a dia sem precisar de pensar no futuro. Nunca desenvolveram essa capacidade porque não havia necessidade dela. Os brancos, por outro lado, evoluíram em circunstâncias em que tinham de considerar o que aconteceria se não construíssem casas robustas e armazenassem combustível e comida suficientes para o inverno. Para eles, era afundar ou nadar.

Uma confirmação surpreendente das ideias de Stewart pode ser encontrada na edição de Maio/Junho de 2006 da Boston Review, uma publicação tipicamente liberal. Em “Do the Right Thing: Cognitive Science’s Search for a Common Morality,” Rebecca Saxe distingue entre regras “convencionais” e “morais”. As regras convencionais são apoiadas por autoridades, mas podem ser alteradas; as regras morais, por outro lado, não se baseiam na autoridade convencional e não estão sujeitas a mudanças. “Mesmo crianças de três anos … distinguem entre transgressões morais e convencionais”, escreve ela. A única excepção, segundo James Blair, dos Institutos Nacionais de Saúde, são os psicopatas, que exibem “comportamento agressivo persistente”. Para eles, todas as regras se baseiam apenas na autoridade externa, na ausência da qual “tudo é permitido”. A conclusão tirada é que “indivíduos saudáveis em todas as culturas respeitam a distinção entre regras convencionais … e morais.” No entanto, no mesmo artigo, outra antropóloga argumenta que “o estatuto especial das regras morais não pode ser parte da natureza humana, mas é … apenas … um artefacto dos valores ocidentais.” Anita Jacobson-Widding, escrevendo sobre as suas experiências entre os Manyika do Zimbabué, diz: “Tentei encontrar uma palavra que correspondesse ao conceito inglês de ‘moralidade.’ Expliquei o que queria dizer perguntando aos meus informantes que descrevessem as normas para o bom comportamento em relação a outras pessoas. A resposta foi unânime. A palavra para isso era tsika. Mas quando pedi aos meus informantes bilingues para traduzirem tsika para o inglês, eles disseram que era ‘boas maneiras’ …”

Ela concluiu que, como as boas maneiras são claramente regras convencionais e não morais, os Manyika simplesmente não tinham um conceito de moralidade. Mas como se explicaria essa ausência? A explicação de Jacobson-Widding é o disparate típico que só poderia vir de um chamado intelectual: “o conceito de moralidade não existe.” A explicação muito mais provável é que o conceito de moralidade, embora universal em outros aspectos, é enfraquecido em culturas que têm uma deficiência no pensamento abstrato.

De acordo com uma sabedoria popular agora desacreditada, os negros são “crianças em corpos adultos”, mas pode haver alguma base para essa visão. O adulto africano médio tem o mesmo QI bruto que uma criança branca de 11 anos. Essa é aproximadamente a idade em que as crianças brancas começam a internalizar a moralidade e já não precisam de reforços externos tão fortes.

Crueldade gratuita Outro aspecto do comportamento africano que os liberais fazem o seu melhor para ignorar, mas que, no entanto, requer uma explicação, é a crueldade gratuita. Um revisor do livro Driving South, de David Robbins (1993), escreve:

“Um assistente social do Cabo vê elementos que se deleitam com a violência … É como um culto que abraçou muitas pessoas que, de outra forma, parecem normais. … À menor provocação, o seu desejo de sangue é despertado. E então querem ver morte, e zombam e ridicularizam o sofrimento envolvido, especialmente o sofrimento de uma morte lenta e agonizante.” (Citizen [Joanesburgo], 12 de Julho de 1993, p.6.)

Há algo tão indizivelmente vil nisso, algo tão além da depravação, que o cérebro humano recua. Isso não é apenas a ausência de empatia humana, mas o prazer positivo no sofrimento humano, ainda mais quando é “lento e agonizante”. Consegue imaginar zombar e ridicularizar alguém em tal agonia horrível?

Durante a era do apartheid, os activistas negros costumavam matar traidores e inimigos pelo método de “colar” (necklacing). Um pneu velho era colocado ao redor do pescoço da vítima, enchido com gasolina, e — é melhor deixar um testemunha ocular descrever o que acontecia a seguir:

“O pneu cheio de gasolina é colocado nos teus ombros e um isqueiro é colocado ao teu alcance. … Os teus dedos são quebrados, agulhas são enfiadas pelo teu nariz e és torturado até acenderes o isqueiro na gasolina tu mesmo.” (Citizen; “SA’s New Nazis,” 10 de Agosto de 1993, p.18.) O autor de um artigo no Chicago Tribune, descrevendo a forma igualmente horrível como os Hutu mataram Tutsi nos massacres do Burundi, maravilhou-se com “o êxtase de matar, a luxúria pelo sangue; este é o pensamento mais horrível. Está além do meu alcance.” (“Hutu Killers Danced In Blood Of Victims, Videotapes Show,” Chicago Tribune, 14 de Setembro de 1995, p.8.) A falta de qualquer senso moral é ainda mais evidenciada pelo facto de terem gravado os seus crimes em vídeo, “aparentemente querendo registá-los … para a posteridade.” Ao contrário dos criminosos de guerra, que escondiam as suas façanhas, essas pessoas aparentemente tinham orgulho no seu trabalho.

Em 1993, Amy Biehl, uma americana de 26 anos com uma bolsa Fulbright, vivia na África do Sul, onde passava a maior parte do seu tempo em bairros negros ajudando negros. Um dia, enquanto levava três amigos africanos para casa, jovens negros pararam o carro, arrastaram-na para fora e mataram-na porque era branca. Um juiz sul-africano aposentado, Rex van Schalkwyk, no seu livro de 1998 One Miracle is Not Enough, cita um relatório de jornal sobre o julgamento dos seus assassinos: “Os apoiantes dos três homens acusados de assassinar [ela] … desataram a rir na galeria pública do Supremo Tribunal hoje quando uma testemunha disse como a mulher espancada gemeu de dor.” Esse comportamento, escreveu Van Schalkwyk, “é impossível de explicar em termos acessíveis a mentes racionais.” (pp. 188-89.)

Esses incidentes e as respostas que evocam — “o cérebro humano recua”, “além do meu alcance”, “impossível de explicar a mentes racionais” — representam um padrão de comportamento e pensamento que não pode ser ignorado, e oferecem suporte adicional para a minha alegação de que os africanos são deficientes em consciência moral.

Violação e amor

Há muito suspeito que a ideia de violação não é a mesma em África como em outros lugares, e agora encontro confirmação disso na Newsweek: “De acordo com um estudo de três anos [em Joanesburgo] … mais da metade dos jovens entrevistados — tanto homens como mulheres — acredita que forçar sexo com alguém que conheces não constitui violência sexual … [A] maneira casual com que os adolescentes sul-africanos discutem relações coercivas e sexo desprotegido é impressionante.” (Tom Masland, “Breaking The Silence,” Newsweek, 9 de Julho de 2000.)

Claramente, muitos negros não acham que a violação é algo de que se envergonhar.

O autor da Newsweek está intrigado com o comportamento generalizado que se sabe levar à SIDA, perguntando “Por que o esforço pelo sexo seguro falhou tão abjectamente?” Bem, além das suas atitudes profundamente diferentes em relação ao sexo e à violência e da sua libido elevada, um factor importante pode ser o seu conceito diminuído de tempo e a capacidade reduzida de pensar no futuro.

No entanto, fiquei surpreendido com o que encontrei no dicionário Zulu. A entrada principal para violação diz: “1. Agir apressadamente; … 2. Ser ganancioso. 3. Roubar, saquear, … tomar [posses] pela força.” Embora essas entradas possam estar relacionadas com o nosso conceito de violação, há um pequeno problema: não há referência a relações sexuais! Numa cultura dominada por homens, onde dizer “não” muitas vezes não é uma opção (como confirmado pelo estudo mencionado), “tomar sexo pela força” não faz realmente parte do cálculo mental africano. A violação tem claramente uma dimensão moral, mas talvez não para os africanos. Na medida em que não consideram o sexo forçado como errado, então, pela nossa concepção, não podem considerá-lo violação, porque a violação é errada. Se tal comportamento não é errado, não é violação.

Um artigo sobre violação em grupo no jornal britânico de esquerda, The Guardian, confirma isso quando cita uma jovem negra: “A questão é que eles [homens negros] não o vêem como violação, como nós sendo forçadas. Eles apenas o vêem como prazer para eles.” (Rose George, “They Don’t See it as Rape. They Just See it as Pleasure for Them,” 5 de Junho de 2004.) Uma atitude semelhante parece ser partilhada entre alguns negros americanos que se referem casualmente à violação em grupo como “correr um comboio”. (Nathan McCall, Makes Me Wanna Holler, Vintage Books, 1995.)

Se a compreensão africana de violação está tão distante, também pode estar a sua ideia de romantismo ou amor. Recentemente assisti a um programa de televisão sul-africano sobre fazer sexo por dinheiro. Das várias mulheres na audiência que falaram, nenhuma questionou a moralidade desse comportamento. De facto, uma perguntou lamentavelmente: “Por que mais eu faria sexo com um homem?”

Pela forma casual como os africanos usam a palavra “amor”, suspeito que a sua compreensão dela é, na melhor das hipóteses, infantil. Suspeito que a noção é alheia aos africanos, e ficaria surpreendido se as coisas fossem muito diferentes entre os negros americanos. Os africanos ouvem os brancos falar de “amor” e tentam dar-lhe um significado dentro do seu próprio repertório conceptual. O resultado é uma concepção infantil desta emoção humana mais profunda, provavelmente semelhante ao seu mal-entendido sobre a natureza de uma promessa.

Recentemente localizei um documento que me foi ditado por uma jovem africana em Junho de 1993. Ela chamou-lhe a sua “história”, e o parágrafo final é uma ilustração comovente do que, para os europeus, pareceria uma compreensão limitada do amor:

“No meu caminho de volta da escola, conheci um rapaz. E ele me pediu em namoro. O nome dele era Mokone. Ele disse-me que me amava. E então eu disse-lhe que lhe daria a minha resposta na próxima semana. À noite, estava louca por ele. Estava sempre a pensar nele.”

Cegueira moral

Sempre que ensinava ética, usava o exemplo de Alfred Dreyfus, um oficial judeu do exército francês que foi condenado por traição em 1894, embora as autoridades soubessem que ele era inocente. Admitir o erro, dizia-se, teria um efeito desastroso no moral militar e causaria grande agitação social. Eu argumentava que certas coisas são intrinsecamente erradas e não apenas por causa das suas consequências. Mesmo que os resultados de libertar Dreyfus fossem muito piores do que mantê-lo na prisão, ele deveria ser libertado, porque é injusto manter um homem inocente preso.

Para meu espanto, uma classe inteira no Quénia disse sem hesitação que ele não deveria ser libertado. Chamem-me obtuso se quiserem, mas demorei 20 anos para que o significado pleno disso começasse a fazer sentido para mim.

Subjunctividade e contrafactualidade

A morte é certa, mas os acidentes não são. Acredito que os africanos, em geral, podem carecer dos conceitos de subjunctividade e contrafactualidade. A subjunctividade é expressa em afirmações como: “O que terias feito se eu não tivesse aparecido?” Isso é contrário ao facto porque eu apareci, e agora é impossível que eu não tenha aparecido. Estamos a pedir a alguém que imagine o que teria feito se algo que não aconteceu (e agora não poderia acontecer) tivesse acontecido. Isso requer autoconsciência, e já descrevi a possível deficiência dos negros neste aspecto. É óbvio que os animais, por exemplo, não podem pensar contrafactualmente, devido à sua completa falta de autoconsciência.

Quando alguém que conheço tentou persuadir os seus trabalhadores africanos a contribuir para um seguro de saúde, eles perguntaram: “Para que serve?” “Bem, se tiveres um acidente, pagaria o hospital.” A resposta deles foi imediata: “Mas chefe, não tivemos um acidente!” “Sim, mas e se tivesses?” Resposta? “Não tivemos um acidente!” Fim da história.

Curiosamente, os negros planeiam funerais, pois, embora um acidente seja apenas um risco, a morte é uma certeza. (As entradas Zulu para “risco” são “perigo” e “uma superfície escorregadia”.) Dada a natureza frequentemente tudo-ou-nada do pensamento negro, se não é certo que terás um acidente, então não terás um acidente. Além disso, a morte é concreta e observável: Vemos as pessoas envelhecerem e morrerem. Os africanos tendem a estar cientes do tempo quando ele se manifesta de forma concreta e observável.

Uma das ideias centrais que sustentam a moralidade é a Regra de Ouro: faz aos outros o que gostarias que te fizessem a ti. “Como te sentirias se alguém roubasse tudo o que tens? Bem, é assim que ele se sentiria se tu o roubasses.” A subjunctividade aqui é óbvia. Mas se os africanos, em geral, carecem deste conceito, terão dificuldade em entender a Regra de Ouro e, consequentemente, em entender a moralidade.

Se isso for verdade, também poderíamos esperar que a sua capacidade de empatia humana seja diminuída, e isso é sugerido nos exemplos citados acima. Afinal, como empatizamos? Quando ouvimos falar de coisas como “colar” (necklacing), instintiva — e inconscientemente — pensamos: “Como me sentiria se fosse aquela pessoa?” Claro que não sou e não posso ser essa pessoa, mas imaginar ser essa pessoa dá-nos informações morais valiosas: que não quereríamos que isso nos acontecesse e, portanto, não devemos querer que aconteça aos outros. Na medida em que as pessoas são deficientes nesse pensamento abstrato, serão deficientes na compreensão moral e, consequentemente, na empatia humana — o que é o que tendemos a encontrar nos africanos.

No seu livro de 1990, Devil’s Night, Ze’ev Chafets cita uma mulher negra falando sobre os problemas de Detroit: “Sei que algumas pessoas não vão gostar disto, mas sempre que tens muitos negros juntos, vais ter problemas. Os negros são ignorantes e rudes.” (pp. 76-77.)

Se alguns africanos não conseguem imaginar claramente como o seu próprio comportamento rude se sente para os outros — por outras palavras, se não conseguem colocar-se no lugar do outro — serão incapazes de entender o que é a grosseria. Para eles, o que chamamos de rude pode ser normal e, portanto, do seu ponto de vista, não realmente rude. Os africanos podem, portanto, não se ofender com comportamentos que consideraríamos rudes — como não cumprir compromissos, por exemplo. Pode-se até conjecturar que a crueldade africana não é a mesma que a crueldade branca, uma vez que os africanos podem não estar totalmente cientes da natureza do seu comportamento, enquanto tal consciência é uma parte essencial da “verdadeira” crueldade.

Não sou de forma alguma o único a notar esta aparente inconsciência em relação aos outros que por vezes caracteriza o comportamento negro. Walt Harrington, um liberal branco casado com uma negra de pele clara, faz algumas admissões surpreendentes no seu livro de 1994, Crossings: A White Man’s Journey Into Black America:

“Reparo num carro pequeno … ao longe. De repente … um saco de lixo voa pela janela. … Penso, aposto que são negros. Ao longo dos anos, notei mais negros a deitar lixo do que brancos. Odeio admitir isso porque é um preconceito. Mas ao passar pelo carro, vejo que o meu reflexo estava correcto — [são negros]. “[Ao entrar] num drive-through do McDonald’s … [vejo que] o carro à minha frente tinha quatro negros. Novamente … a minha mente fez o seu cálculo inconsciente: Vamos ficar aqui para sempre enquanto estas pessoas decidem o que pedir. Literalmente abanei a cabeça. … Meu Deus, os meus filhos são meio negros! Mas então o golpe: esperamos e esperamos e esperamos. Cada um dos quatro … debruçou-se pela janela e pediu individualmente. O pedido foi alterado várias vezes. Ficámos e ficámos, e eu voltei a abanar a cabeça, desta vez pelo enigma que é a raça na América.

“Sabia que o sentimento enterrado que me fez prever esta desorganização … era … racista. … Mas a minha previsão estava correcta.” (pp. 234-35.) Os africanos também tendem a deitar lixo. Para entender isso, devemos perguntar por que os brancos não deitam lixo, pelo menos não tanto. Perguntamo-nos: “O que aconteceria se todos deitassem lixo por todo o lado? Seria uma confusão. Então não deves fazê-lo!” A possível deficiência dos negros no pensamento abstrato torna esse raciocínio mais difícil, pelo que qualquer comportamento que exija esse pensamento é menos provável de se desenvolver nas suas culturas. Mesmo após viverem por gerações em sociedades onde esse pensamento é comum, muitos podem ainda não o absorver.

Aplicação aos negros americanos Até que ponto as minhas observações sobre os africanos se aplicam aos negros americanos? Os negros americanos têm um QI médio de 85, que é 15 pontos mais alto que a média africana de 70. A capacidade para o pensamento abstrato está, sem dúvida, correlacionada com a inteligência, e por isso podemos esperar que os negros americanos, em geral, superem os africanos nestes aspectos.

Ainda assim, os negros americanos mostram muitos dos traços tão marcantes entre os africanos: baixa capacidade matemática, raciocínio abstrato diminuído, altas taxas de criminalidade, horizonte temporal curto, grosseria, lixo, etc. Se eu tivesse vivido apenas entre negros americanos e não entre africanos, talvez nunca tivesse chegado às conclusões que tenho, mas o comportamento mais extremo entre os africanos torna mais fácil perceber as mesmas tendências entre os negros americanos.

Gedaliah Braun possui um doutoramento em filosofia e é o autor de Racism, Guilt, Self-Hatred and Self-Deceit. Quem estiver interessado em ler o seu livro pode adquiri-lo em formato PDF no site da AR, AmRen.com.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Herzlichen Glückwunsch zum dritten Geburtstag, liebe Denk Bar! Wieso zum dritten? Das war doch 2022 und jetzt sind wir im Jahr 2024, oder? Ja, das ist schon richtig, aber bei Geburtstagen erinnere ich mich immer auch an meinen Vater, und der behauptete oft, der erste sei ja schließlich der Tag der Geburt selber und den müsse man natürlich mitzählen. Wo er recht hat, hat er nunmal recht. Konsequenterweise wird also heute dieser Blog an seinem dritten Geburtstag zwei Jahre alt.

Das ist ein Grund zum Feiern, wie ich finde. Einerseits ganz einfach, weil es dafür gar nicht genug Gründe geben kann. «Das Leben sind zwei Tage», lautet ein gängiger Ausdruck hier in Andalusien. In der Tat könnte es so sein, auch wenn wir uns im Alltag oft genug von der Routine vereinnahmen lassen.

Seit dem Start der Denk Bar vor zwei Jahren ist unglaublich viel passiert. Ebenso wie die zweieinhalb Jahre davor, und all jenes war letztlich auch der Auslöser dafür, dass ich begann, öffentlich zu schreiben. Damals notierte ich:

«Seit einigen Jahren erscheint unser öffentliches Umfeld immer fragwürdiger, widersprüchlicher und manchmal schier unglaublich - jede Menge Anlass für eigene Recherchen und Gedanken, ganz einfach mit einer Portion gesundem Menschenverstand.»

Wir erleben den sogenannten «großen Umbruch», einen globalen Coup, den skrupellose Egoisten clever eingefädelt haben und seit ein paar Jahren knallhart – aber nett verpackt – durchziehen, um buchstäblich alles nach ihrem Gusto umzukrempeln. Die Gelegenheit ist ja angeblich günstig und muss genutzt werden.

Nie hätte ich mir träumen lassen, dass ich so etwas jemals miterleben müsste. Die Bosheit, mit der ganz offensichtlich gegen die eigene Bevölkerung gearbeitet wird, war früher für mich unvorstellbar. Mein (Rest-) Vertrauen in alle möglichen Bereiche wie Politik, Wissenschaft, Justiz, Medien oder Kirche ist praktisch komplett zerstört. Einen «inneren Totalschaden» hatte ich mal für unsere Gesellschaften diagnostiziert.

