@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ cae03c48:2a7d6671

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Well Integrates Nostr BTC Purchases via DMs

Bitcoin Well Inc. (TSXV: BTCW; OTCQB: BCNWF) has launched an integration with Nostr, allowing US customers to buy bitcoin directly through direct messages on the decentralized social protocol, according to a press release sent to Bitcoin Magazine.

Users can link their Nostr identifier (npub) to their Bitcoin Well account and purchase bitcoin by sending specific commands via direct message. The transactions draw from the user’s Cash Balance and send the purchased bitcoin to their existing Lightning Wallet for security.

Nostr is a decentralized social media protocol which is censorship resistant and runs on a network of relays, rather than centralized servers. This means that the users have full control over their message servers. It also adds a layer of protection for the customer’s privacy.

The integration simplifies the process of buying bitcoin by allowing users to make purchases directly through a social platform they already use. As a censorship-resistant protocol, Nostr ensures Bitcoin Well and its customers have full control, avoiding restrictions and potential censorship.

“This is a great achievement for our team!” said founder and CEO of Bitcoin Well Adam O’Brien. “We are deeply committed to make buying bitcoin directly to self custody better than using a custodial exchange. This is a huge step in the right direction. We are meeting bitcoiners where they are and allowing them to buy bitcoin safely.”

Users can link their npub to their Bitcoin Well account to enable bitcoin purchases via direct message. Commands like /buy $21.00 or /stack 69000 sats initiate a transaction, which is confirmed by sending /confirm. The purchase uses funds from the user’s Bitcoin Well Cash Balance, and bitcoin is delivered over the Lightning Network to a pre-registered wallet address.

This post Bitcoin Well Integrates Nostr BTC Purchases via DMs first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Oscar Zarraga Perez.

@ 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.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Star Wars is often viewed as a myth of rebellion, freedom, and resistance to tyranny. The iconography—scrappy rebels, totalitarian stormtroopers, lone smugglers—suggests a deep anti-authoritarian ethos. Yet, beneath the surface, the narrative arc of Star Wars consistently affirms the necessity, even sanctity, of central authority. This blog entry introduces the question: Is Star Wars fundamentally a celebration of statism?

---

Rebellion as Restoration, Not Revolution

The Rebel Alliance’s mission is not to dismantle centralized power, but to restore the Galactic Republic—a bureaucratic, centrally governed institution. Characters like Mon Mothma and Bail Organa are high-ranking senators, not populist revolutionaries. The goal is to remove the corrupt Empire and reinstall a previous central authority, presumed to be just.

• Rebels are loyalists to a prior state structure.
• Power is not questioned, only who wields it.

---

Jedi as Centralized Moral Elites

The Jedi, often idealized as protectors of peace, are unelected, extra-legal enforcers of moral and military order. Their authority stems from esoteric metaphysical abilities rather than democratic legitimacy.

• They answer only to their internal Council.
• They are deployed by the Senate, but act independently of civil law.
• Their collapse is depicted as tragic not because they were unaccountable, but because they were betrayed.

This positions them as a theocratic elite, not spiritual anarchists.

---

Chaos and the Frontier: The Case of the Cantina

The Mos Eisley cantina, often viewed as a symbol of frontier freedom, reveals something darker. It is: - Lawless - Violent - Culturally fragmented

Conflict resolution occurs through murder, not mediation. Obi-Wan slices off a limb; Han shoots first—both without legal consequence. There is no evidence of property rights, dispute resolution, or voluntary order.

This is not libertarian pluralism—it’s moral entropy. The message: without centralized governance, barbarism reigns.

---

The Mythic Arc: Restoration of the Just State

Every trilogy in the saga returns to a single theme: the fall and redemption of legitimate authority.

1. Prequels: Republic collapses into tyranny.
2. Originals: Rebels fight to restore legitimate order.
3. Sequels: Weak governance leads to resurgence of authoritarianism; heroes must reestablish moral centralism.

The story is not anti-state—it’s anti-bad state. The solution is never decentralization; it’s the return of the right ruler or order.

---

Conclusion: The Hidden Statism of a Rebel Myth

Star Wars wears the costume of rebellion, but tells the story of centralized salvation. It: - Validates elite moral authority (Jedi) - Romanticizes restoration of fallen governments (Republic) - Portrays decentralized zones as corrupt and savage (outer rim worlds)

It is not an anarchist parable, nor a libertarian fable. It is a statist mythology, clothed in the spectacle of rebellion. Its core message is not that power should be abolished, but that power belongs to the virtuous few.

---

Question to Consider:
If the Star Wars universe consistently affirms the need for centralized moral and political authority, should we continue to see it as a myth of freedom? Or is it time to recognize it as a narrative of benevolent empire?

@ 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

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na bitcoin-balkan.com.

---

Pregled sadržaja

1. Procena vrednosti
2. Većina Bitcoin-ovih pozitivnih strana opstaje
3. Broj ljudi koji su prihvatili Bitcoin
4. Zaključak

Prošlo je trinaest godina od nastanka Bitcoina i lako je poverovati da je većina njegovog rasta iza njega. Deo ovoga je rezultat predrasude koju svi delimo i što nas navodi da zamislimo trenutno stanje stvari kao završni stepen njegovog razvoja. Svaki bitcoiner je nekad mislio da je prekasan sa Bitcoin-om. Međutim, kada primenjujemo kritičko razmišljanje da bismo procenili gde je Bitcoin u svojoj putanji rasta, otkrivamo da je suprotno u stvari tačno: još uvek je vrlo, vrlo rano.