Was mich vielleicht am meisten erschreckt, ist zum einen das Niveau der Gleichschaltung, das weltweit erreicht werden konnte, und zum anderen die praktisch totale Spaltung der Gesellschaft. Haben wir das tatsächlich mit uns machen lassen?? Unfassbar! Aber das Werkzeug «Angst» ist sehr mächtig und funktioniert bis heute.

Zum Glück passieren auch positive Dinge und neue Perspektiven öffnen sich. Für viele Menschen waren und sind die Entwicklungen der letzten Jahre ein Augenöffner. Sie sehen «Querdenken» als das, was es ist: eine Tugend.

Auch die immer ernsteren Zensurbemühungen sind letztlich nur ein Zeichen der Schwäche, wo Argumente fehlen. Sie werden nicht verhindern, dass wir unsere Meinung äußern, unbequeme Fragen stellen und dass die Wahrheit peu à peu ans Licht kommt. Es gibt immer Mittel und Wege, auch für uns.

---

Danke, dass du diesen Weg mit mir weitergehst!

@ e31e84c4:77bbabc0

Bitcoin and Fixed Income was Written By Wyatt O’Rourke. If you enjoyed this article then support his writing, directly, by donating to his lightning wallet: ultrahusky3@primal.net

Fiduciary duty is the obligation to act in the client’s best interests at all times, prioritizing their needs above the advisor’s own, ensuring honesty, transparency, and avoiding conflicts of interest in all recommendations and actions.

This is something all advisors in the BFAN take very seriously; after all, we are legally required to do so. For the average advisor this is a fairly easy box to check. All you essentially have to do is have someone take a 5-minute risk assessment, fill out an investment policy statement, and then throw them in the proverbial 60/40 portfolio. You have thousands of investment options to choose from and you can reasonably explain how your client is theoretically insulated from any move in the \~markets\~. From the traditional financial advisor perspective, you could justify nearly anything by putting a client into this type of portfolio. All your bases were pretty much covered from return profile, regulatory, compliance, investment options, etc. It was just too easy. It became the household standard and now a meme.

As almost every real bitcoiner knows, the 60/40 portfolio is moving into psyop territory, and many financial advisors get clowned on for defending this relic on bitcoin twitter. I’m going to specifically poke fun at the ‘40’ part of this portfolio.

The ‘40’ represents fixed income, defined as…

An investment type that provides regular, set interest payments, such as bonds or treasury securities, and returns the principal at maturity. It’s generally considered a lower-risk asset class, used to generate stable income and preserve capital.

Historically, this part of the portfolio was meant to weather the volatility in the equity markets and represent the “safe” investments. Typically, some sort of bond.

First and foremost, the fixed income section is most commonly constructed with U.S. Debt. There are a couple main reasons for this. Most financial professionals believe the same fairy tale that U.S. Debt is “risk free” (lol). U.S. debt is also one of the largest and most liquid assets in the market which comes with a lot of benefits.

There are many brilliant bitcoiners in finance and economics that have sounded the alarm on the U.S. debt ticking time bomb. I highly recommend readers explore the work of Greg Foss, Lawrence Lepard, Lyn Alden, and Saifedean Ammous. My very high-level recap of their analysis:

• A bond is a contract in which Party A (the borrower) agrees to repay Party B (the lender) their principal plus interest over time.

• The U.S. government issues bonds (Treasury securities) to finance its operations after tax revenues have been exhausted.

• These are traditionally viewed as “risk-free” due to the government’s historical reliability in repaying its debts and the strength of the U.S. economy

• U.S. bonds are seen as safe because the government has control over the dollar (world reserve asset) and, until recently (20 some odd years), enjoyed broad confidence that it would always honor its debts.

• This perception has contributed to high global demand for U.S. debt but, that is quickly deteriorating.

• The current debt situation raises concerns about sustainability.

• The U.S. has substantial obligations, and without sufficient productivity growth, increasing debt may lead to a cycle where borrowing to cover interest leads to more debt.

• This could result in more reliance on money creation (printing), which can drive inflation and further debt burdens.

In the words of Lyn Alden “Nothing stops this train”

Those obligations are what makes up the 40% of most the fixed income in your portfolio. So essentially you are giving money to one of the worst capital allocators in the world (U.S. Gov’t) and getting paid back with printed money.

As someone who takes their fiduciary responsibility seriously and understands the debt situation we just reviewed, I think it’s borderline negligent to put someone into a classic 60% (equities) / 40% (fixed income) portfolio without serious scrutiny of the client’s financial situation and options available to them. I certainly have my qualms with equities at times, but overall, they are more palatable than the fixed income portion of the portfolio. I don’t like it either, but the money is broken and the unit of account for nearly every equity or fixed income instrument (USD) is fraudulent. It’s a paper mache fade that is quite literally propped up by the money printer.

To briefly be as most charitable as I can – It wasn’t always this way. The U.S. Dollar used to be sound money, we used to have government surplus instead of mathematically certain deficits, The U.S. Federal Government didn’t used to have a money printing addiction, and pre-bitcoin the 60/40 portfolio used to be a quality portfolio management strategy. Those times are gone.

Now the fun part. How does bitcoin fix this?

Bitcoin fixes this indirectly. Understanding investment criteria changes via risk tolerance, age, goals, etc. A client may still have a need for “fixed income” in the most literal definition – Low risk yield. Now you may be thinking that yield is a bad word in bitcoin land, you’re not wrong, so stay with me. Perpetual motion machine crypto yield is fake and largely where many crypto scams originate. However, that doesn’t mean yield in the classic finance sense does not exist in bitcoin, it very literally does. Fortunately for us bitcoiners there are many other smart, driven, and enterprising bitcoiners that understand this problem and are doing something to address it. These individuals are pioneering new possibilities in bitcoin and finance, specifically when it comes to fixed income.

Here are some new developments –

Private Credit Funds – The Build Asset Management Secured Income Fund I is a private credit fund created by Build Asset Management. This fund primarily invests in bitcoin-backed, collateralized business loans originated by Unchained, with a secured structure involving a multi-signature, over-collateralized setup for risk management. Unchained originates loans and sells them to Build, which pools them into the fund, enabling investors to share in the interest income.

Dynamics

• Loan Terms: Unchained issues loans at interest rates around 14%, secured with a 2/3 multi-signature vault backed by a 40% loan-to-value (LTV) ratio.
• Fund Mechanics: Build buys these loans from Unchained, thus providing liquidity to Unchained for further loan originations, while Build manages interest payments to investors in the fund.

Pros

• The fund offers a unique way to earn income via bitcoin-collateralized debt, with protection against rehypothecation and strong security measures, making it attractive for investors seeking exposure to fixed income with bitcoin.

Cons

• The fund is only available to accredited investors, which is a regulatory standard for private credit funds like this.

Corporate Bonds – MicroStrategy Inc. (MSTR), a business intelligence company, has leveraged its corporate structure to issue bonds specifically to acquire bitcoin as a reserve asset. This approach allows investors to indirectly gain exposure to bitcoin’s potential upside while receiving interest payments on their bond investments. Some other publicly traded companies have also adopted this strategy, but for the sake of this article we will focus on MSTR as they are the biggest and most vocal issuer.

Dynamics

• Issuance: MicroStrategy has issued senior secured notes in multiple offerings, with terms allowing the company to use the proceeds to purchase bitcoin.

• Interest Rates: The bonds typically carry high-yield interest rates, averaging around 6-8% APR, depending on the specific issuance and market conditions at the time of issuance.

• Maturity: The bonds have varying maturities, with most structured for multi-year terms, offering investors medium-term exposure to bitcoin’s value trajectory through MicroStrategy’s holdings.

Pros

• Indirect Bitcoin exposure with income provides a unique opportunity for investors seeking income from bitcoin-backed debt.

• Bonds issued by MicroStrategy offer relatively high interest rates, appealing for fixed-income investors attracted to the higher risk/reward scenarios.

Cons

• There are credit risks tied to MicroStrategy’s financial health and bitcoin’s performance. A significant drop in bitcoin prices could strain the company’s ability to service debt, increasing credit risk.

• Availability: These bonds are primarily accessible to institutional investors and accredited investors, limiting availability for retail investors.

Interest Payable in Bitcoin – River has introduced an innovative product, bitcoin Interest on Cash, allowing clients to earn interest on their U.S. dollar deposits, with the interest paid in bitcoin.

Dynamics

• Interest Payment: Clients earn an annual interest rate of 3.8% on their cash deposits. The accrued interest is converted to Bitcoin daily and paid out monthly, enabling clients to accumulate Bitcoin over time.

• Security and Accessibility: Cash deposits are insured up to $250,000 through River’s banking partner, Lead Bank, a member of the FDIC. All Bitcoin holdings are maintained in full reserve custody, ensuring that client assets are not lent or leveraged.

Pros

• There are no hidden fees or minimum balance requirements, and clients can withdraw their cash at any time.

• The 3.8% interest rate provides a predictable income stream, akin to traditional fixed-income investments.

Cons

• While the interest rate is fixed, the value of the Bitcoin received as interest can fluctuate, introducing potential variability in the investment’s overall return.

• Interest rate payments are on the lower side

Admittedly, this is a very small list, however, these types of investments are growing more numerous and meaningful. The reality is the existing options aren’t numerous enough to service every client that has a need for fixed income exposure. I challenge advisors to explore innovative options for fixed income exposure outside of sovereign debt, as that is most certainly a road to nowhere. It is my wholehearted belief and call to action that we need more options to help clients across the risk and capital allocation spectrum access a sound money standard.

Additional Resources

• River: The future of saving is here: Earn 3.8% on cash. Paid in Bitcoin.

• Onramp: Bitcoin, The Emergent Asset Class

• MicroStrategy: MicroStrategy Announces Pricing of Offering of Convertible Senior Notes

---

Bitcoin and Fixed Income was Written By Wyatt O’Rourke. If you enjoyed this article then support his writing, directly, by donating to his lightning wallet: ultrahusky3@primal.net

@ 26769dac:498e333b

Here's to the ones who can\ Feel there cause\ Surrender\ Change their ways\ But keep their fire\ And never give up

We will transform this world\ Restructuring\ One belief at a time

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Nostr: a quick introduction, attempt #2

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

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

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

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

@ cae03c48:2a7d6671

Bitcoin Magazine

Nigel Farage To Speak At Bitcoin 2025 Conference

We are pleased to announce that Nigel Farage will join the speaker lineup at the Bitcoin Conference 2025 in Las Vegas. A defining figure in modern European politics, Farage led the Brexit movement that took the United Kingdom out of the EU, reshaping global conversations around national sovereignty. He is the founder and current leader of Reform UK, a rising political force now polling competitively, positioning him as a serious contender for to be the next UK Prime Minister.

A former Member of the European Parliament for over 20 years, Farage built his reputation challenging supranational institutions and unelected power—values that resonate deeply with the Bitcoin community. He also hosts GB News, where he critiques monetary policy, CBDCs, and digital surveillance. An outspoken advocate for financial sovereignty and free speech, Farage previously appeared at Bitcoin Amsterdam 2023 in a conversation with Peter McCormack. In 2025, he returns for a fireside with Bitcoin Magazine’s Frank Corva, whose sharp political interviews are helping shape Bitcoin’s place in global affairs.

About Bitcoin 2025

The excitement is building as the world’s largest Bitcoin conference approaches, Bitcoin 2025. Set to take place in Las Vegas from May 27-29, this premier event is anticipated to draw Bitcoin enthusiasts, industry leaders, and innovators from all over the globe.

Be part of the revolution! Come experience the cultural movement that’s the Bitcoin Conference – a landmark event with wealth of opportunities for networking and learning. In 2025, Bitcoin takes over Las Vegas, uniting builders, leaders, and believers in the world’s most resilient monetary network.

New in 2025: Code & Country launches on Industry Day, bringing together policymakers, technologists, and industry leaders for a full day of focused collaboration.

The aim: strengthen Bitcoin’s role in national strategy, regulatory clarity, and technological sovereignty. This marks a new era where Bitcoin’s protocol and geopolitical potential intersect more directly than ever before.

Highlights Include

• Keynote Speakers: Renowned experts and visionaries will share their insights and predictions for the future of digital currency.
• Workshops and Panels: Attendees can participate in hands-on workshops and panel discussions covering a wide array of topics, from technical details to practical applications in various industries.
• Exhibition Hall: The exhibition will showcase art, cutting-edge products and services from top companies in the bitcoin ecosystem.
• Networking Opportunities: With thousands of attendees expected, Bitcoin 2025 offers unparalleled opportunities for networking with peers, potential partners, and thought leaders.

Keynote Speakers

The conference is set to feature an impressive lineup of speakers, including leading Bitcoin developers, experts, as well as influential figures from the financial sector. Topics range from the latest advancements to regulatory updates and investment strategies.

1. JD Vance, Vice President Vance will become the first sitting vice president in the history of the United States to publicly voice his support for Bitcoin as he addresses the audience in Las Vegas.
2. Ross Ulbricht, Freedom Advocate – Founder of the Silk Road marketplace, recently released by President Donald Trump from serving a double life sentence. His story has become emblematic of the clash between personal liberty, Bitcoin, and the state.
3. Eric Trump & Donald Trump Jr, Both figures bring a bold voice to the conversation around Capitalism, Bitcoin, freedom, and economic sovereignty.
4. Cameron & Tyler Winklevoss, Co-Founders of Gemini – Early Bitcoin adopters and founders of the regulated exchange Gemini.
5. David Sacks, White House AI & Crypto Czar – Former PayPal COO and venture capitalist, now serving as the White House’s senior advisor on AI and cryptocurrency policy, leading national efforts on stablecoin legislation and digital asset strategy.
6. Bryan Johnson, Founder of Project Blueprint – Tech entrepreneur and longevity researcher known for reversing his biological age and challenging fiat-era assumptions about health, time, and human potential.

Past Conferences in the USA

– 2021 Miami: Where President Nayib Bukele revealed plans for El Salvador to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender, making history live on stage. Attendance: 11,000
– 2022 Miami: Where Michael Saylor delivered a landmark address on corporate Bitcoin strategy and announced additional MicroStrategy purchases. Attendance: 26,000
– 2023 Miami: Where Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. became the first U.S. presidential candidate to speak at a Bitcoin conference, addressing financial freedom and civil liberties. Attendance: 15,000
– 2024 Nashville: Highlights include President Donald J. Trump’s appearance, where he voiced support for Bitcoin mining and national monetary sovereignty. Attendance: 22,000

Join Us in Las Vegas

• Date: May 27-29, 2025
• Venue: The Venetian, Las Vegas, NV, USA  
• Tickets: https://b.tc/conference/2025
• Get a free General Admission ticket when you deposit $200 on eToro – while supplies last!

This post Nigel Farage To Speak At Bitcoin 2025 Conference first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Conor Mulcahy.

@ 76c71aae:3e29cafa

On social media and in the Nostr space in particular, there’s been a lot of debate about the idea of supporting deletion and editing of notes.

Some people think they’re vital features to have, others believe that more honest and healthy social media will come from getting rid of these features. The discussion about these features quickly turns to the feasibility of completely deleting something on a decentralized protocol. We quickly get to the “We can’t really delete anything from the internet, or a decentralized network.” argument. This crowds out how Delete and Edit can mimic elements of offline interactions, how they can be used as social signals.

When it comes to issues of deletion and editing content, what matters more is if the creator can communicate their intentions around their content. Sure, on the internet, with decentralized protocols, there’s no way to be sure something’s deleted. It’s not like taking a piece of paper and burning it. Computers make copies of things all the time, computers don’t like deleting things. In particular, distributed systems tend to use a Kafka architecture with immutable logs, it’s just easier to keep everything around, as deleting and reindexing is hard. Even if the software could be made to delete something, there’s always screenshots, or even pictures of screens. We can’t provably make something disappear.

What we need to do in our software is clearly express intention. A delete is actually a kind of retraction. “I no longer want to associate myself with this content, please stop showing it to people as part of what I’ve published, stop highlighting it, stop sharing it.” Even if a relay or other server keeps a copy, and keeps sharing it, being able to clearly state “hello world, this thing I said, was a mistake, please get rid of it.” Just giving users the chance to say “I deleted this” is a way of showing intention. It’s also a way of signaling that feedback has been heard. Perhaps the post was factually incorrect or perhaps it was mean and the person wants to remove what they said. In an IRL conversation, for either of these scenarios there is some dialogue where the creator of the content is learning something and taking action based on what they’ve learned.

Without delete or edit, there is no option to signal to the rest of the community that you have learned something because of how the content is structured today. On most platforms a reply or response stating one’s learning will be lost often in a deluge of replies on the original post and subsequent posts are often not seen especially when the original goes viral. By providing tools like delete and edit we give people a chance to signal that they have heard the feedback and taken action.

The Nostr Protocol supports delete and expiring notes. It was one of the reasons we switched from secure scuttlebutt to build on Nostr. Our nos.social app offers delete and while we know that not all relays will honor this, we believe it’s important to provide social signaling tools as a means of making the internet more humane.

We believe that the power to learn from each other is more important than the need to police through moral outrage which is how the current platforms and even some Nostr clients work today.

It’s important that we don’t say Nostr doesn’t support delete. Not all apps need to support requesting a delete, some might want to call it a retraction. It is important that users know there is no way to enforce a delete and not all relays may honor their request.

Edit is similar, although not as widely supported as delete. It’s a creator making a clear statement that they’ve created a new version of their content. Maybe it’s a spelling error, or a new version of the content, or maybe they’re changing it altogether. Freedom online means freedom to retract a statement, freedom to update a statement, freedom to edit your own content. By building on these freedoms, we’ll make Nostr a space where people feel empowered and in control of their own media.

@ 3283ef81:0a531a33

Aliquam eu turpis sed enim ultricies scelerisque\ Duis posuere congue faucibus

Praesent pretium orci ante, et faucibus lectus euismod a

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

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

---

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

---

„Triff niemals deine Idole“ heißt ein gängiger Ratschlag. In gewendeten Zeiten stehen zu dem die Werte auf dem Kopf – und manche Künstler mit ihnen. Die Worte, die aus manch ihrer Mündern kommen, wirken, als hätte eine fremde Hand sie auf deren Zunge gelegt.

Die Sängerin Alexa Rodrian erlebte bei der Verleihung des Deutschen Filmpreises einen solchen Moment der Desillusion. Es war der Auftritt des Liedermachers Wolf Biermann. Hören Sie hierzu Alexa Rodrians Text „Wolf Biermann und sein falscher Friede“.

Hier zum Nachhören:

https://soundcloud.com/radiomuenchen/wolf-biermann-und-sein-falscher-friede-von-alexa-rodrian

Dieser Beitrag erschien zuerst auf Radio München.

---

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.

@ 9ca447d2:fbf5a36d

Ukraine is reportedly about to make history by becoming the first country in Europe to have a national bitcoin reserve, a move aimed at strengthening its economy during the war with Russia.

The plan is still in its early stages and Binance, the world’s largest digital asset exchange, is involved.

According to Incrypted, a Ukrainian digital asset news outlet, Ukrainian MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak, First Deputy Chairman of the Finance, Tax and Customs Policy Committee, confirmed that the draft law is almost ready and will be submitted to the parliament soon.

“We will soon submit a draft law from the industry allowing the creation of crypto reserves,” Zheleznyak told Incrypted.

Earlier discussions mentioned a broader “crypto reserve” but the current plan is focused on bitcoin as a strategic reserve asset. If approved, the law will allow the National Bank of Ukraine to hold bitcoin as part of the country’s official reserves.

Since the war with Russia started, Ukraine has become one of the most bitcoin-friendly countries in the world.

In 2022 and 2023 Ukraine raised over $100 million in digital asset donations for defense and humanitarian purposes. A report from Chainalysis ranked the country among the top 10 countries for bitcoin adoption globally.

A rather vague and unconfirmed report by BitcoinTreasuries.net states that “holdings of public officials” currently stand at 46,351 BTC.

Ukraine bitcoin holdings as reported by BitcoinTreasuries

Supporters of the bitcoin reserve say it will help Ukraine protect its economy from war-related instability, inflation and currency depreciation.

By going digital, the government is looking for modern tools to strengthen its financial system in uncertain times. This is not just about storing bitcoin, it’s about establishing clear laws for digital assets ownership, management and use.

Binance is playing an advisory role in the project. The company has worked with Ukraine on digital asset education and regulations in the past and is now helping to shape the legal framework for the bitcoin reserve.

Kirill Khomyakov, Binance’s regional head for Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Africa, confirmed the company’s support, but warned it won’t be fast or easy.

“The creation of such a reserve will require significant changes in legislation,” Khomyakov said. “Another positive aspect is that this initiative will likely lead to greater clarity in the regulation of crypto assets in Ukraine.”

Despite the support from some officials, there are legal hurdles. Ukrainian laws don’t allow bitcoin to be in the official reserves. So the government needs to pass new laws for it to happen.

Efforts to legalize bitcoin in general have been going on for years. In 2021, a draft law on virtual assets was approved by Finance Committee but was withdrawn after the President’s Office and financial regulators objected.

Up to now, over 80 amendments have been proposed, showing how complicated the process is.

The Ministry of Digital Transformation is leading a larger reform that could introduce rules for digital asset exchanges, tax laws and anti-money laundering standards in the country.

Ukraine isn’t alone in considering bitcoin as a national reserve asset. In March 2025, the U.S. announced its own Strategic Bitcoin Reserve using BTC seized in criminal cases.

@ 975e4ad5:8d4847ce

Selfishness as Bitcoin’s Engine

Bitcoin, created by Satoshi Nakamoto, operates on a clear mechanism: miners use computational power to solve complex mathematical puzzles, verifying transactions on the network. In return, they earn rewards in Bitcoin. This is pure self-interest—miners want to maximize their profits. But while pursuing personal gain, they inadvertently maintain the entire system. Each new block added to the blockchain makes the network more stable and resilient against attacks. The more miners join, the more decentralized the system becomes, rendering it nearly impossible to manipulate.

This mechanism is brilliant because it taps into human nature—the desire for personal gain—to create something greater. Bitcoin doesn’t rely on altruism or good intentions. It relies on rational self-interest, which drives individuals to act in their own favor, ultimately benefiting the entire community.

The World Works the Same Way

This concept isn’t unique to Bitcoin. The world is full of examples where personal interest leads to collective progress. When an entrepreneur creates a new product, they do so to make money, but in the process, they create jobs, advance technology, and improve people’s lives. When a scientist works on a breakthrough, they may be driven by fame or financial reward, but the result is often a discovery that changes the world. Even in everyday life, when we buy products or services for our own convenience, we support the economy and encourage innovation.

Of course, self-interest doesn’t always lead to positive outcomes. Technologies created with good intentions can be misused—for example, in wars or for fraud. But even these negative aspects don’t halt progress. Competition and the drive for survival push humanity to find solutions, learn from mistakes, and keep moving forward. This is the cycle of development: individual self-interest fuels innovations that make the world more technological and connected.

Nature and Bitcoin: The DNA Parallel

To understand this mechanism, let’s look to nature. Consider the cells in a living organism. Each cell operates independently, following the instructions encoded in its DNA—a code that dictates its actions. The cell doesn’t “know” about the entire body, nor does it care. It simply strives for its own survival, performing its functions. But when billions of cells work together, following this code, they create something greater—a living organism.

Bitcoin is like the DNA of a decentralized system. Each miner is like a cell, following the “instructions” of the protocol to survive (profit). They don’t think about the entire network, only their own reward. But when all miners act together, they create something bigger—a global, secure, and resilient financial system. This is the beauty of decentralization: everyone acts for themselves, but the result is collective.

Selfishness and Humanity

Humans are no different from cells. Each of us wants to thrive—to have security, comfort, and success. But in pursuing these goals, we contribute to society. A teacher educates because they want to earn a living, but they shape future generations. An engineer builds a bridge because it’s their job, but it facilitates transportation for millions. Even in our personal lives, when we care for our families, we strengthen the social bonds that make society stronger.

Of course, there are exceptions—people who act solely for personal gain without regard for consequences. But even these outliers don’t change the bigger picture. Selfishness, when channeled correctly, is a driver of progress. Bitcoin is proof of this—a technology that turns personal interest into global innovation.

Bitcoin is more than just a cryptocurrency; it’s a mirror of human nature and the way the world works. Its design harnesses selfishness to create something sustainable and valuable. Just like cells in a body or people in society, Bitcoin miners work for themselves but contribute to something greater. It’s a reminder that even in our pursuit of personal gain, we can make the world a better place—as long as we follow the right “code.”

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Drivechain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does the above procedure mean?

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

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

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

What? 6 months to get my money back?

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

Why bother with this at all?

Drivechains solve many different problems:

It enables experimentation and new use cases for Bitcoin

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

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

It solves conflicts and infighting

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

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

It solves "scaling"

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

Use your imagination.

It solves the blockchain security budget issue

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

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

It keeps Bitcoin decentralized

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

Can miners steal?

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

Will miners steal?

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

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

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

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

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

What do we do if miners steal?

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

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

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

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

Because it is impossible.

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

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

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

What about the Blockstream sidechains whitepaper?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also

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

@ 9223d2fa:b57e3de7

480 steps

@ f240be2b:00c761ba

Wirtschaftswunder werden oft als mysteriöse, unvorhersehbare Phänomene dargestellt – als wären sie glückliche Zufälle oder das Ergebnis genialer Planungen. Bei näherer Betrachtung offenbart sich jedoch ein grundlegendes Muster: Diese vermeintlichen "Wunder" sind keine übernatürlichen Ereignisse, sondern das natürliche Ergebnis wirtschaftlicher Freiheit. Die Erfolgsgeschichten verschiedener Länder bestätigen diese These und zeigen, dass Wohlstand entsteht, wenn Menschen die Freiheit haben, zu handeln, zu produzieren und zu innovieren.

Das deutsche Wirtschaftswunder

Nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg lag Deutschland in Trümmern. Die Industrieproduktion war auf ein Viertel des Vorkriegsniveaus gesunken, und Millionen Menschen lebten in Armut. Doch innerhalb weniger Jahre erlebte Westdeutschland einen beispiellosen wirtschaftlichen Aufschwung, der als "Wirtschaftswunder" in die Geschichte einging.

Der Wandel begann mit Ludwig Erhards mutiger Währungsreform und Preisfreigabe im Jahr 1948. Erhard, damals Direktor der Wirtschaftsverwaltung, schaffte Preiskontrollen ab und führte die Deutsche Mark ein. Diese Maßnahmen wurden von Besatzungsmächten und deutschen Sozialisten skeptisch betrachtet und waren zunächst unpopulär. Doch die Ergebnisse sprachen für sich: Über Nacht füllten sich die Ladenregale wieder, und die Schwarzmärkte verschwanden.

Das Kernprinzip war einfach: Erhard gab den Menschen ihre wirtschaftliche Freiheit zurück. Er schuf einen stabilen Rechtsrahmen, reduzierte staatliche Eingriffe und förderte den freien Wettbewerb. Die Sozialisten bekämpften diese Entwicklung von Anfang an, deuteten diese jedoch im Nachhinein als “soziale Marktwirtschaft” um, diese Lüge verbreiten sie noch heute sehr erfolgreich.

Die freie Marktwirtschaft erlaubte es den Deutschen, ihre unternehmerischen Fähigkeiten zu entfalten und ihre zerstörte Wirtschaft wieder aufzubauen.\ Das Ergebnis: Zwischen 1950 und 1960 wuchs das westdeutsche BIP um mehr als 8% jährlich. Die Arbeitslosigkeit sank von 11% auf unter 1%, und Deutschland wurde zu einer der führenden Exportnationen der Welt. Was als "Wunder" bezeichnet wurde, war tatsächlich die natürliche Konsequenz wiederhergestellter wirtschaftlicher Freiheit.

Chiles wirtschaftliche Transformation

Chile bietet ein weiteres eindrucksvolles Beispiel. In den frühen 1970er Jahren litt das Land unter einer Hyperinflation von 700%, einem schrumpfenden BIP und zunehmender Armut. Die Transformation begann in den späten 1970er Jahren mit tiefgreifenden Wirtschaftsreformen.

Die chilenische Regierung privatisierte Staatsunternehmen, öffnete Märkte für internationalen Handel, schuf ein stabiles Finanzsystem und führte ein innovatives Rentensystem ein. Während andere lateinamerikanische Länder mit protektionistischen Maßnahmen experimentierten, entschied sich Chile für wirtschaftliche Freiheit.

Die Ergebnisse waren beeindruckend: Zwischen 1975 und 2000 verdreifachte sich Chiles Pro-Kopf-Einkommen. Die Armutsquote sank von 45% auf unter 10%. Heute hat Chile das höchste Pro-Kopf-Einkommen in Südamerika und eine der stabilsten Wirtschaften der Region.

Mit einer gewissen Melancholie müssen wir beobachten, wie die hart erkämpften Errungenschaften Chiles allmählich in den Schatten der Vergänglichkeit gleiten. Was einst als Leuchtturm wirtschaftlicher Transformation strahlte, wird nun von den Nebeln der kollektiven Amnesie umhüllt. In dieser Dämmerung der Erinnerung finden interventionistische Strömungen erneut fruchtbaren Boden.

Dieses Phänomen ist nicht auf Chile beschränkt. Auch in Deutschland verblasst die Erinnerung an die transformative Kraft der freien Marktwirtschaft. Die Geschichte wird umgedichtet, in der wirtschaftliche Freiheit als unbarmherziger Kapitalismus karikiert wird, während staatliche Intervention als einziger Weg zur sozialen Gerechtigkeit glorifiziert wird.

Chinas große Öffnung

Im Reich der Mitte vollzog sich die vielleicht dramatischste wirtschaftliche Metamorphose unserer Zeit. Nach Jahrzehnten der Isolation und planwirtschaftlicher Starrheit öffnete China unter Deng Xiaoping vorsichtig die Tore zur wirtschaftlichen Freiheit.

Die Transformation begann in den Reisfeldern, wo Bauern erstmals seit Generationen über ihre eigene Ernte bestimmen durften. Sie setzte sich fort in den pulsierenden Sonderwirtschaftszonen, wo unternehmerische Energie auf globale Märkte traf. 

Das Ergebnis war atemberaubend: Fast vier Jahrzehnte mit durchschnittlich 10 Prozent Wirtschaftswachstum jährlich – eine beispiellose Leistung in der Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Mehr als 800 Millionen Menschen überwanden die Armut und fanden den Weg in die globale Mittelschicht. Selbst die partielle Einführung wirtschaftlicher Freiheiten entfesselte eine Produktivität, die die Welt veränderte.

Die zeitlose Lektion

Das Geheimnis wirtschaftlicher Erneuerung liegt nicht in komplexen Theorien oder staatlichen Eingriffen, sondern in der einfachen Weisheit, Menschen die Freiheit zu geben, ihre Träume zu verwirklichen. Wenn wir von "Wirtschaftswundern" sprechen, verkennen wir die wahre Natur dieser Transformationen.

Sie sind keine mysteriösen Anomalien, sondern vielmehr Bestätigungen eines zeitlosen Prinzips: In der fruchtbaren Erde wirtschaftlicher Freiheit blüht der menschliche Erfindungsgeist. Diese Erkenntnis ist keine ideologische Position, sondern eine durch die Geschichte vielfach bestätigte Wahrheit.

Die Lektion dieser Erfolgsgeschichten ist sowohl schlicht als auch tiefgründig: Der Weg zu Wohlstand und menschlicher Entfaltung führt über die Anerkennung und den Schutz wirtschaftlicher Freiheiten. In dieser Erkenntnis liegt vielleicht das wahre Wunder – die beständige Kraft einer einfachen Idee, die immer wieder Leben und Hoffnung in die dunkelsten wirtschaftlichen Landschaften bringt.

Der aufsteigende Stern des Südens

Jenseits der Andenkette, wo Argentinien und Chile ihre lange Grenze teilen, entfaltet sich eine neue Erfolgsgeschichte. Mit mutigen Reformen und einer Rückbesinnung auf wirtschaftliche Freiheit erwacht dieses Land mit viel Potenzial aus seinem langen Schlummer. Was wir beobachten, ist nichts weniger als die Geburt eines neuen südamerikanischen Wirtschaftswunders – geboren aus der Erkenntnis, dass Wohlstand nicht verteilt, sondern erschaffen wird.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Warning: This piece contains a conversation about difficult topics. Please proceed with caution.

TL;DR please educate your children about online safety.

Julian Assange wrote in his 2012 book Cypherpunks, “This book is not a manifesto. There isn’t time for that. This book is a warning.” I read it a few times over the past summer. Those opening lines definitely stood out to me. I wish we had listened back then. He saw something about the internet that few had the ability to see. There are some individuals who are so close to a topic that when they speak, it’s difficult for others who aren’t steeped in it to visualize what they’re talking about. I didn’t read the book until more recently. If I had read it when it came out, it probably would have sounded like an unknown foreign language to me. Today it makes more sense.

This isn’t a manifesto. This isn’t a book. There is no time for that. It’s a warning and a possible solution from a desperate and determined survivor advocate who has been pulling and unraveling a thread for a few years. At times, I feel too close to this topic to make any sense trying to convey my pathway to my conclusions or thoughts to the general public. My hope is that if nothing else, I can convey my sense of urgency while writing this. This piece is a watchman’s warning.

When a child steps online, they are walking into a new world. A new reality. When you hand a child the internet, you are handing them possibilities—good, bad, and ugly. This is a conversation about lowering the potential of negative outcomes of stepping into that new world and how I came to these conclusions. I constantly compare the internet to the road. You wouldn’t let a young child run out into the road with no guidance or safety precautions. When you hand a child the internet without any type of guidance or safety measures, you are allowing them to play in rush hour, oncoming traffic. “Look left, look right for cars before crossing.” We almost all have been taught that as children. What are we taught as humans about safety before stepping into a completely different reality like the internet? Very little.

I could never really figure out why many folks in tech, privacy rights activists, and hackers seemed so cold to me while talking about online child sexual exploitation. I always figured that as a survivor advocate for those affected by these crimes, that specific, skilled group of individuals would be very welcoming and easy to talk to about such serious topics. I actually had one hacker laugh in my face when I brought it up while I was looking for answers. I thought maybe this individual thought I was accusing them of something I wasn’t, so I felt bad for asking. I was constantly extremely disappointed and would ask myself, “Why don’t they care? What could I say to make them care more? What could I say to make them understand the crisis and the level of suffering that happens as a result of the problem?”

I have been serving minor survivors of online child sexual exploitation for years. My first case serving a survivor of this specific crime was in 2018—a 13-year-old girl sexually exploited by a serial predator on Snapchat. That was my first glimpse into this side of the internet. I won a national award for serving the minor survivors of Twitter in 2023, but I had been working on that specific project for a few years. I was nominated by a lawyer representing two survivors in a legal battle against the platform. I’ve never really spoken about this before, but at the time it was a choice for me between fighting Snapchat or Twitter. I chose Twitter—or rather, Twitter chose me. I heard about the story of John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, and I was so unbelievably broken over it that I went to war for multiple years. I was and still am royally pissed about that case. As far as I was concerned, the John Doe #1 case proved that whatever was going on with corporate tech social media was so out of control that I didn’t have time to wait, so I got to work. It was reading the messages that John Doe #1 sent to Twitter begging them to remove his sexual exploitation that broke me. He was a child begging adults to do something. A passion for justice and protecting kids makes you do wild things. I was desperate to find answers about what happened and searched for solutions. In the end, the platform Twitter was purchased. During the acquisition, I just asked Mr. Musk nicely to prioritize the issue of detection and removal of child sexual exploitation without violating digital privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption. Elon thanked me multiple times during the acquisition, made some changes, and I was thanked by others on the survivors’ side as well.

I still feel that even with the progress made, I really just scratched the surface with Twitter, now X. I left that passion project when I did for a few reasons. I wanted to give new leadership time to tackle the issue. Elon Musk made big promises that I knew would take a while to fulfill, but mostly I had been watching global legislation transpire around the issue, and frankly, the governments are willing to go much further with X and the rest of corporate tech than I ever would. My work begging Twitter to make changes with easier reporting of content, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation material—without violating privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption—and advocating for the minor survivors of the platform went as far as my principles would have allowed. I’m grateful for that experience. I was still left with a nagging question: “How did things get so bad with Twitter where the John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 case was able to happen in the first place?” I decided to keep looking for answers. I decided to keep pulling the thread.

I never worked for Twitter. This is often confusing for folks. I will say that despite being disappointed in the platform’s leadership at times, I loved Twitter. I saw and still see its value. I definitely love the survivors of the platform, but I also loved the platform. I was a champion of the platform’s ability to give folks from virtually around the globe an opportunity to speak and be heard.

I want to be clear that John Doe #1 really is my why. He is the inspiration. I am writing this because of him. He represents so many globally, and I’m still inspired by his bravery. One child’s voice begging adults to do something—I’m an adult, I heard him. I’d go to war a thousand more lifetimes for that young man, and I don’t even know his name. Fighting has been personally dark at times; I’m not even going to try to sugarcoat it, but it has been worth it.

The data surrounding the very real crime of online child sexual exploitation is available to the public online at any time for anyone to see. I’d encourage you to go look at the data for yourself. I believe in encouraging folks to check multiple sources so that you understand the full picture. If you are uncomfortable just searching around the internet for information about this topic, use the terms “CSAM,” “CSEM,” “SG-CSEM,” or “AI Generated CSAM.” The numbers don’t lie—it’s a nightmare that’s out of control. It’s a big business. The demand is high, and unfortunately, business is booming. Organizations collect the data, tech companies often post their data, governments report frequently, and the corporate press has covered a decent portion of the conversation, so I’m sure you can find a source that you trust.

Technology is changing rapidly, which is great for innovation as a whole but horrible for the crime of online child sexual exploitation. Those wishing to exploit the vulnerable seem to be adapting to each technological change with ease. The governments are so far behind with tackling these issues that as I’m typing this, it’s borderline irrelevant to even include them while speaking about the crime or potential solutions. Technology is changing too rapidly, and their old, broken systems can’t even dare to keep up. Think of it like the governments’ “War on Drugs.” Drugs won. In this case as well, the governments are not winning. The governments are talking about maybe having a meeting on potentially maybe having legislation around the crimes. The time to have that meeting would have been many years ago. I’m not advocating for governments to legislate our way out of this. I’m on the side of educating and innovating our way out of this.

I have been clear while advocating for the minor survivors of corporate tech platforms that I would not advocate for any solution to the crime that would violate digital privacy rights or erode end-to-end encryption. That has been a personal moral position that I was unwilling to budge on. This is an extremely unpopular and borderline nonexistent position in the anti-human trafficking movement and online child protection space. I’m often fearful that I’m wrong about this. I have always thought that a better pathway forward would have been to incentivize innovation for detection and removal of content. I had no previous exposure to privacy rights activists or Cypherpunks—actually, I came to that conclusion by listening to the voices of MENA region political dissidents and human rights activists. After developing relationships with human rights activists from around the globe, I realized how important privacy rights and encryption are for those who need it most globally. I was simply unwilling to give more power, control, and opportunities for mass surveillance to big abusers like governments wishing to enslave entire nations and untrustworthy corporate tech companies to potentially end some portion of abuses online. On top of all of it, it has been clear to me for years that all potential solutions outside of violating digital privacy rights to detect and remove child sexual exploitation online have not yet been explored aggressively. I’ve been disappointed that there hasn’t been more of a conversation around preventing the crime from happening in the first place.

What has been tried is mass surveillance. In China, they are currently under mass surveillance both online and offline, and their behaviors are attached to a social credit score. Unfortunately, even on state-run and controlled social media platforms, they still have child sexual exploitation and abuse imagery pop up along with other crimes and human rights violations. They also have a thriving black market online due to the oppression from the state. In other words, even an entire loss of freedom and privacy cannot end the sexual exploitation of children online. It’s been tried. There is no reason to repeat this method.

It took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out why I always felt a slight coldness from those in tech and privacy-minded individuals about the topic of child sexual exploitation online. I didn’t have any clue about the “Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse.” This is a term coined by Timothy C. May in 1988. I would have been a child myself when he first said it. I actually laughed at myself when I heard the phrase for the first time. I finally got it. The Cypherpunks weren’t wrong about that topic. They were so spot on that it is borderline uncomfortable. I was mad at first that they knew that early during the birth of the internet that this issue would arise and didn’t address it. Then I got over it because I realized that it wasn’t their job. Their job was—is—to write code. Their job wasn’t to be involved and loving parents or survivor advocates. Their job wasn’t to educate children on internet safety or raise awareness; their job was to write code.

They knew that child sexual abuse material would be shared on the internet. They said what would happen—not in a gleeful way, but a prediction. Then it happened.

I equate it now to a concrete company laying down a road. As you’re pouring the concrete, you can say to yourself, “A terrorist might travel down this road to go kill many, and on the flip side, a beautiful child can be born in an ambulance on this road.” Who or what travels down the road is not their responsibility—they are just supposed to lay the concrete. I’d never go to a concrete pourer and ask them to solve terrorism that travels down roads. Under the current system, law enforcement should stop terrorists before they even make it to the road. The solution to this specific problem is not to treat everyone on the road like a terrorist or to not build the road.

So I understand the perceived coldness from those in tech. Not only was it not their job, but bringing up the topic was seen as the equivalent of asking a free person if they wanted to discuss one of the four topics—child abusers, terrorists, drug dealers, intellectual property pirates, etc.—that would usher in digital authoritarianism for all who are online globally.

Privacy rights advocates and groups have put up a good fight. They stood by their principles. Unfortunately, when it comes to corporate tech, I believe that the issue of privacy is almost a complete lost cause at this point. It’s still worth pushing back, but ultimately, it is a losing battle—a ticking time bomb.

I do think that corporate tech providers could have slowed down the inevitable loss of privacy at the hands of the state by prioritizing the detection and removal of CSAM when they all started online. I believe it would have bought some time, fewer would have been traumatized by that specific crime, and I do believe that it could have slowed down the demand for content. If I think too much about that, I’ll go insane, so I try to push the “if maybes” aside, but never knowing if it could have been handled differently will forever haunt me. At night when it’s quiet, I wonder what I would have done differently if given the opportunity. I’ll probably never know how much corporate tech knew and ignored in the hopes that it would go away while the problem continued to get worse. They had different priorities. The most voiceless and vulnerable exploited on corporate tech never had much of a voice, so corporate tech providers didn’t receive very much pushback.

Now I’m about to say something really wild, and you can call me whatever you want to call me, but I’m going to say what I believe to be true. I believe that the governments are either so incompetent that they allowed the proliferation of CSAM online, or they knowingly allowed the problem to fester long enough to have an excuse to violate privacy rights and erode end-to-end encryption. The US government could have seized the corporate tech providers over CSAM, but I believe that they were so useful as a propaganda arm for the regimes that they allowed them to continue virtually unscathed.

That season is done now, and the governments are making the issue a priority. It will come at a high cost. Privacy on corporate tech providers is virtually done as I’m typing this. It feels like a death rattle. I’m not particularly sure that we had much digital privacy to begin with, but the illusion of a veil of privacy feels gone.

To make matters slightly more complex, it would be hard to convince me that once AI really gets going, digital privacy will exist at all.

I believe that there should be a conversation shift to preserving freedoms and human rights in a post-privacy society.

I don’t want to get locked up because AI predicted a nasty post online from me about the government. I’m not a doomer about AI—I’m just going to roll with it personally. I’m looking forward to the positive changes that will be brought forth by AI. I see it as inevitable. A bit of privacy was helpful while it lasted. Please keep fighting to preserve what is left of privacy either way because I could be wrong about all of this.

On the topic of AI, the addition of AI to the horrific crime of child sexual abuse material and child sexual exploitation in multiple ways so far has been devastating. It’s currently out of control. The genie is out of the bottle. I am hopeful that innovation will get us humans out of this, but I’m not sure how or how long it will take. We must be extremely cautious around AI legislation. It should not be illegal to innovate even if some bad comes with the good. I don’t trust that the governments are equipped to decide the best pathway forward for AI. Source: the entire history of the government.

I have been personally negatively impacted by AI-generated content. Every few days, I get another alert that I’m featured again in what’s called “deep fake pornography” without my consent. I’m not happy about it, but what pains me the most is the thought that for a period of time down the road, many globally will experience what myself and others are experiencing now by being digitally sexually abused in this way. If you have ever had your picture taken and posted online, you are also at risk of being exploited in this way. Your child’s image can be used as well, unfortunately, and this is just the beginning of this particular nightmare. It will move to more realistic interpretations of sexual behaviors as technology improves. I have no brave words of wisdom about how to deal with that emotionally. I do have hope that innovation will save the day around this specific issue. I’m nervous that everyone online will have to ID verify due to this issue. I see that as one possible outcome that could help to prevent one problem but inadvertently cause more problems, especially for those living under authoritarian regimes or anyone who needs to remain anonymous online. A zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) would probably be the best solution to these issues. There are some survivors of violence and/or sexual trauma who need to remain anonymous online for various reasons. There are survivor stories available online of those who have been abused in this way. I’d encourage you seek out and listen to their stories.

There have been periods of time recently where I hesitate to say anything at all because more than likely AI will cover most of my concerns about education, awareness, prevention, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation online, etc.

Unfortunately, some of the most pressing issues we’ve seen online over the last few years come in the form of “sextortion.” Self-generated child sexual exploitation (SG-CSEM) numbers are continuing to be terrifying. I’d strongly encourage that you look into sextortion data. AI + sextortion is also a huge concern. The perpetrators are using the non-sexually explicit images of children and putting their likeness on AI-generated child sexual exploitation content and extorting money, more imagery, or both from minors online. It’s like a million nightmares wrapped into one. The wild part is that these issues will only get more pervasive because technology is harnessed to perpetuate horror at a scale unimaginable to a human mind.

Even if you banned phones and the internet or tried to prevent children from accessing the internet, it wouldn’t solve it. Child sexual exploitation will still be with us until as a society we start to prevent the crime before it happens. That is the only human way out right now.

There is no reset button on the internet, but if I could go back, I’d tell survivor advocates to heed the warnings of the early internet builders and to start education and awareness campaigns designed to prevent as much online child sexual exploitation as possible. The internet and technology moved quickly, and I don’t believe that society ever really caught up. We live in a world where a child can be groomed by a predator in their own home while sitting on a couch next to their parents watching TV. We weren’t ready as a species to tackle the fast-paced algorithms and dangers online. It happened too quickly for parents to catch up. How can you parent for the ever-changing digital world unless you are constantly aware of the dangers?

I don’t think that the internet is inherently bad. I believe that it can be a powerful tool for freedom and resistance. I’ve spoken a lot about the bad online, but there is beauty as well. We often discuss how victims and survivors are abused online; we rarely discuss the fact that countless survivors around the globe have been able to share their experiences, strength, hope, as well as provide resources to the vulnerable. I do question if giving any government or tech company access to censorship, surveillance, etc., online in the name of serving survivors might not actually impact a portion of survivors negatively. There are a fair amount of survivors with powerful abusers protected by governments and the corporate press. If a survivor cannot speak to the press about their abuse, the only place they can go is online, directly or indirectly through an independent journalist who also risks being censored. This scenario isn’t hard to imagine—it already happened in China. During #MeToo, a survivor in China wanted to post their story. The government censored the post, so the survivor put their story on the blockchain. I’m excited that the survivor was creative and brave, but it’s terrifying to think that we live in a world where that situation is a necessity.

I believe that the future for many survivors sharing their stories globally will be on completely censorship-resistant and decentralized protocols. This thought in particular gives me hope. When we listen to the experiences of a diverse group of survivors, we can start to understand potential solutions to preventing the crimes from happening in the first place.

My heart is broken over the gut-wrenching stories of survivors sexually exploited online. Every time I hear the story of a survivor, I do think to myself quietly, “What could have prevented this from happening in the first place?” My heart is with survivors.

My head, on the other hand, is full of the understanding that the internet should remain free. The free flow of information should not be stopped. My mind is with the innocent citizens around the globe that deserve freedom both online and offline.

The problem is that governments don’t only want to censor illegal content that violates human rights—they create legislation that is so broad that it can impact speech and privacy of all. “Don’t you care about the kids?” Yes, I do. I do so much that I’m invested in finding solutions. I also care about all citizens around the globe that deserve an opportunity to live free from a mass surveillance society. If terrorism happens online, I should not be punished by losing my freedom. If drugs are sold online, I should not be punished. I’m not an abuser, I’m not a terrorist, and I don’t engage in illegal behaviors. I refuse to lose freedom because of others’ bad behaviors online.

I want to be clear that on a long enough timeline, the governments will decide that they can be better parents/caregivers than you can if something isn’t done to stop minors from being sexually exploited online. The price will be a complete loss of anonymity, privacy, free speech, and freedom of religion online. I find it rather insulting that governments think they’re better equipped to raise children than parents and caretakers.

So we can’t go backwards—all that we can do is go forward. Those who want to have freedom will find technology to facilitate their liberation. This will lead many over time to decentralized and open protocols. So as far as I’m concerned, this does solve a few of my worries—those who need, want, and deserve to speak freely online will have the opportunity in most countries—but what about online child sexual exploitation?

When I popped up around the decentralized space, I was met with the fear of censorship. I’m not here to censor you. I don’t write code. I couldn’t censor anyone or any piece of content even if I wanted to across the internet, no matter how depraved. I don’t have the skills to do that.

I’m here to start a conversation. Freedom comes at a cost. You must always fight for and protect your freedom. I can’t speak about protecting yourself from all of the Four Horsemen because I simply don’t know the topics well enough, but I can speak about this one topic.

If there was a shortcut to ending online child sexual exploitation, I would have found it by now. There isn’t one right now. I believe that education is the only pathway forward to preventing the crime of online child sexual exploitation for future generations.

I propose a yearly education course for every child of all school ages, taught as a standard part of the curriculum. Ideally, parents/caregivers would be involved in the education/learning process.

Course: - The creation of the internet and computers - The fight for cryptography - The tech supply chain from the ground up (example: human rights violations in the supply chain) - Corporate tech - Freedom tech - Data privacy - Digital privacy rights - AI (history-current) - Online safety (predators, scams, catfishing, extortion) - Bitcoin - Laws - How to deal with online hate and harassment - Information on who to contact if you are being abused online or offline - Algorithms - How to seek out the truth about news, etc., online

The parents/caregivers, homeschoolers, unschoolers, and those working to create decentralized parallel societies have been an inspiration while writing this, but my hope is that all children would learn this course, even in government ran schools. Ideally, parents would teach this to their own children.

The decentralized space doesn’t want child sexual exploitation to thrive. Here’s the deal: there has to be a strong prevention effort in order to protect the next generation. The internet isn’t going anywhere, predators aren’t going anywhere, and I’m not down to let anyone have the opportunity to prove that there is a need for more government. I don’t believe that the government should act as parents. The governments have had a chance to attempt to stop online child sexual exploitation, and they didn’t do it. Can we try a different pathway forward?

I’d like to put myself out of a job. I don’t want to ever hear another story like John Doe #1 ever again. This will require work. I’ve often called online child sexual exploitation the lynchpin for the internet. It’s time to arm generations of children with knowledge and tools. I can’t do this alone.

Individuals have fought so that I could have freedom online. I want to fight to protect it. I don’t want child predators to give the government any opportunity to take away freedom. Decentralized spaces are as close to a reset as we’ll get with the opportunity to do it right from the start. Start the youth off correctly by preventing potential hazards to the best of your ability.

The good news is anyone can work on this! I’d encourage you to take it and run with it. I added the additional education about the history of the internet to make the course more educational and fun. Instead of cleaning up generations of destroyed lives due to online sexual exploitation, perhaps this could inspire generations of those who will build our futures. Perhaps if the youth is armed with knowledge, they can create more tools to prevent the crime.

This one solution that I’m suggesting can be done on an individual level or on a larger scale. It should be adjusted depending on age, learning style, etc. It should be fun and playful.

This solution does not address abuse in the home or some of the root causes of offline child sexual exploitation. My hope is that it could lead to some survivors experiencing abuse in the home an opportunity to disclose with a trusted adult. The purpose for this solution is to prevent the crime of online child sexual exploitation before it occurs and to arm the youth with the tools to contact safe adults if and when it happens.

In closing, I went to hell a few times so that you didn’t have to. I spoke to the mothers of survivors of minors sexually exploited online—their tears could fill rivers. I’ve spoken with political dissidents who yearned to be free from authoritarian surveillance states. The only balance that I’ve found is freedom online for citizens around the globe and prevention from the dangers of that for the youth. Don’t slow down innovation and freedom. Educate, prepare, adapt, and look for solutions.

I’m not perfect and I’m sure that there are errors in this piece. I hope that you find them and it starts a conversation.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Personagens de jogos e símbolos

A sensação de "ser" um personagem em um jogo ou uma brincadeira talvez seja o mais próximo que eu tenha conseguido chegar do entendimento de um símbolo religioso.

A hóstia consagrada é, segundo a religião, o corpo de Cristo, mas nossa mente moderna só consegue concebê-la como sendo uma representação do corpo de Cristo. Da mesma forma outras culturas e outras religiões têm símbolos parecidos, inclusive nos quais o próprio participante do ritual faz o papel de um deus ou de qualquer coisa parecida.

"Faz o papel" é de novo a interpretação da mente moderna. O sujeito ali é a coisa, mas ele ao mesmo tempo que é também sabe que não é, que continua sendo ele mesmo.

Nos jogos de videogame e brincadeiras infantis em que se encarna um personagem o jogador é o personagem. não se diz, entre os jogadores, que alguém está "encenando", mas que ele é e pronto. nem há outra denominação ou outro verbo. No máximo "encarnando", mas já aí já é vocabulário jornalístico feito para facilitar a compreensão de quem está de fora do jogo.

@ 2b24a1fa:17750f64

Eine Stunde Klassik! Der Münchner Pianist und "Musikdurchdringer" Jürgen Plich stellt jeden Dienstag um 20 Uhr große klassische Musik vor. Er teilt seine Hör- und Spielerfahrung und seine persönliche Sicht auf die Meisterwerke. Er spielt selbst besondere, unbekannte Aufnahmen, erklärt, warum die Musik so und nicht anders klingt und hat eine Menge aus dem Leben der Komponisten zu erzählen.

https://soundcloud.com/radiomuenchen/eine-stunde-klassik-opus-eins?

Sonntags um 10 Uhr in der Wiederholung.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

A Causa

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

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

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

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

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

em scrap para T.P.

@ 0c65eba8:4a08ef9a

Why This Matters and Why You Must Rise

Before we get to the hard truth, you need to see what’s at stake: being a husband, a good husband, is one of the most powerful and rewarding roles a man can earn. A well-chosen wife who loves, trusts, and follows your lead brings daily peace, sexual loyalty, emotional steadiness, and generational purpose. She raises your children with respect, protects your name with dignity, and makes your home a fortress of peace, joy and legacy.

But that kind of marriage isn’t given. It’s not random. It must be cultivated. Every couple has the potential to build it, but most don’t know how. Some are emotionally or mentally blocked, and a rare few are so self-destructive or disordered that they don’t want peace at all. If you commit to growth, you avoid becoming that third group. Your habits, discipline, leadership, clarity, and standards will determine the kind of women you attract, and the kind you choose.

Now, the hard truth: most men today are not mature enough to lead a family. Not because of fate, but because they have not been forged into full adulthood. Our culture has abandoned the process of training boys into husbands and fathers. We are surrounded by “males”, men who are adult aged but lacking in masculine maturity. You want to be forged into the kind of man capable of bearing the responsibilities that make marriage work, and make life worth living.

You’ve probably been told one of three lies. First, that you should just be yourself and wait for the right woman to magically appear. Second, that it’s hopeless, that modern women are broken and you’ll never succeed. Third, that the only way to win is to become a manipulator or a predator. All three are lies. And all three will ruin you.

Marriage is an institution that rests on male responsibility. Now is not the time to indulge in unrestrained feelings. This is the time to think logically, act decisively, and get your foundations right. The emotions will come, joy, love, pride, but only after the structure is sound. This audit isn’t romantic. It’s not poetic. It’s not meant to flatter you. It’s meant to demand excellence.

Because the stakes are civilization.

For most of human history, men weren’t asked to find themselves, they were trained, tested, and proven by their clan. Their worth wasn’t debated, it was demonstrated in actions. Marriage wasn’t a reward; it was an assignment earned by utility, discipline, and loyalty. Today, you must choose to forge yourself or be disqualified by default.

This document is hard. That’s intentional. If it offends you, that’s a sign you need it. It is your blueprint, not your affirmation. Read it like your life depends on it, because it does. Your future wife depends on it. Your children depend on it. Your legacy does too.

Every man is born male. Few become men. Fewer still become husbands. If you are to lead, protect, and provide, this is your starting line.

Natural Law Audit and Prescriptive Protocol for Male Readiness for Marriage-Intentional Courtship

Meta-Readiness Considerations

I. Vision of Legacy and Life Direction

A man cannot lead a family without first knowing where he is going. Before evaluating readiness for courtship, you must clarify your vision. What kind of life are you building? What do you want your marriage, children, household, and legacy to look like in five, ten, twenty years? This is not optional. A man without vision drifts, and drifting men destroy women and children.

Ask: Do you want a traditional household? Homeschooling? A career-driven wife or a homemaker? City life or rural homesteading? What is your stance on faith, education, conflict, discipline, and family governance? If you do not define these things in advance, you will be disqualified by women who have.

Your first step is to write it down. This vision is aspirational, it doesn’t need to be perfect, and it will evolve over time. But it must exist to anchor your habits, guide your structure, and align your strategic direction. Without it, you will have no consistent way to measure whether your decisions are moving you toward or away from your goals. Most importantly, this vision will help you evaluate whether a particular woman will support or undermine that trajectory. Put it into a concrete, measurable format. If it is not written, it is not real.

II. Male Hierarchy and Accountability Integration

Men are made in conflict, tested by other men, and refined in a hierarchy. If you do not belong to a tribe of strong men who correct, challenge, and demand your best, you are already failing. Self-improvement in isolation is a delusion. No man rises without pressure.

You need brothers, mentors, uncles, tradesmen, or elders, men who will hold you accountable to your standards, correct your pride, and force you to grow. Whether in a martial arts gym, a church men’s group, a builder’s crew, or a military brotherhood, you must place yourself under male scrutiny. That is where respect is forged.

If you are alone, this is your mission: find a circle or build one. Without this, you will drift, decay, or submit to weaker men’s values.

I. PHYSICAL HEALTH AND APPEARANCE

Functional Purpose: Your body is your first signal, your first point of communication. It tells the world whether you are disciplined, dangerous, and reliable, or soft, passive, and avoidant. Strength, grooming, posture, and composure signal not vanity, but command. A man who cannot govern his flesh will not be trusted to govern anything else.

Operational Criteria:

• Body Composition: Visible musculature, BMI 18.5–24.9.

• Posture: Upright, shoulders back, slow and intentional gait.

• Grooming: Clean, orderly hair, skin, nails, facial hair.

• Eye Contact: Calm, unwavering, non-threatening.

Disqualifiers:

• Obesity, sloppiness, foul odor, nervous ticks, posture collapse, dressing like a child.

Remediation Steps:

• Lift weights 3–5x/week.

• Establish daily grooming habits.

• Practice mirror walk, facial relaxation, and neutral posture.

• Buy and wear tailored, timeless outfits like suits or smart-casual attire, chosen for the setting, with high-quality fabrics and subtle styles to convey confidence and earn respect.

Rationale:

Your physical presentation is your first form of leadership. It signals self-respect, readiness, and capacity to protect and provide. Women and other men alike assess you visually before you speak. Neglect in this area marks you as unserious. Strength invites trust.

II. PSYCHOLOGICAL AND EMOTIONAL STABILITY

Functional Purpose: Your mood must not lead you. True emotional maturity means your emotions do not control you, but it does not mean you are numb or unavailable. You must be able to feel deeply, express emotion appropriately, and demonstrate openness to connection. Emotional repression is not strength; it is often a sign of fear. Women bond with men who are strong and warm, who are not ruled by emotion, but are not strangers to it either. Emotional regulation, agency, and stoic self-control are prerequisites for the burden of leadership. Women and children depend on consistency. If you break under pressure, they suffer.

Operational Criteria:

• Plans and acts for the long-term.

• Resolves conflict with clarity.

• Absence of rage, sulking, or passive aggression.

• Maintains emotionally intimate, trusting relationships with at least one or more close friends or family members.

Disqualifiers:

• Addictions, trauma reenactment, erratic emotional swings (crashing out).

Remediation Steps:

• Daily journaling + therapy/coaching if unresolved wounds exist.

• Breathwork, cold exposure, hardship-seeking routines.

• Audit social circle for drama dependency.

• Identify self-sabotaging emotional patterns, e.g., withdrawing from intimacy, ending friendships that grow too close, or mistaking openness for weakness, and interrupt them with intentional response strategies.

Rationale:

A man who cannot regulate his emotions becomes a source of instability rather than leadership. Emotional maturity is not the absence of feeling, but the control of it. It makes you trustworthy in crisis, durable in conflict, and clear in vision.

III. ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY AND PROVISIONING CAPACITY

Functional Purpose: You are not entitled to love without means. Provisioning is a male responsibility. If you cannot provide, you are not a suitor, you are a dependent. This has always been the ancient challenge of young men, how to grow into a provider before they are chosen. At 18, most men will fail this test, not because they are doomed, but because they are just beginning. Your job is to mature into the man who passes it.

Operational Criteria:

• Income: 1.3x local median female income minimum.

• Budgeting: Monthly audit of all spending.

• Savings/Insurance: 6+ months living expenses.

Disqualifiers:

• Irregular employment, credit card debt, no savings plan.

Remediation Steps:

• Obtain or increase income-producing skills.

• Build an emergency fund over 90 days.

• Eliminate high-interest debt.

• Join or form a male career network or professional brotherhood where members support and promote one another’s advancement, most trades and professions have them, and they multiply your rate of progress.

Rationale: Provisioning is the single clearest historical threshold of male maturity. A man who cannot sustain a household cannot form one. Women are instinctively attuned to this. Stability signals trustworthiness. Without it, love decays under the weight of unmet needs.

IV. LEADERSHIP, DECISION-MAKING, AND MORAL AUTHORITY

Functional Purpose: You are not equal in responsibility, you are higher. This means you carry the weight of consequence. She must feel safer with you in charge. Your leadership must be principled, not domineering.

Operational Criteria:

• Makes and owns decisions in all aspects of life.

• Asserts and maintains healthy boundaries.

• Arbitrates disputes without escalation.

• Knows how to say "no" to others including women.

Disqualifiers:

• People pleasing under pressure, indecisiveness, abdication of duty.

Remediation Steps:

• Practice “decision drills” daily.

• Create weekly leadership practice (mentoring, facilitating).

• Study natural hierarchy and enforcement principles.

Rationale: Leadership is not a “style”, it is a skill set. A man who cannot make decisions cannot command trust. Marriage is a high-stakes enterprise, and indecision breeds confusion and conflict. Clarity is love and care. Direction is protection.

V. SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE AND COURTSHIP COMPETENCE

Functional Purpose: You must lead. In courtship, that means planning, initiating, and maintaining your frame. Women test men for stability, assertiveness, and charisma. If you fail to calibrate, you fail to court.

Operational Criteria:

• Initiates interactions and follows through.

• Demonstrates empathetic intuition by interpreting emotional tone and needs through observation, body language, tone, patterns, rather than repeatedly asking "are you okay?"; this shows leadership, sensitivity, and awareness without neediness.

• Leads with clarity about relationship direction; a woman should never have to ask where she stands or where the relationship is going, his intent should be visible in word and action.

• Calibrates tone, timing, and intent.

• Leads logistics without seeking approval.

Disqualifiers:

• Creeping, over-sharing, chasing, excessive self-disclosure.

Remediation Steps:

• Social reps 3x/week with feedback: initiate conversations with strangers or acquaintances in real-world settings to practice confident, calibrated interaction. Use feedback from trusted peers or self-review to refine tone, timing, and engagement style.

• Practice escalation and withdrawal cycles in a calibrated, non-manipulative way: offer warmth and connection, then step back slightly to test reciprocity—not to punish or confuse, but to observe sincerity and emotional maturity. This is about leadership, not control.

• Study polarity dynamics and frame control.

Rationale:

Social calibration is not optional. Women are constantly reading your tone, timing, and presence. If you cannot initiate, maintain, and lead relational dynamics with competence, you will lose respect and attraction, even if your other credentials are in place.

VI. RISK DISCIPLINE AND REPUTATION MANAGEMENT

Functional Purpose: Your record is your resume. Reputation is slow-built and quickly lost. No woman with future orientation will follow a man whose past screams instability.

Operational Criteria:

• Clean digital, legal, and financial history.

• No active liabilities: drugs, debts, demons, or interfering exes.

Disqualifiers:

• Public drama, digital recklessness, chaos in your orbit.

Remediation Steps:

• 90-day discipline detox (no substance, no vice).

• Drop unstable, low value people from your orbit. Block them out.

• Clean online presence: don’t delete your social media, just remove the parts you wouldn’t want your grandmother, your future wife, or your children to see.

• Seek testimony from high-integrity peers.

Rationale: Your reputation precedes you. Women will not tell you when they've disqualified you, they will simply disappear. A man who cannot manage his habits or his history is seen as unstable. Stability earns trust. Reputation is leverage. One of the best ways to earn such a reputation is to volunteer with a respected organization. That could be your church, a local charity, or a civic or political group. It gives you a structure where you’re immediately adding value, integrated into a hierarchy, and being seen over time, a strategic investment in your public character and future social capital.

VII. ATTITUDE, WORLDVIEW, AND LONG-TERM STRATEGY

Functional Purpose: A man’s compass must point beyond his own gratification. Your worldview must align with duty, honor, and legacy. Hedonism, blackpilled cynicism, and false egalitarianism destroy your mission.

Operational Criteria:

• Sees family as duty, as a sacred honor, and as legacy-building project for his future.

• Orients decisions to long-term outcomes.

• Lives by principle, not trend.

Disqualifiers:

• Victimhood, escapism, prideful detachment.

Remediation Steps:

• Write a 5-year legacy map.

• Study Natural Law, masculine ethics, family economics.

• Form alliances with principled men.

• Audit your social media presence: are your posts expressions of agency, ownership, and action, or are they dominated by complaints, victimhood, or bitterness? This includes your reaction to this document.

Rationale: A man’s worldview is his compass. Without purpose beyond pleasure, he is easily swayed, easily trapped, and easily forgotten. Women do not trust men who float. They trust men who build, and who stay building. Are you responding with responsibility and a will to grow, or with defensiveness, sarcasm, or resentment? Your instinctive reaction reveals which trajectory you're on: the heroic or the defeated.

VIII. Courtship Entry and Partner Evaluation Protocol

Functional Purpose: Courtship is not casual. It is pre-contractual. A man must approach it with the same precision, discipline, and foresight he would apply to any high-stakes investment. A woman is not an accessory, she is a multiplier or destroyer of your legacy. Therefore, a man must evaluate with clarity, not lust; with long-term reciprocity in mind, not momentary gratification. She will vet you, so you must vet her.

Operational Guidelines:

• Precondition: Do not enter courtship unless your provisioning, leadership, and vision are demonstrably in place.

• Intentional Initiation: State your interest clearly. Do not flirt without purpose.

• Staged Testing: Observe her behavior in different settings (stress, boredom, family, social).

• Track Record Review: Know her history, relationship, sexual, emotional, legal. People do not change patterns without great effort or external force.

• Frame Integrity: Maintain leadership, emotional control, and escalation pacing.

Disqualifiers in Women:

• History of promiscuity, masculine affect, open contempt for male authority, or unstable social bonds.

• Signs of status-seeking over loyalty.

• Defensiveness against vetting, resistance to transparency is a red flag.

Remediation Steps for Men:

• Create a written checklist of values, standards, and red flags.

• Practice controlled emotional investment: do not fall in love before facts.

• Involve elder men or mentors in evaluating serious candidates.

Rationale: Your family is your most important project. Do not let your hormones sabotage your legacy. The discipline you apply here will determine the quality of your life 10, 20, even 40 years from now. Vet her like your children depend on it, because they will.

Common Objections and Necessary Corrections

“Women should accept me as I am.” That is not how selection works. You are not a product of sentiment, you are a man under judgment. And you will be judged. If you won’t improve, you are asking a woman to accept less so you can offer less. That’s not love, it’s laziness.

“This is outdated or too harsh.” Reality is not dated. The consequences of fatherlessness, broken homes, and unled women are timeless. What’s harsh is a man failing his family because he thought modernity made him exempt from responsibility.

“I know men who got married without doing all this.” Yes. And many of them are divorced, disrespected, or miserable. The bar is low. You are here to rise above it. The goal is not to ‘get married’, it is to build a durable, high-trust household.

“Women today are the real problem.” That may be partly true. But you are the variable you control. Let weak men complain. Strong men adapt, improve, and filter. If you are not rising above the noise, you are being drowned by it.

“This feels autistic or robotic.” It’s supposed to be procedural. That’s what makes it reliable. Emotion has its place, in protection, in passion, in pride, but your vetting process must be strategic. That’s not autism, it’s wisdom.

“Good men don’t need to judge women like this.” Wrong. Good men judge quietly but thoroughly. They know that marrying wrong will cost them their peace, their children, their mission. Judgment is not cruelty, it’s care.

“I don’t want to put in this much work.” Then don’t. But understand, you have chosen disqualification. The work is the entry fee. Excellence is rare for a reason. You are either one of the few who rise or one of the many who wish.

“Women today just aren’t worth marrying.” Not the women you can currently attract. If you’re only meeting low-quality women, you’re probably at their level. If you want to meet better women, you must become a better man.

“As long as the marriage laws are the way they are, it’s not worth it.” Marriage laws only come into play if you fail and get divorced. This process exists to help you avoid divorce. Stay out of court by vetting properly and building wisely.

“Tell me exactly what men get out of marriage in 2025.” Peace. Legacy. Daily affection. Loyalty. Children. A fortified home. Someone to multiply your effort and love. It’s what strong men throughout history have always wanted, and built.

“There aren’t enough good women left.” There are nearly equal numbers of men and women who qualify. It only feels unbalanced when you're not in the right networks or vetting properly. The solution isn’t despair, it’s improvement.

“50% of men will never be attractive to women.” Only if they stay in the bottom 50%. Normally men cycle in and out of the bottom 50%. That has always been true. The solution isn’t resignation, it’s advancement. Do the work in this audit, and you’ll be in the top 25%. Men who say this as an excuse are signaling their own stagnation. Focus on becoming the best version of yourself, not complaining.

Final Word: You’ve Got Work to Do

If you’ve read this far, you’ve already demonstrated what most men won’t: attention, endurance, and a willingness to face the truth. That alone separates you from the crowd.

If this document exposed your failures, good. That means you’re not too far gone. That means you still have a shot. It means you can recognize where to improve.

You don’t get a wife. You earn the trust to lead one. You don’t deserve a good woman, you build the capacity to attract and retain one.

Read this again. Make a plan. Audit weekly. Ask older and more successful men for correction. Get uncomfortable and get to work.

The future doesn’t need more weak men. It needs you at your best, mature, restored, resolute, and ready.

You’re not just choosing a woman. You’re choosing to become the man who will lead a household.

Make yourself a man who cannot be overlooked.

Your future begins now.

@ 3283ef81:0a531a33

Phasellus erat metus, suscipit et nisi a, dignissim luctus risus\ Nam eleifend aliquet aliquam

Curabitur vulputate velit elit, sit amet euismod nibh venenatis et

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Veterano não é dono de bixete

"VETERANO NÃO É DONO DE BIXETE". A frase em letras garrafais chama a atenção dos transeuntes neófitos. Paira sobre um cartaz amarelo que lista várias reclamações contra os "trotes machistas", que, na opinião do responsável pelo cartaz, "não é brincadeira, é opressão".

Eis aí um bizarro exemplo de como são as coisas: primeiro todos os universitários aprovam a idéia do trote, apoiam sua realização e até mesmo desejam sofrer o trote -- com a condição de o poderem aplicar eles mesmos depois --, louvam as maravilhas do mundo universitário, onde a suprema sabedoria se esconde atrás de rituais iniciáticos fora do alcance da imaginação do homem comum e rude, do pobre e do filhinho-de-papai das faculdades privadas; em suma: fomentam os mais baixos, os mais animalescos instintos, a crueldade primordial, destroem em si mesmos e nos colegas quaisquer valores civilizatórios que tivessem sobrado ali, ficando todos indistingüíveis de macacos agressivos e tarados.

Depois vêm aí com um cartaz protestar contra os assédios -- que sem dúvida acontecem em larguíssima escala -- sofridos pelas calouras de 17 anos e que, sendo também novatas no mundo universitário, ainda conservam um pouco de discernimento e pudor.

A incompreensão do fenômeno, porém, é tão grande, que os trotes não são identificados como um problema mental, uma doença que deve ser tratada e eliminada, mas como um sintoma da opressão machista dos homens às mulheres, um produto desta civilização paternalista que, desde que Deus é chamado "o Pai" e não "a Mãe", corrompe a benéfica, pura e angélica natureza do homem primitivo e o torna esta tão torpe criatura.

Na opinião dos autores desse cartaz é preciso, pois, continuar a destruir o que resta da cultura ocidental, e então esperar que haja trotes menos opressores.

@ 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.

@ 86dfbe73:628cef55

Robustheit ist die Eigenschaft eines Systems, auch unter schwierigen Bedingungen funktionieren zu können: trotz Störungen und einer gewissen Verschlechterung seiner internen Prozesse. Das Leben als Ganzes ist robust. Dasselbe gilt für Ökosysteme: Sie können den Verlust einiger Arten überstehen und sich an veränderte Umweltbedingungen anpassen.

Der Hauptfeind der Robustheit ist das Streben nach Effizienz. Ein auf Effizienz optimiertes System hat keine Reserven mehr, sich an Störungen anzupassen. Es wird fragil. Wir optimieren die Gesellschaft und ihre Subsysteme (z. B. Institutionen) seit 5000 Jahren auf Wachstum, Effizienz und Produktivität. Und wir haben das Optimierungstempo mit den beiden Turbo-Boosts fossile Brennstoffe und Informationstechnologie beschleunigt. Deshalb ist alles um uns herum fragil geworden. Beispielsweise kann ein Virusausbruch in China sich zu einer Pandemie entwickeln, weil die Menschen weit und schnell reisen können und müssen.

Robustheit ist nicht absolut und dauerhaft. Ein System kann durch Störungen, die zu gravierend für es sind, fragil werden. Ehemals robuste Ökosysteme wie Regenwälder wurden durch menschliche Ausbeutung fragil. Deregulierung hat sowohl Regierungen als auch die Wirtschaft effizienter gemacht, allerdings zum Preis zunehmender Fragilität. Unternehmen sind mächtiger geworden als viele Staaten, was bedeutet, dass demokratisch gewählte Parlamente und Regierungen nicht mehr die Kontrolle haben. Heute kann eine einzelne Person demokratische Wahlen weltweit manipulieren, indem sie ein soziales Netzwerk kontrolliert. Das ist Fragilität pur.

Wir müssen als Gesellschaft die Effizienz in den Hintergrund rücken und uns mehr auf Robustheit konzentrieren.

@ 8d34bd24:414be32b

It seems like most Christians today have lost their reverence and awe of God. We’ve attributed God’s awesome creation by the word of His mouth to random chance and a Big Bang. We’ve attributed the many layers of sediment to millions and billions of years of time instead of God’s judgment of evil. We’ve emphasized His love and mercy to the point that we’ve forgotten about His holiness and righteous wrath. We’ve brought God down to our level and made Him either our “buddy” or made Him our magic genie servant, who is just there to answer our every want and whim.

The God of the Bible is a holy and awesome God who should be both loved and feared.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;\ Fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Proverbs 1:7)

The God of the Bible is the Lord of Lords and King of Kings who “… upholds all things by the word of His power. …” (Hebrews 1:3). Yes, God loves us as sons. Yes, God is merciful. Yes, through Jesus we have the blessed opportunity to approach God directly. None of that means we get to treat God like just another friend. We are to approach God with fear and trembling and worship Him in reverence and awe.

Worship the Lord with reverence And rejoice with trembling. (Psalm 2:11)

Part of the problem is that our culture just doesn’t show reverence to authority. It focuses on self and freedom. The whole thought of reverence for authority is incomprehensible for many. Look at this Psalm of worship:

The Lord reigns, let the peoples tremble;\ He is enthroned above the cherubim, let the earth shake!\ The Lord is great in Zion,\ And He is exalted above all the peoples.\ Let them praise Your great and awesome name;\ Holy is He. (Psalm 99:1-3)

This is the way we should view God and the proper attitude for approaching God.

Another issue is that we don’t study what God has done in the past. In the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to setup monuments of remembrance and to teach their kids all of the great things God had done for them. When they failed to do so, Israel drifted astray.

You shall teach them to your sons, talking of them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road and when you lie down and when you rise up. (Deuteronomy 11:19)

God has given us the Bible, His word, so that we can know Him, know His character, and know His great deeds. When we fail to be in His word daily, we can forget (or not even know) the greatness of our God.

Establish Your word to Your servant,\ As that which produces reverence for You. (Psalm 119:38)

Do you love God’s word like this? Do you hunger for God’s word? Do you seek to know everything about God that you can know? When we love someone or something, we want to know everything about it.

Princes persecute me without cause,\ But my heart stands in awe of Your words.\ **I rejoice at Your word,\ As one who finds great spoil. \ (Psalm 119:161-162) {emphasis mine}

In addition to what we can learn about God in the Bible, we also need to remember what God has done in our own lives. We need to dwell on what God has done for us. We can just try to remember. Even better (I’ll admit this is a weakness for me), write down answered prayers, blessings, and other things God has done for you. My son has been writing down one blessing every day for over a year. What an example he is!

After we have thought about what God has done for us and those we care about, we should praise Him for His great works.

Shout joyfully to God, all the earth;\ Sing the glory of His name;\ Make His praise glorious.\ Say to God, “How awesome are Your works!\ Because of the greatness of Your power \ Your enemies will give feigned obedience to You.\ All the earth will worship You,\ And will sing praises to You;\ They will sing praises to Your name.” Selah.\ **Come and see the works of God,\ Who is awesome in His deeds toward the sons of men. \ (Psalm 66:1-5) {emphasis mine}

There is nothing we can do to earn salvation from God, but we should be in awe of what He has done for us leading to submission and obedience in gratitude.

Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; for our God is a consuming fire. (Hebrews 12:28-29) {emphasis mine}

Are you thankful for your blessings or resentful for what you don’t have? Do you worship God or take things He has provided for granted? Do you tell the world the awesome things God has done for you or do you stay silent? Do you claim to be a Christian, but live a life no different than those around you?

Then the Lord said,

“Because this people draw near with their words\ And honor Me with their lip service,\ But they remove their hearts far from Me,\ And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote, (Isaiah 29:13)

I hope this passage does not describe your relation ship with our awesome God. He deserves so much more. Instead we should be zealous to praise God and share His goodness with those around us.

Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; (1 Peter 3:13-15) {emphasis mine}

Did you know that you can even show reverence by your every day work?

By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. (Hebrews 11:7) {emphasis mine}

When Noah stepped out in faith and obedience to God and built the ark as God commanded, despite the fact that the people around him probably thought he was crazy building a boat on dry ground that had never flooded, his work was a kind of reverence to God. Are there areas in your life where you can obey God in reverence to His awesomeness? Do you realize that quality work in obedience to God can be a form of worship?

Just going above and beyond in your job can be a form of worship of God if you are working extra hard to honor Him. Obedience is another form of worship and reverence.

Then Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, with all the remnant of the people, obeyed the voice of the Lord their God and the words of Haggai the prophet, as the Lord their God had sent him. And the people showed reverence for the Lord. (Haggai 1:12) {emphasis mine}

Too many people have put the word of men (especially scientists) above the word of God and have tried to change the clear meaning of the Bible. I used to think it strange how the Bible goes through the days of creation and ends each day with “and there was evening and there was morning, the xth day.” Since a day has an evening and a morning, that seemed redundant. Why did God speak in this manner? God knew that a day would come when many scientist would try to disprove God and would claim that these days were not 24 hour days, but long ages. When a writer is trying to convey long ages, the writer does not mention evening/morning and doesn’t count the days.1

When we no longer see God as speaking the universe and everything in it into existence, we tend to not see God as an awesome God. We don’t see His power. We don’t see His knowledge. We don’t see His goodness. We also don’t see His authority. Why do we have to obey God? Because He created us and because He upholds us. Without Him we would not exist. Our creator has the authority to command His creation. When we compromise in this area, we lose our submission, our awe, and our reverence. (For more on the subject see my series.) When we believe His great works, especially those spoken of in Genesis 1-11 and in Exodus, we can’t help but be in awe of our God.

For the word of the Lord is upright,\ And all His work is done in faithfulness.\ He loves righteousness and justice;\ The earth is full of the lovingkindness of the Lord.\ By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,\ And by the breath of His mouth all their host.\ He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap;\ He lays up the deeps in storehouses.\ **Let all the earth fear the Lord;\ Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. \ (Psalm 33:4-8) {emphasis mine}

Remembering God’s great works, we can’t help but worship in awe and reverence.

By awesome deeds You answer us in righteousness, O God of our salvation,\ *You who are the trust of all the ends of the earth* and of the farthest sea;\ Who establishes the mountains by His strength,\ Being girded with might;\ Who stills the roaring of the seas,\ The roaring of their waves,\ And the tumult of the peoples.\ They who dwell in the ends of the earth stand in awe of Your signs;\ You make the dawn and the sunset shout for joy. \ (Psalm 65:5-8) {emphasis mine}

If we truly do have awe and reverence for our God, we should be emboldened to tell those around us of His great works.

I will tell of Your name to my brethren;\ In the midst of the assembly I will praise You.\ You who fear the Lord, praise Him;\ All you descendants of Jacob, glorify Him,\ And stand in awe of Him, all you descendants of Israel. \ (Psalm 22:22-23) {emphasis mine}

May God grant you the wisdom to see His awesomeness and to trust Him, serve Him, obey Him, and worship Him as He so rightly deserves. May you always have a right view of God and a hunger for His word and a personal relationship with Him. To God be the Glory!

Trust Jesus

FYI, these are a few more passages on the subject that are helpful, but didn’t fit in the flow of my post.

Great is the Lord, and highly to be praised,\ And His greatness is unsearchable.\ One generation shall praise Your works to another,\ And shall declare Your mighty acts.\ On the glorious splendor of Your majesty\ And on Your wonderful works, I will meditate.\ Men shall speak of the power of Your awesome acts,\ And I will tell of Your greatness. (Psalm 145:3-6)

The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes;\ You hate all who do iniquity.\ You destroy those who speak falsehood;\ The Lord abhors the man of bloodshed and deceit.\ But as for me, by Your abundant lovingkindness I will enter Your house,\ At Your holy temple I will bow in reverence for You. (Psalm 5:5-7) {emphasis mine}

If you do not listen, and if you do not take it to heart to give honor to My name,” says the Lord of hosts, “then I will send the curse upon you and I will curse your blessings; and indeed, I have cursed them already, because you are not taking it to heart. Behold, I am going to rebuke your offspring, and I will spread refuse on your faces, the refuse of your feasts; and you will be taken away with it. Then you will know that I have sent this commandment to you, that My covenant may continue with Levi,” says the Lord of hosts. “My covenant with him was one of life and peace, and I gave them to him as an object of reverence; so he revered Me and stood in awe of My name. (Malachi 2:2-5) {emphasis mine}

@ 3283ef81:0a531a33

Nullam auctor pretium sem pulvinar pulvinar\ Donec fermentum iaculis sem id aliquet

Integer vitae tempor justo, ac fermentum purus

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

neuron.vim

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

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

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

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

I dare to claim that the big factor is the absence of an infinite feed design.

Modern social media landscape sucks for a myriad of reasons, but oh boy does the infinite feed take the crapcake. It's not just bad on it's own, it's emblematic of most, if not all other ways social media have deteriorated into an enshitification spiral. Let's see at just three things I hate about it the most.

1) It's addictive: In the race for your attention, every addictive design element helps. But infinite feed is addictive almost by default. Users are expected to pull the figurative lever until they hit a jackpot. Just one more reel, then I'll go to sleep.

2) Autonomy? What's that? You are not the one driving your experience. No. You are just a passenger passively absorbing what the feed feeds you.

3) Echo chambers. The algorithm might be more to blame here, but the infinite feed and it's super-limited exploration options sure don't help. Your feed only goes two ways - into the past and into the comfortable.

And I could go on, and on...

The point it, if the goal of every big tech company is to have us mindlessly and helplessly consume their products, without agency and opposition (and it is $$$), then the infinite feed gets them half-way there.

Let's get rid of it. For the sake of humanity.

Aphantasia [^1] Version: 1.0.2 Alpha

What is Aphantasia?

I like to call it a social network for graph enthusiasts. It's a place where your thoughts live in time and space, interconnected with others and explorable in a graph view.

The code is open-source and you can take a look at it on GitHub. There you can find more information about contributions, API usage and other details related to the software.

There is also an accompanying youtube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeLOt-45rJM

[^1]: Aphantasia the software is named after aphantasia the condition - see Wikipedia for more information.

https://stacker.news/items/988754

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

On "zk-rollups" applied to Bitcoin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 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

---

---

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Splitpages

The simplest possible service: it splitted PDF pages in half.

Created specially to solve the problem of those scanned books that come with two pages side-by-side as if they were a single page and are much harder to read on Kindle because of that.

It required me to learn about Heroku Buildpacks though, and fork or contribute to a Heroku Buildpack that embedded a mupdf binary.

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/splitpages
• https://splitpages.herokuapp.com/

@ 21810ca8:f2e8341e

If so, please comment. So I can see if Nostr works for me.

@ eb0157af:77ab6c55

Michigan lawmakers are unveiling a comprehensive strategy to regulate Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.

On May 21, Republican Representative Bill Schuette introduced House Bill 4510, a proposal to amend the Michigan Public Employee Retirement System Investment Act. The legislation would allow the state treasurer, currently Rachael Eubanks, to diversify the state’s investments by including cryptocurrencies with an average market capitalization of over $250 million in the past calendar year.

Under current criteria, Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH) are the only cryptocurrencies that meet these selection standards. The proposal specifies that any investment in digital assets must be made through exchange-traded products (spot ETFs) issued by registered investment companies.

Anti-CBDC legislation

Republican Representative Bryan Posthumus is leading the bipartisan initiative behind the second bill, HB 4511, which establishes protections for cryptocurrency holders. The proposal prohibits Michigan from implementing crypto bans or imposing licensing requirements on digital asset holders.

Another key aspect of the legislation is a ban on state officials from supporting or promoting a potential federal central bank digital currency (CBDC). The definition includes the issuance of memorandums or official statements endorsing CBDC proposals related to testing, adoption, or implementation.

Mining and redevelopment of abandoned sites

The third bill, HB 4512, is a proposal led by Democratic Representative Mike McFall for a bipartisan group. This initiative would establish a Bitcoin mining program allowing operators to use abandoned oil and natural gas sites.

The program calls for the appointment of a supervisor tasked with assessing the site’s remaining productive potential, identifying the last operator, and determining the length of abandonment. Prospective participants would need to submit detailed legal documentation of their organizational structure, demonstrate operational expertise in mining, and provide profitability breakeven estimates for their ventures.

The fourth and final bill, HB 4513, also introduced by the bipartisan group led by McFall, focuses on the fiscal aspect of the HB 4512 initiative. The proposal would amend Michigan’s income tax laws to include proceeds generated from the proposed Bitcoin mining program.

The post Michigan: four bills on pension funds, CBDCs, and mining appeared first on Atlas21.

@ eb0157af:77ab6c55

A fake Uber driver steals $73,000 in XRP and $50,000 in Bitcoin after drugging an American tourist.

A U.S. citizen vacationing in the United Kingdom fell victim to a scam that cost him $123,000 in cryptocurrencies stored on his smartphone. The man was drugged by an individual posing as an Uber driver.

According to My London, Jacob Irwin-Cline had spent the evening at a London nightclub, consuming several alcoholic drinks before requesting an Uber ride home. The victim admitted he hadn’t carefully verified the booking details on his device, mistakenly getting into a private taxi driven by someone who, at first glance, resembled the expected Uber driver but was using a completely different vehicle.

Once inside the car, the American tourist reported that the driver offered him a cigarette, allegedly laced with scopolamine — a rare and powerful sedative. Irwin-Cline described how the smoke made him extremely docile and fatigued, causing him to lose consciousness for around half an hour.

Upon waking, the driver ordered the victim to get out of the vehicle. As Irwin-Cline stepped out, the man suddenly accelerated, running him over and fleeing with his mobile phone, which contained the private keys and access to his cryptocurrencies. Screenshots provided to MyLondon show that $73,000 worth of XRP and $50,000 in bitcoin had been transferred to various wallets.

This incident adds to a growing trend of kidnappings, extortions, armed robberies, and ransom attempts targeting crypto executives, investors, and their families.

Just a few weeks ago, the daughter and grandson of Pierre Noizat, CEO of crypto exchange Paymium, were targeted in a kidnapping attempt in Paris. The incident took place in broad daylight when attackers tried to force the family into a parked vehicle. However, Noizat’s daughter managed to fight off the assailants.

The post American tourist drugged and robbed: $123,000 in crypto stolen in London appeared first on Atlas21.

@ eb0157af:77ab6c55

Banking giants JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo are in talks to develop a unified stablecoin solution.

According to the Wall Street Journal on May 22, some of the largest financial institutions in the United States are exploring the possibility of joining forces to launch a stablecoin.

Subsidiaries of JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo have initiated preliminary discussions for a joint stablecoin issuance, according to sources close to the matter cited by the WSJ. Also at the negotiating table are Early Warning Services, the parent company of the digital payments network Zelle, and the payment network Clearing House.

The talks are reportedly still in the early stages, and any final decision could change depending on regulatory developments and market demand for stablecoins.

Stablecoin regulation

On May 20, the US Senate voted 66 to 32 to advance discussion of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act), a specific law to regulate stablecoins. The bill outlines a regulatory framework for stablecoin collateralization and mandates compliance with anti-money laundering rules.

David Sacks, White House crypto advisor, expressed optimism about the bill’s bipartisan approval. However, senior Democratic Party officials intend to amend the bill to include a clause preventing former President Donald Trump and other US officials from profiting from stablecoins.

Demand for stablecoins has increased, with total market capitalization rising to $245 billion from $205 billion at the beginning of the year, a 20% increase.

The post Major US banks consider launching a joint stablecoin appeared first on Atlas21.

@ 2b998b04:86727e47

Turning 60

Ten years ago, I turned 50 with a vague sense that something was off.

I was building things, but they didn’t feel grounded.\ I was "in tech," but tech felt like a treadmill—just faster, sleeker tools chasing the same hollow outcomes.\ I knew about Bitcoin, but I dismissed it. I thought it was just “tech for tech’s sake.”

Less than a year later, I fell down the rabbit hole.

It didn’t happen all at once. At first it was curiosity. Then dissonance. Then conviction.

Somewhere in that process, I realized Bitcoin wasn’t just financial—it was philosophical. It was moral. It was real. And it held up a mirror to a life I had built on momentum more than mission.

So I started pruning.

I left Web3.\ I pulled back from projects that ran on hype instead of honesty.\ I repented—for chasing relevance instead of righteousness.\ And I began stacking—not just sats, but new habits. New thinking. New rhythms of faith, work, and rest.

Now at 60, I’m not where I thought I’d be.

But I’m more myself than I’ve ever been.\ More convicted.\ More rooted.\ More ready.

Not to start over—but to build again, from the foundation up.

---

If you're in that middle place—between chapters, between convictions, between certainty and surrender—you're not alone.

🟠 I’m still here. Still building. Still listening.

Zap if this resonates, or send your story. I’d love to hear it.

[*Zap *](https://tinyurl.com/yuyu2b9t)

---

@ 211c0393:e9262c4d

Original: https://www.yakihonne.com/article/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzqgguqwf52cyve89xnxc4eh95jklelgw646kkkcdhxm4fp05jvtzdqq2hj6fhtpqkuutdv4xxxazjv9t92atedev45mcwusz

Nihon no kakuseizai Nihon no kakusei-zai bijinesu no yami: Keisatsu, bōryokudan, soshite chinmoku no kyōhan kankei' no shinsō** 1. Bōryokudan no shihai kōzō (kōteki dēta ni motodzuku) yunyū izon no riyū: Kokunai seizō wa kon'nan (Heisei 6-nenkakusei-zai genryō kisei-hō' de kisei kyōka)￫ myanmā Chūgoku kara no mitsuyu ga shuryū (Kokuren yakubutsu hanzai jimusho World Drug Report 2023'). Bōryokudan no rieki-ritsu: 1 Kg-atari shiire kakaku 30 man-en ￫ kouri kakaku 500 man ~ 1000 man-en (Keisatsuchōyakubutsu jōsei hōkoku-sho' 2022-nen). 2. Keisatsu to bōryokudan no kyōsei kankei' taiho tōkei no fushizen-sa: Zen yakubutsu taiho-sha no 70-pāsento ga tanjun shoji (kōsei Rōdōshōyakubutsu ran'yō jōkyō' 2023-nen). Mitsuyu soshiki no tekihatsu wa zentai no 5-pāsento-miman (tōkyōchikentokusōbu dēta). Media no kenshō: NHK supesharu kakusei-zai sensō'(2021-nen) de shiteki sa retamattan yūzā yūsen sōsa' no jittai. 3. Mujun suru genjitsu juyō no fukashi-sei: G 7 de saikō no kakusei-zai kakaku (1 g-atari 3 ~ 7 man-en, Ō kome no 3-bai)￫ bōryokudan no bōri (Zaimushō soshiki hanzai shikin ryūdō chōsa'). Shiyōsha-ritsu wa hikui (jinkō no 0. 2%, Kokuren chōsa) ga, taiho-sha no kahansū o shimeru mujun. 4.Mitsuyu soshiki taisaku' no genkai kokusai-tekina shippai rei: Mekishiko (karuteru tekihatsu-go mo ichiba kakudai), Ōshū (gōsei yakubutsu no man'en)￫ daitai soshiki ga sokuza ni taitō (Ei ekonomisuto' 2023-nen 6 tsuki-gō). Nippon'nochiri-teki hande: Kaijō mitsuyu no tekihatsu-ritsu wa 10-pāsento-miman (Kaijōhoanchō hōkoku). 5. Kaiketsusaku no saikō (jijitsu ni motodzuku teian) ADHD chiryō-yaku no gōhō-ka: Amerika seishin'igakukaiADHD kanja no 60-pāsento ga jiko chiryō de ihō yakubutsu shiyō'(2019-nen kenkyū). Nihonde wa ritarin aderōru kinshi ￫ bōryokudan no ichiba dokusen. Rōdō kankyō kaikaku: Karō-shi rain koe no rōdō-sha 20-pāsento (Kōrōshō rōdō jikan chōsa' 2023-nen)￫ kakusei-zai juyō no ichiin. 6. Kokuhatsu no risuku to jōhō-gen tokumei-sei no jūyō-sei: Kako no bōryokudan hōfuku jirei (2018-nen, kokuhatsu kisha e no kyōhaku jiken Mainichishinbun hōdō). Kōteki dēta nomi in'yō: Rei:Keisatsuchō tōkei'Kokuren hōkoku-sho' nado daisansha kenshō kanōna jōhō. Ketsuron: Henkaku no tame ni wajijitsu' no kajika ga hitsuyō `yakubutsu = kojin no dōtokuteki mondai' to iu gensō ga, bōryokudan to fuhai kanryō o ri shite iru. Kokusai dēta to kokunai tōkei no mujun o tsuku koto de, shisutemu no giman o abakeru. Anzen'na kyōyū no tame ni: Kojin tokutei o sake, tokumei purattofōmu (tōa-jō fōramu-tō) de giron. Kōteki kikan no dēta o chokusetsu rinku (rei: Keisatsuchō PDF repōto). Kono bunsho wa, kōhyō sa reta tōkei media hōdō nomi o konkyo to shi, kojin no suisoku o haijo shite imasu. Kyōi o yokeru tame, gutaitekina kojin soshiki no hinan wa itotekini sakete imasu. Show more 1,321 / 5,000 Stimulants in Japan The dark side of the Japanese stimulant drug business:

The truth about the police, the yakuza, and their "silent complicity"**

1. The control structure of the yakuza (based on public data)

Reasons for dependence on imports: Domestic production is difficult (tightened regulations under the Stimulant Drug Raw Materials Control Act of 1994) → Smuggling from Myanmar and China is the norm (UNODC World Drug Report 2023).

Profit margins for yakuza: Purchase price of 300,000 yen per kg → Retail price of 5 to 10 million yen (National Police Agency Drug Situation Report 2022).

1. The "symbiotic relationship" between the police and the yakuza

The unnaturalness of arrest statistics: 70% of all drug arrests are for simple possession (Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare Drug Abuse Situation 2023). Smuggling organizations account for less than 5% of all arrests (Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office Special Investigation Unit data). Media verification: The reality of "end-user priority investigation" pointed out in the NHK special "Stimulant War" (2021).

1. Contradictory reality

Invisibility of demand: The highest stimulant drug price in the G7 (30,000 to 70,000 yen per gram, three times that of Europe and the United States) → Excessive profits by organized crime (Ministry of Finance "Survey on Organized Crime Fund Flows"). The contradiction that the user rate is low (0.2% of the population, UN survey), but accounts for the majority of arrests.

1. The limits of "countermeasures against smuggling organizations"

International examples of failure: Mexico (market expands even after cartel crackdown), Europe (proliferation of synthetic drugs) → Alternative organizations immediately emerge (UK "The Economist" June 2023 issue). Japan's geographical handicap: The crackdown rate for maritime smuggling is less than 10% (Japan Coast Guard report).

1. Rethinking solutions (fact-based proposals)

Legalization of ADHD medications:

American Psychiatric Association: "60% of ADHD patients self-medicate with illegal drugs" (2019 study).

Banning Ritalin and Adderall in Japan → Yakuza monopoly on the market.

Work environment reform:

20% of workers exceed the line of death from overwork (Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare "Working Hours Survey" 2023) → One cause of stimulant drug demand.

1. Risks of accusation and sources of information

Importance of anonymity:

Past cases of Yakuza retaliation (2018, threat against accusing journalist, reported in the Mainichi Shimbun).

Citing only public data:

Examples: Information that can be verified by a third party, such as "National Police Agency statistics" and "UN reports".

Conclusion: Visualization of "facts" is necessary for change

The illusion that "drugs = individual moral problems" benefits Yakuza and corrupt bureaucrats.

Pointing out the contradictions between international data and domestic statistics can expose the deception of the system.

For safe sharing:

Avoid identifying individuals and discuss on anonymous platforms (such as forums on Tor).

Direct links to data from public organizations (e.g. National Police Agency PDF report).

This document is based solely on published statistics and media reports, and excludes personal speculation.

To avoid threats, we have intentionally avoided blaming specific individuals or organizations. Send feedback

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

tempreites

My first library to get stars on GitHub, was a very stupid templating library that used just HTML and HTML attributes ("DSL-free"). I was inspired by http://microjs.com/ at the time and ended up not using the library. Probably no one ever did.

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/tempreites

@ 2b998b04:86727e47

n an inflationary system, the goal is often just to keep up.

With prices always rising, most of us are stuck in a race:\ Earn more to afford more.\ Spend before your money loses value.\ Monetize everything just to stay ahead of the curve.

Work becomes reactive.\ You hustle to outrun rising costs.\ You take on projects you don’t believe in just to make next month’s bills.\ Money decays. So you move faster, invest riskier, and burn out quicker.

But what happens when the curve flips?

A deflationary economy—like the one Bitcoin makes possible—rewards stillness, reflection, and intentionality.

Time favors the saver, not the spender.\ Money gains purchasing power.\ You’re no longer punished for patience.

You don’t have to convert your energy into cash before it loses value.\ You don’t have to be always on.\ You can actually afford to wait for the right work.

And when you do work—it means more.

💡 The “bullshit jobs” David Graeber wrote about start to disappear.\ There’s no need to look busy just to justify your existence.\ There’s no reward for parasitic middle layers.\ Instead, value flows to real craft, real care, and real proof of work—philosophically and literally.

So what does a job look like in that world?

— A farmer building soil instead of chasing subsidies.\ — An engineer optimizing for simplicity instead of speed.\ — A craftsman making one perfect table instead of ten cheap ones.\ — A writer telling the truth without clickbait.\ — A builder who says no more than they say yes.

You choose work that endures—not because it pays instantly, but because it’s worth doing.

The deflationary future isn’t a fantasy.\ It’s a recalibration.

It’s not about working less.\ It’s about working better.

That’s what Bitcoin taught me.\ That’s what I’m trying to live now.

---

🟠 If you’re trying to align your work with these values, I’d love to connect.\ Zap this post, reply with your story, or follow along as I build—without permission, but with conviction.\ [https://tinyurl.com/yuyu2b9t](https://tinyurl.com/yuyu2b9t)

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Warning: This piece contains a conversation about difficult topics. Please proceed with caution.

TL;DR please educate your children about online safety.

Julian Assange wrote in his 2012 book Cypherpunks, “This book is not a manifesto. There isn’t time for that. This book is a warning.” I read it a few times over the past summer. Those opening lines definitely stood out to me. I wish we had listened back then. He saw something about the internet that few had the ability to see. There are some individuals who are so close to a topic that when they speak, it’s difficult for others who aren’t steeped in it to visualize what they’re talking about. I didn’t read the book until more recently. If I had read it when it came out, it probably would have sounded like an unknown foreign language to me. Today it makes more sense.

This isn’t a manifesto. This isn’t a book. There is no time for that. It’s a warning and a possible solution from a desperate and determined survivor advocate who has been pulling and unraveling a thread for a few years. At times, I feel too close to this topic to make any sense trying to convey my pathway to my conclusions or thoughts to the general public. My hope is that if nothing else, I can convey my sense of urgency while writing this. This piece is a watchman’s warning.

When a child steps online, they are walking into a new world. A new reality. When you hand a child the internet, you are handing them possibilities—good, bad, and ugly. This is a conversation about lowering the potential of negative outcomes of stepping into that new world and how I came to these conclusions. I constantly compare the internet to the road. You wouldn’t let a young child run out into the road with no guidance or safety precautions. When you hand a child the internet without any type of guidance or safety measures, you are allowing them to play in rush hour, oncoming traffic. “Look left, look right for cars before crossing.” We almost all have been taught that as children. What are we taught as humans about safety before stepping into a completely different reality like the internet? Very little.

I could never really figure out why many folks in tech, privacy rights activists, and hackers seemed so cold to me while talking about online child sexual exploitation. I always figured that as a survivor advocate for those affected by these crimes, that specific, skilled group of individuals would be very welcoming and easy to talk to about such serious topics. I actually had one hacker laugh in my face when I brought it up while I was looking for answers. I thought maybe this individual thought I was accusing them of something I wasn’t, so I felt bad for asking. I was constantly extremely disappointed and would ask myself, “Why don’t they care? What could I say to make them care more? What could I say to make them understand the crisis and the level of suffering that happens as a result of the problem?”

I have been serving minor survivors of online child sexual exploitation for years. My first case serving a survivor of this specific crime was in 2018—a 13-year-old girl sexually exploited by a serial predator on Snapchat. That was my first glimpse into this side of the internet. I won a national award for serving the minor survivors of Twitter in 2023, but I had been working on that specific project for a few years. I was nominated by a lawyer representing two survivors in a legal battle against the platform. I’ve never really spoken about this before, but at the time it was a choice for me between fighting Snapchat or Twitter. I chose Twitter—or rather, Twitter chose me. I heard about the story of John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, and I was so unbelievably broken over it that I went to war for multiple years. I was and still am royally pissed about that case. As far as I was concerned, the John Doe #1 case proved that whatever was going on with corporate tech social media was so out of control that I didn’t have time to wait, so I got to work. It was reading the messages that John Doe #1 sent to Twitter begging them to remove his sexual exploitation that broke me. He was a child begging adults to do something. A passion for justice and protecting kids makes you do wild things. I was desperate to find answers about what happened and searched for solutions. In the end, the platform Twitter was purchased. During the acquisition, I just asked Mr. Musk nicely to prioritize the issue of detection and removal of child sexual exploitation without violating digital privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption. Elon thanked me multiple times during the acquisition, made some changes, and I was thanked by others on the survivors’ side as well.

I still feel that even with the progress made, I really just scratched the surface with Twitter, now X. I left that passion project when I did for a few reasons. I wanted to give new leadership time to tackle the issue. Elon Musk made big promises that I knew would take a while to fulfill, but mostly I had been watching global legislation transpire around the issue, and frankly, the governments are willing to go much further with X and the rest of corporate tech than I ever would. My work begging Twitter to make changes with easier reporting of content, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation material—without violating privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption—and advocating for the minor survivors of the platform went as far as my principles would have allowed. I’m grateful for that experience. I was still left with a nagging question: “How did things get so bad with Twitter where the John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 case was able to happen in the first place?” I decided to keep looking for answers. I decided to keep pulling the thread.

I never worked for Twitter. This is often confusing for folks. I will say that despite being disappointed in the platform’s leadership at times, I loved Twitter. I saw and still see its value. I definitely love the survivors of the platform, but I also loved the platform. I was a champion of the platform’s ability to give folks from virtually around the globe an opportunity to speak and be heard.

I want to be clear that John Doe #1 really is my why. He is the inspiration. I am writing this because of him. He represents so many globally, and I’m still inspired by his bravery. One child’s voice begging adults to do something—I’m an adult, I heard him. I’d go to war a thousand more lifetimes for that young man, and I don’t even know his name. Fighting has been personally dark at times; I’m not even going to try to sugarcoat it, but it has been worth it.

The data surrounding the very real crime of online child sexual exploitation is available to the public online at any time for anyone to see. I’d encourage you to go look at the data for yourself. I believe in encouraging folks to check multiple sources so that you understand the full picture. If you are uncomfortable just searching around the internet for information about this topic, use the terms “CSAM,” “CSEM,” “SG-CSEM,” or “AI Generated CSAM.” The numbers don’t lie—it’s a nightmare that’s out of control. It’s a big business. The demand is high, and unfortunately, business is booming. Organizations collect the data, tech companies often post their data, governments report frequently, and the corporate press has covered a decent portion of the conversation, so I’m sure you can find a source that you trust.

Technology is changing rapidly, which is great for innovation as a whole but horrible for the crime of online child sexual exploitation. Those wishing to exploit the vulnerable seem to be adapting to each technological change with ease. The governments are so far behind with tackling these issues that as I’m typing this, it’s borderline irrelevant to even include them while speaking about the crime or potential solutions. Technology is changing too rapidly, and their old, broken systems can’t even dare to keep up. Think of it like the governments’ “War on Drugs.” Drugs won. In this case as well, the governments are not winning. The governments are talking about maybe having a meeting on potentially maybe having legislation around the crimes. The time to have that meeting would have been many years ago. I’m not advocating for governments to legislate our way out of this. I’m on the side of educating and innovating our way out of this.

I have been clear while advocating for the minor survivors of corporate tech platforms that I would not advocate for any solution to the crime that would violate digital privacy rights or erode end-to-end encryption. That has been a personal moral position that I was unwilling to budge on. This is an extremely unpopular and borderline nonexistent position in the anti-human trafficking movement and online child protection space. I’m often fearful that I’m wrong about this. I have always thought that a better pathway forward would have been to incentivize innovation for detection and removal of content. I had no previous exposure to privacy rights activists or Cypherpunks—actually, I came to that conclusion by listening to the voices of MENA region political dissidents and human rights activists. After developing relationships with human rights activists from around the globe, I realized how important privacy rights and encryption are for those who need it most globally. I was simply unwilling to give more power, control, and opportunities for mass surveillance to big abusers like governments wishing to enslave entire nations and untrustworthy corporate tech companies to potentially end some portion of abuses online. On top of all of it, it has been clear to me for years that all potential solutions outside of violating digital privacy rights to detect and remove child sexual exploitation online have not yet been explored aggressively. I’ve been disappointed that there hasn’t been more of a conversation around preventing the crime from happening in the first place.

What has been tried is mass surveillance. In China, they are currently under mass surveillance both online and offline, and their behaviors are attached to a social credit score. Unfortunately, even on state-run and controlled social media platforms, they still have child sexual exploitation and abuse imagery pop up along with other crimes and human rights violations. They also have a thriving black market online due to the oppression from the state. In other words, even an entire loss of freedom and privacy cannot end the sexual exploitation of children online. It’s been tried. There is no reason to repeat this method.

It took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out why I always felt a slight coldness from those in tech and privacy-minded individuals about the topic of child sexual exploitation online. I didn’t have any clue about the “Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse.” This is a term coined by Timothy C. May in 1988. I would have been a child myself when he first said it. I actually laughed at myself when I heard the phrase for the first time. I finally got it. The Cypherpunks weren’t wrong about that topic. They were so spot on that it is borderline uncomfortable. I was mad at first that they knew that early during the birth of the internet that this issue would arise and didn’t address it. Then I got over it because I realized that it wasn’t their job. Their job was—is—to write code. Their job wasn’t to be involved and loving parents or survivor advocates. Their job wasn’t to educate children on internet safety or raise awareness; their job was to write code.

They knew that child sexual abuse material would be shared on the internet. They said what would happen—not in a gleeful way, but a prediction. Then it happened.

I equate it now to a concrete company laying down a road. As you’re pouring the concrete, you can say to yourself, “A terrorist might travel down this road to go kill many, and on the flip side, a beautiful child can be born in an ambulance on this road.” Who or what travels down the road is not their responsibility—they are just supposed to lay the concrete. I’d never go to a concrete pourer and ask them to solve terrorism that travels down roads. Under the current system, law enforcement should stop terrorists before they even make it to the road. The solution to this specific problem is not to treat everyone on the road like a terrorist or to not build the road.

So I understand the perceived coldness from those in tech. Not only was it not their job, but bringing up the topic was seen as the equivalent of asking a free person if they wanted to discuss one of the four topics—child abusers, terrorists, drug dealers, intellectual property pirates, etc.—that would usher in digital authoritarianism for all who are online globally.

Privacy rights advocates and groups have put up a good fight. They stood by their principles. Unfortunately, when it comes to corporate tech, I believe that the issue of privacy is almost a complete lost cause at this point. It’s still worth pushing back, but ultimately, it is a losing battle—a ticking time bomb.

I do think that corporate tech providers could have slowed down the inevitable loss of privacy at the hands of the state by prioritizing the detection and removal of CSAM when they all started online. I believe it would have bought some time, fewer would have been traumatized by that specific crime, and I do believe that it could have slowed down the demand for content. If I think too much about that, I’ll go insane, so I try to push the “if maybes” aside, but never knowing if it could have been handled differently will forever haunt me. At night when it’s quiet, I wonder what I would have done differently if given the opportunity. I’ll probably never know how much corporate tech knew and ignored in the hopes that it would go away while the problem continued to get worse. They had different priorities. The most voiceless and vulnerable exploited on corporate tech never had much of a voice, so corporate tech providers didn’t receive very much pushback.

Now I’m about to say something really wild, and you can call me whatever you want to call me, but I’m going to say what I believe to be true. I believe that the governments are either so incompetent that they allowed the proliferation of CSAM online, or they knowingly allowed the problem to fester long enough to have an excuse to violate privacy rights and erode end-to-end encryption. The US government could have seized the corporate tech providers over CSAM, but I believe that they were so useful as a propaganda arm for the regimes that they allowed them to continue virtually unscathed.

That season is done now, and the governments are making the issue a priority. It will come at a high cost. Privacy on corporate tech providers is virtually done as I’m typing this. It feels like a death rattle. I’m not particularly sure that we had much digital privacy to begin with, but the illusion of a veil of privacy feels gone.

To make matters slightly more complex, it would be hard to convince me that once AI really gets going, digital privacy will exist at all.

I believe that there should be a conversation shift to preserving freedoms and human rights in a post-privacy society.

I don’t want to get locked up because AI predicted a nasty post online from me about the government. I’m not a doomer about AI—I’m just going to roll with it personally. I’m looking forward to the positive changes that will be brought forth by AI. I see it as inevitable. A bit of privacy was helpful while it lasted. Please keep fighting to preserve what is left of privacy either way because I could be wrong about all of this.

On the topic of AI, the addition of AI to the horrific crime of child sexual abuse material and child sexual exploitation in multiple ways so far has been devastating. It’s currently out of control. The genie is out of the bottle. I am hopeful that innovation will get us humans out of this, but I’m not sure how or how long it will take. We must be extremely cautious around AI legislation. It should not be illegal to innovate even if some bad comes with the good. I don’t trust that the governments are equipped to decide the best pathway forward for AI. Source: the entire history of the government.

I have been personally negatively impacted by AI-generated content. Every few days, I get another alert that I’m featured again in what’s called “deep fake pornography” without my consent. I’m not happy about it, but what pains me the most is the thought that for a period of time down the road, many globally will experience what myself and others are experiencing now by being digitally sexually abused in this way. If you have ever had your picture taken and posted online, you are also at risk of being exploited in this way. Your child’s image can be used as well, unfortunately, and this is just the beginning of this particular nightmare. It will move to more realistic interpretations of sexual behaviors as technology improves. I have no brave words of wisdom about how to deal with that emotionally. I do have hope that innovation will save the day around this specific issue. I’m nervous that everyone online will have to ID verify due to this issue. I see that as one possible outcome that could help to prevent one problem but inadvertently cause more problems, especially for those living under authoritarian regimes or anyone who needs to remain anonymous online. A zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) would probably be the best solution to these issues. There are some survivors of violence and/or sexual trauma who need to remain anonymous online for various reasons. There are survivor stories available online of those who have been abused in this way. I’d encourage you seek out and listen to their stories.

There have been periods of time recently where I hesitate to say anything at all because more than likely AI will cover most of my concerns about education, awareness, prevention, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation online, etc.

Unfortunately, some of the most pressing issues we’ve seen online over the last few years come in the form of “sextortion.” Self-generated child sexual exploitation (SG-CSEM) numbers are continuing to be terrifying. I’d strongly encourage that you look into sextortion data. AI + sextortion is also a huge concern. The perpetrators are using the non-sexually explicit images of children and putting their likeness on AI-generated child sexual exploitation content and extorting money, more imagery, or both from minors online. It’s like a million nightmares wrapped into one. The wild part is that these issues will only get more pervasive because technology is harnessed to perpetuate horror at a scale unimaginable to a human mind.

Even if you banned phones and the internet or tried to prevent children from accessing the internet, it wouldn’t solve it. Child sexual exploitation will still be with us until as a society we start to prevent the crime before it happens. That is the only human way out right now.

There is no reset button on the internet, but if I could go back, I’d tell survivor advocates to heed the warnings of the early internet builders and to start education and awareness campaigns designed to prevent as much online child sexual exploitation as possible. The internet and technology moved quickly, and I don’t believe that society ever really caught up. We live in a world where a child can be groomed by a predator in their own home while sitting on a couch next to their parents watching TV. We weren’t ready as a species to tackle the fast-paced algorithms and dangers online. It happened too quickly for parents to catch up. How can you parent for the ever-changing digital world unless you are constantly aware of the dangers?

I don’t think that the internet is inherently bad. I believe that it can be a powerful tool for freedom and resistance. I’ve spoken a lot about the bad online, but there is beauty as well. We often discuss how victims and survivors are abused online; we rarely discuss the fact that countless survivors around the globe have been able to share their experiences, strength, hope, as well as provide resources to the vulnerable. I do question if giving any government or tech company access to censorship, surveillance, etc., online in the name of serving survivors might not actually impact a portion of survivors negatively. There are a fair amount of survivors with powerful abusers protected by governments and the corporate press. If a survivor cannot speak to the press about their abuse, the only place they can go is online, directly or indirectly through an independent journalist who also risks being censored. This scenario isn’t hard to imagine—it already happened in China. During #MeToo, a survivor in China wanted to post their story. The government censored the post, so the survivor put their story on the blockchain. I’m excited that the survivor was creative and brave, but it’s terrifying to think that we live in a world where that situation is a necessity.

I believe that the future for many survivors sharing their stories globally will be on completely censorship-resistant and decentralized protocols. This thought in particular gives me hope. When we listen to the experiences of a diverse group of survivors, we can start to understand potential solutions to preventing the crimes from happening in the first place.

My heart is broken over the gut-wrenching stories of survivors sexually exploited online. Every time I hear the story of a survivor, I do think to myself quietly, “What could have prevented this from happening in the first place?” My heart is with survivors.

My head, on the other hand, is full of the understanding that the internet should remain free. The free flow of information should not be stopped. My mind is with the innocent citizens around the globe that deserve freedom both online and offline.

The problem is that governments don’t only want to censor illegal content that violates human rights—they create legislation that is so broad that it can impact speech and privacy of all. “Don’t you care about the kids?” Yes, I do. I do so much that I’m invested in finding solutions. I also care about all citizens around the globe that deserve an opportunity to live free from a mass surveillance society. If terrorism happens online, I should not be punished by losing my freedom. If drugs are sold online, I should not be punished. I’m not an abuser, I’m not a terrorist, and I don’t engage in illegal behaviors. I refuse to lose freedom because of others’ bad behaviors online.

I want to be clear that on a long enough timeline, the governments will decide that they can be better parents/caregivers than you can if something isn’t done to stop minors from being sexually exploited online. The price will be a complete loss of anonymity, privacy, free speech, and freedom of religion online. I find it rather insulting that governments think they’re better equipped to raise children than parents and caretakers.

So we can’t go backwards—all that we can do is go forward. Those who want to have freedom will find technology to facilitate their liberation. This will lead many over time to decentralized and open protocols. So as far as I’m concerned, this does solve a few of my worries—those who need, want, and deserve to speak freely online will have the opportunity in most countries—but what about online child sexual exploitation?

When I popped up around the decentralized space, I was met with the fear of censorship. I’m not here to censor you. I don’t write code. I couldn’t censor anyone or any piece of content even if I wanted to across the internet, no matter how depraved. I don’t have the skills to do that.

I’m here to start a conversation. Freedom comes at a cost. You must always fight for and protect your freedom. I can’t speak about protecting yourself from all of the Four Horsemen because I simply don’t know the topics well enough, but I can speak about this one topic.

If there was a shortcut to ending online child sexual exploitation, I would have found it by now. There isn’t one right now. I believe that education is the only pathway forward to preventing the crime of online child sexual exploitation for future generations.

I propose a yearly education course for every child of all school ages, taught as a standard part of the curriculum. Ideally, parents/caregivers would be involved in the education/learning process.

Course: - The creation of the internet and computers - The fight for cryptography - The tech supply chain from the ground up (example: human rights violations in the supply chain) - Corporate tech - Freedom tech - Data privacy - Digital privacy rights - AI (history-current) - Online safety (predators, scams, catfishing, extortion) - Bitcoin - Laws - How to deal with online hate and harassment - Information on who to contact if you are being abused online or offline - Algorithms - How to seek out the truth about news, etc., online

The parents/caregivers, homeschoolers, unschoolers, and those working to create decentralized parallel societies have been an inspiration while writing this, but my hope is that all children would learn this course, even in government ran schools. Ideally, parents would teach this to their own children.

The decentralized space doesn’t want child sexual exploitation to thrive. Here’s the deal: there has to be a strong prevention effort in order to protect the next generation. The internet isn’t going anywhere, predators aren’t going anywhere, and I’m not down to let anyone have the opportunity to prove that there is a need for more government. I don’t believe that the government should act as parents. The governments have had a chance to attempt to stop online child sexual exploitation, and they didn’t do it. Can we try a different pathway forward?

I’d like to put myself out of a job. I don’t want to ever hear another story like John Doe #1 ever again. This will require work. I’ve often called online child sexual exploitation the lynchpin for the internet. It’s time to arm generations of children with knowledge and tools. I can’t do this alone.

Individuals have fought so that I could have freedom online. I want to fight to protect it. I don’t want child predators to give the government any opportunity to take away freedom. Decentralized spaces are as close to a reset as we’ll get with the opportunity to do it right from the start. Start the youth off correctly by preventing potential hazards to the best of your ability.

The good news is anyone can work on this! I’d encourage you to take it and run with it. I added the additional education about the history of the internet to make the course more educational and fun. Instead of cleaning up generations of destroyed lives due to online sexual exploitation, perhaps this could inspire generations of those who will build our futures. Perhaps if the youth is armed with knowledge, they can create more tools to prevent the crime.

This one solution that I’m suggesting can be done on an individual level or on a larger scale. It should be adjusted depending on age, learning style, etc. It should be fun and playful.

This solution does not address abuse in the home or some of the root causes of offline child sexual exploitation. My hope is that it could lead to some survivors experiencing abuse in the home an opportunity to disclose with a trusted adult. The purpose for this solution is to prevent the crime of online child sexual exploitation before it occurs and to arm the youth with the tools to contact safe adults if and when it happens.

In closing, I went to hell a few times so that you didn’t have to. I spoke to the mothers of survivors of minors sexually exploited online—their tears could fill rivers. I’ve spoken with political dissidents who yearned to be free from authoritarian surveillance states. The only balance that I’ve found is freedom online for citizens around the globe and prevention from the dangers of that for the youth. Don’t slow down innovation and freedom. Educate, prepare, adapt, and look for solutions.

I’m not perfect and I’m sure that there are errors in this piece. I hope that you find them and it starts a conversation.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

litepub

A Go library that abstracts all the burdensome ActivityPub things and provides just the right amount of helpers necessary to integrate an existing website into the "fediverse" (what an odious name). Made for the gravity integration.

• https://godoc.org/github.com/fiatjaf/litepub

See also

-

@ 4925ea33:025410d8

1. O que é um Aromaterapeuta?

O aromaterapeuta é um profissional especializado na prática da Aromaterapia, responsável pelo uso adequado de óleos essenciais, ervas aromáticas, águas florais e destilados herbais para fins terapêuticos.

A atuação desse profissional envolve diferentes métodos de aplicação, como inalação, uso tópico, sempre considerando a segurança e a necessidade individual do cliente. A Aromaterapia pode auxiliar na redução do estresse, alívio de dores crônicas, relaxamento muscular e melhora da respiração, entre outros benefícios.

Além disso, os aromaterapeutas podem trabalhar em conjunto com outros profissionais da saúde para oferecer um tratamento complementar em diversas condições. Como já mencionado no artigo sobre "Como evitar processos alérgicos na prática da Aromaterapia", é essencial ter acompanhamento profissional, pois os óleos essenciais são altamente concentrados e podem causar reações adversas se utilizados de forma inadequada.

---

2. Como um Aromaterapeuta Pode Ajudar?

Você pode procurar um aromaterapeuta para diferentes necessidades, como:

✔ Questões Emocionais e Psicológicas

Auxílio em momentos de luto, divórcio, demissão ou outras situações desafiadoras.

Apoio na redução do estresse, ansiedade e insônia.

Vale lembrar que, em casos de transtornos psiquiátricos, a Aromaterapia deve ser usada como terapia complementar, associada ao tratamento médico.

✔ Questões Físicas

Dores musculares e articulares.

Problemas respiratórios como rinite, sinusite e tosse.

Distúrbios digestivos leves.

Dores de cabeça e enxaquecas. Nesses casos, a Aromaterapia pode ser um suporte, mas não substitui a medicina tradicional para identificar a origem dos sintomas.

✔ Saúde da Pele e Cabelos

Tratamento para acne, dermatites e psoríase.

Cuidados com o envelhecimento precoce da pele.

Redução da queda de cabelo e controle da oleosidade do couro cabeludo.

✔ Bem-estar e Qualidade de Vida

Melhora da concentração e foco, aumentando a produtividade.

Estímulo da disposição e energia.

Auxílio no equilíbrio hormonal (TPM, menopausa, desequilíbrios hormonais).

Com base nessas necessidades, o aromaterapeuta irá indicar o melhor tratamento, calculando doses, sinergias (combinação de óleos essenciais), diluições e técnicas de aplicação, como inalação, uso tópico ou difusão.

---

3. Como Funciona uma Consulta com um Aromaterapeuta?

Uma consulta com um aromaterapeuta é um atendimento personalizado, onde são avaliadas as necessidades do cliente para a criação de um protocolo adequado. O processo geralmente segue estas etapas:

✔ Anamnese (Entrevista Inicial)

Perguntas sobre saúde física, emocional e estilo de vida.

Levantamento de sintomas, histórico médico e possíveis alergias.

Definição dos objetivos da terapia (alívio do estresse, melhora do sono, dores musculares etc.).

✔ Escolha dos Óleos Essenciais

Seleção dos óleos mais indicados para o caso.

Consideração das propriedades terapêuticas, contraindicações e combinações seguras.

✔ Definição do Método de Uso

O profissional indicará a melhor forma de aplicação, que pode ser:

Inalação: difusores, colares aromáticos, vaporização.

Uso tópico: massagens, óleos corporais, compressas.

Banhos aromáticos e escalda-pés. Todas as diluições serão ajustadas de acordo com a segurança e a necessidade individual do cliente.

✔ Plano de Acompanhamento

Instruções detalhadas sobre o uso correto dos óleos essenciais.

Orientação sobre frequência e duração do tratamento.

Possibilidade de retorno para ajustes no protocolo.

A consulta pode ser realizada presencialmente ou online, dependendo do profissional.

---

Quer saber como a Aromaterapia pode te ajudar? Agende uma consulta comigo e descubra os benefícios dos óleos essenciais para o seu bem-estar!

@ 4857600b:30b502f4

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

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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

questo.email

This was a thing done in a brief period I liked the idea of "indiewebcamp", a stupid movement of people saying everybody should have their site and post their lives in it.

From the GitHub postmortem:

questo.email was a service that integrated email addresses into the indieweb ecosystem by providing email-to-note and email-to-webmention triggers, which could be used for people to comment through webmention using their email addresses, and be replied, and also for people to send messages from their sites directly to the email addresses of people they knew; Questo also worked as an IndieAuth provider that used people's email addresses and Mozilla Persona.

It was live from December 2014 through December 2015.

Here's how the home page looked:

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/questo.email

See also

• jekmentions, another thing related to "indieweb"

@ 34ff86e0:dbb6b9fb

test openletter redirection after creation

@ 6389be64:ef439d32

Most nematodes are beneficial and "graze" on black vine weevil, currant borer moth, fungus gnats, other weevils, scarabs, cutworms, webworms, billbugs, mole crickets, termites, peach tree borer and carpenter worm moths.

They also predate bacteria, recycling nutrients back into the soil and by doing so stimulates bacterial activity. They act as microbial taxis by transporting microbes to new locations of soil as they move through it while providing aeration.

https://stacker.news/items/988573

@ 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.

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 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

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Libertas magnitudo est

@ 3283ef81:0a531a33

This event has been deleted; your client is ignoring the delete request.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

idea: Rumple

a payments network based on trust channels

This is the description of a Lightning-like network that will work only with credit or trust-based channels and exist alongside the normal Lightning Network. I imagine some people will think this is undesirable and at the same time very easy to do (such that if it doesn't exist yet it must be because no one cares), but in fact it is a very desirable thing -- which I hope I can establish below -- and at the same time a very non-trivial problem to solve, as the history of Ryan Fugger's Ripple project and posterior copies of it show.

Read these first to get the full context:

1. Ryan Fugger's Ripple
2. Ripple and the problem of the decentralized commit
3. The Lightning Network solves the problem of the decentralized commit
4. Parallel Chains

Explanation about the name

Since we're copying the fundamental Ripple idea from Ryan Fugger and since the name "Ripple" is now associated with a scam coin called XRP, and since Ryan Fugger has changed the name of his old website "Ripplepay" to "Rumplepay", we will follow his lead here. If "Ripplepay" was the name of a centralized prototype to the open peer-to-peer network "Ripple", now that the centralized version is called "Rumplepay" the peer-to-peer version must be called "Rumple".

Now the idea

Basically we copy the Lightning Network, but without HTLCs or channels being opened and closed with funds committed to them on multisig Bitcoin transactions published to the blockchain. Instead we use pure trust relationships like the original Ripple concept.

And we use the blockchain commit method, but instead of spending an absurd amount of money to use the actual Bitcoin blockchain instead we use a parallel chain.

How exactly -- a protocol proposal attempt

It could work like this:

The parallel chain, or "Rumple Chain"

1. We define a parallel chain with a genesis block;
2. Following blocks must contain a. the ID of the previous block; b. a list of up to 32768 entries of arbitrary 32-byte values; c. an ID constituted by sha256(the previous block ID + the merkle root of all the entries)
3. To be mined, each parallel block must be included in the Bitcoin chain according as explained above.

Now that we have a structure for a simple "blockchain" that is completely useless, just blocks over blocks of meaningless values, we proceed to the next step of assigning meaning to these values.

The off-chain payments network, or "Rumple Network"

1. We create a network of nodes that can talk to each other via TCP messages (all details are the same as the Lightning Network, except where mentioned otherwise);
2. These nodes can create trust channels to each other. These channels are backed by nothing except the willingness of one peer to pay the other what is owed.
3. When Alice creates a trust channel with Bob (Alice trusts Bob), contrary to what happens in the Lightning Network, it's A that can immediately receive payments through that channel, and everything A receives will be an IOU from Bob to Alice. So Alice should never open a channel to Bob unless Alice trusts Bob. But also Alice can choose the amount of trust it has in Bob, she can, for example, open a very small channel with Bob, which means she will only lose a few satoshis if Bob decides to exit scam her. (in the original Ripple examples these channels were always depicted as friend relationships, and they can continue being that, but it's expected -- given the experience of the Lightning Network -- that the bulk of the channels will exist between users and wallet provider nodes that will act as hubs).
4. As Alice receive a payment through her channel with Bob, she becomes a creditor and Bob a debtor, i.e., the balance of the channel moves a little to her side. Now she can use these funds to make payments over that channel (or make a payment that combines funds from multiple channels using MPP).
5. If at any time Alice decides to close her channel with Bob, she can send all the funds she has standing there to somewhere else (for example, another channel she has with someone else, another wallet somewhere else, a shop that is selling some good or service, or a service that will aggregate all funds from all her channels and send a transaction to the Bitcoin chain on her behalf).
6. If at any time Bob leaves the network Alice is entitled by Bob's cryptographic signatures to knock on his door and demand payment, or go to a judge and ask him to force Bob to pay, or share the signatures and commitments online and hurt Bob's reputation with the rest of the network (but yes, none of these things is good enough and if Bob is a very dishonest person none of these things is likely to save Alice's funds).

The payment flow

1. Suppose there exists a route Alice->Bob->Carol and Alice wants to send a payment to Carol.
2. First Alice reads an invoice she received from Carol. The invoice (which can be pretty similar or maybe even the same as BOLT11) contains a payment hash h and information about how to reach Carol's node, optionally an amount. Let's say it's 100 satoshis.
3. Using the routing information she gathered, Alice builds an onion and sends it to Bob, at the same time she offers to Bob a "conditional IOU". That stands for a signed commitment that Alice will owe Bob an 100 satoshis if in the next 50 blocks of the Rumple Chain there appears a block containing the preimage p such that sha256(p) == h.
4. Bob peels the onion and discovers that he must forward that payment to Carol, so he forwards the peeled onion and offers a conditional IOU to Carol with the same h. Bob doesn't know Carol is the final recipient of the payment, it could potentially go on and on.
5. When Carol gets the conditional IOU from Bob, she makes a list of all the nodes who have announced themselves as miners (which is not something I have mentioned before, but nodes that are acting as miners will must announce themselves somehow) and are online and bidding for the next Rumple block. Each of these miners will have previously published a random 32-byte value v they they intend to include in their next block.
6. Carol sends payments through routes to all (or a big number) of these miners, but this time the conditional IOU contains two conditions (values that must appear in a block for the IOU to be valid): p such that sha256(p) == h (the same that featured in the invoice) and v (which must be unique and constant for each miner, something that is easily verifiable by Carol beforehand). Also, instead of these conditions being valid for the next 50 blocks they are valid only for the single next block.
7. Now Carol broadcasts p to the mempool and hopes one of the miners to which she sent conditional payments sees it and, allured by the possibility of cashing in Carol's payment, includes p in the next block. If that does not happen, Carol can try again in the next block.

Why bother with this at all?

1. The biggest advantage of Lightning is its openness

   It has been said multiple times that if trust is involved then we don't need Lightning, we can use Coinbase, or worse, Paypal. This is very wrong. Lightning is good specially because it serves as a bridge between Coinbase, Paypal, other custodial provider and someone running their own node. All these can transact freely across the network and pay each other without worrying about who is in which provider or setup.

   Rumple inherits that openness. In a Rumple Network anyone is free to open new trust channels and immediately route payments to anyone else.

   Also, since Rumple payments are also based on the reveal of a preimage it can do swaps with Lightning inside a payment route from day one (by which I mean one can pay from Rumple to Lightning and vice-versa).

2. Rumple fixes Lightning's fragility

   Lightning is too fragile.

   It's known that Lightning is vulnerable to multiple attacks -- like the flood-and-loot attack, for example, although not an attack that's easy to execute, it's still dangerous even if failed. Given the existence of these attacks, it's important to not ever open channels with random anonymous people. Some degree of trust must exist between peers.

   But one does not even have to consider attacks. The creation of HTLCs is a liability that every node has to do multiple times during its life. Every initiated, received or forwarded payment require adding one HTLC then removing it from the commitment transaction.

   Another issue that makes trust needed between peers is the fact that channels can be closed unilaterally. Although this is a feature, it is also a bug when considering high-fee environments. Imagine you pay $2 in fees to open a channel, your peer may close that unilaterally in the next second and then you have to pay another $15 to close the channel. The opener pays (this is also a feature that can double as a bug by itself). Even if it's not you opening the channel, a peer can open a channel with you, make a payment, then clone the channel, and now you're left with, say, an output of 800 satoshis, which is equal to zero if network fees are high.

   So you should only open channels with people you know and know aren't going to actively try to hack you and people who are not going to close channels and impose unnecessary costs on you. But even considering a fully trusted Lightning Network, even if -- to be extreme -- you only opened channels with yourself, these channels would still be fragile. If some HTLC gets stuck for any reason (peer offline or some weird small incompatibility between node softwares) and you're forced to close the channel because of that, there are the extra costs of sweeping these UTXO outputs plus the total costs of closing and reopening a channel that shouldn't have been closed in the first place. Even if HTLCs don't get stuck, a fee renegotiation event during a mempool spike may cause channels to force-close, become valueless or settle for very high closing fee.

   Some of these issues are mitigated by Eltoo, others by only having channels with people you trust. Others referenced above, plus the the griefing attack and in general the ability of anyone to spam the network for free with payments that can be pending forever or a lot of payments fail repeatedly makes it very fragile.

   Rumple solves most of these problems by not having to touch the blockchain at all. Fee negotiation makes no sense. Opening and closing channels is free. Flood-and-loot is a non-issue. The griefing attack can be still attempted as funds in trust channels must be reserved like on Lightning, but since there should be no theoretical limit to the number of prepared payments a channel can have, the griefing must rely on actual amounts being committed, which prevents large attacks from being performed easily.

3. Rumple fixes Lightning's unsolvable reputation issues

   In the Lightning Conference 2019, Rusty Russell promised there would be pre-payments on Lightning someday, since everybody was aware of potential spam issues and pre-payments would be the way to solve that. Fast-forward to November 2020 and these pre-payments have become an apparently unsolvable problem[^thread-402]: no one knows how to implement them reliably without destroying privacy completely or introducing worse problems.

   Replacing these payments with tables of reputation between peers is also an unsolved problem[^reputation-lightning], for the same reasons explained in the thread above.

4. Rumple solves the hot wallet problem

   Since you don't have to use Bitcoin keys or sign transactions with a Rumple node, only your channel trust is at risk at any time.

5. Rumple ends custodianship

   Since no one is storing other people's funds, a big hub or wallet provider can be used in multiple payment routes, but it cannot be immediately classified as a "custodian". At best, it will be a big debtor.

6. Rumple is fun

   Opening channels with strangers is boring. Opening channels with friends and people you trust even a little makes that relationship grow stronger and the trust be reinforced. (But of course, like it happens in the Lightning Network today, if Rumple is successful the bulk of trust will be from isolated users to big reliable hubs.)

Questions or potential issues

1. So many advantages, yes, but trusted? Custodial? That's easy and stupid!

   Well, an enormous part of the current Lightning Network (and also onchain Bitcoin wallets) already rests on trust, mainly trust between users and custodial wallet providers like ZEBEDEE, Alby, Wallet-of-Satoshi and others. Worse: on the current Lightning Network users not only trust, they also expose their entire transaction history to these providers[^hosted-channels].

   Besides that, as detailed in point 3 of the previous section, there are many unsolvable issues on the Lightning protocol that make each sovereign node dependent on some level of trust in its peers (and the network in general dependent on trusting that no one else will spam it to death).

   So, given the current state of the Lightning Network, to trust peers like Rumple requires is not a giant change -- but it is still a significant change: in Rumple you shouldn't open a large trust channel with someone just because it looks trustworthy, you must personally know that person and only put in what you're willing to lose. In known brands that have reputation to lose you can probably deposit more trust, same for long-term friends, and that's all. Still it is probably good enough, given the existence of MPP payments and the fact that the purpose of Rumple is to be a payments network for day-to-day purchases and not a way to buy real estate.

2. Why would anyone run a node in this parallel chain?

   I don't know. Ideally every server running a Rumple Network node will be running a Bitcoin node and a Rumple chain node. Besides using it to confirm and publish your own Rumple Network transactions it can be set to do BMM mining automatically and maybe earn some small fees comparable to running a Lightning routing node or a JoinMarket yield generator.

   Also it will probably be very lightweight, as pruning is completely free and no verification-since-the-genesis-block will take place.

3. What is the maturity of the debt that exists in the Rumple Network or its legal status?

   By default it is to be understood as being payable on demand for payments occurring inside the network (as credit can be used to forward or initiate payments by the creditor using that channel). But details of settlement outside the network or what happens if one of the peers disappears cannot be enforced or specified by the network.

   Perhaps some standard optional settlement methods (like a Bitcoin address) can be announced and negotiated upon channel creation inside the protocol, but nothing more than that.

[^thread-402]: Read at least the first 10 messages of the thread to see how naïve proposals like you and me could have thought about are brought up and then dismantled very carefully by the group of people most committed to getting Lightning to work properly. [^reputation-lightning]: See also the footnote at Ripple and the problem of the decentralized commit. [^hosted-channels]: Although that second part can be solved by hosted channels.

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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