Postoje dva načina da razmišljate o tome koliko je rano za Bitcoin kao zalihu vrednosti neke imovine:

1. Procena vrednosti kao procenat od njegovog punog potencijala

2. Prihvatanje kao procenat od njegovog punog potencijala (na čemu je fokus u ovom članku).

Procena vrednosti

Prvi i najčešći način da se proceni koliko je rano za Bitcoin je da se pogleda njegova ukupna vrednost (trenutno oko 900B USD) i uporedi sa njegovim punim potencijalom. Izazov sa ovim je očigledno da je puni potencijal Bitcoin-a stvar nagađanja. Oni koji duboko razumeju Bitcoin imaju tendenciju da njegov potencijal posmatraju barem kao potencijal zlata (oko 13T USD), ali teoretski više poput 200T USD (oko polovine ukupne vrednosti sveta).

Za brzi pregled ovog potencijala od 200T USD, pogledajmo ukupno raspoloživo tržište Bitcoin-a. Radi jednostavnosti, samo ćemo razmotriti njegovu ulogu zalihe vrednosti i zanemariti njegov potencijal da pojede tržišni udeo od oko 100T USD ukupne vrednosti u različitim svetskim valutama. Uzimajući u obzir različite zalihe vrednosne imovine i grubom procenom koliki bi % Bitcoin mogao da uzme od njih, dobili smo ovakav rezultat:

Iako put do 200T USD nije veliko rastezanje, u stvarnoj vrednosti čini se previše dobrim da bi bio istinit. Sa obzirom da je bez presedana da zaliha vrednosti neke robe postigne vrednost veću od zlata, to jednostavno predstavlja neistraženu teritoriju. Ali čak i ako se jednostavno pridržavamo targetiranja niže ciljne vrednosti zlata od 13T USD, Bitcoin još uvek tendenciju velikog porasta svoje cene u budućnosti.

Većina Bitcoin-ovih pozitivnih strana opstaje

Svako ko razmišlja da nešto svog teško zarađenog novca uskladišti u Bitcoin pita se „da li sam poranio ili zakasnio?“ Nepisano je pravilo da se svako oseća kao da je zakasnio kad stigne. Brojni su primeri ljudi koji žale kako su zakasnili 2011. ili 2013. ili 2016. godine, kada je cena Bitcoin-a bila 5, 100, odnosno 600 USD.

Kao i u bilo kojoj zajednici koja se razvija i raste i u kojoj ima manjka nekretninama, pridošlice zavide ljudima koji su već obezbedili sebi nekretninu, ne sluteći da će njima zavideti ljudi koji tek treba da dođu. Ovaj fenomen je primenjiv i na velikom broju drugih primera. Na primer, zakasneli u Kalifornijskoj zlatnoj groznici bili su razočarani kada su došli, a bogata zlatna polja su već bila iscrpljena, i umesto toga su se naseliti na nekoliko stotina hektara zemljišta, a koje sada vrede bogatstvo.

U srcu ovog osećanja je strah da više nema uspona, da više nema novca koji se može zaraditi uzimajući ono što je još uvek ostalo dostupno. Da li smo dostigli tu tačku sa Bitcoin-om?

Pa ne. Čini se da je zapravo suprotno. Na osnovu punog potencijalnog opsega procene koji smo utvrdili gore, čak i u ishodu niskog nivoa (13T USD), velika većina bogatstva koje će steći vlasnici Bitcoin-a, tek treba da se stekne (96%). Da bi parirao proceni zlata, Bitcoin i dalje mora da poraste 26 puta.

A ako se desi vrhunski ishod, punih 99,7% ukupnog stvaranja bogatstva Bitcoin-a ostaje pred nama. To bi značilo da Bitcoin još uvek treba da poraste 400 puta, zanemarujući pariranje zlatu.

Stavljanjem trenutne vrednosti Bitcoin-a u perspektivu, postaje jasno da je za Bitcoin još uvek vrlo rano.

Iako ova analiza sugeriše da za Bitcoin-u ostaje od 26x do 400x rasta, korisno je proveriti ovaj zaključak kroz drugo razumno objašnjenje, a tamo gde je poznat puni potencijal…

Broj ljudi koji su prihvatili Bitcoin

Procene broja vlasnika Bitcoin-a širom sveta se veoma razlikuju. To je dovelo do prilične količine dvosmislenosti i nesigurnosti u vezi sa stvarnim brojevima i određenog stepena odustajanja i mišljenja da je taj broj jednostavno preteško precizno proceniti. Iako je teško utvrditi konačan broj, glavni razlog za odstupanje u procenama je nedostatak standardizovanih definicija šta znači prihvatanje Bitcoin-a.

Istina je da postoje različiti nivoi prihvatanja Bitcoin-a. Podelom na segmente prihvatanja Bitcoin-a lakše je uvideti ne samo zašto postoji širok opseg procena, već i još važnije, koliko je još uvek rano za prihvatanje Bitcoin-a kao preferirane zalihe vrednosti.

U ove svrhe, hajde da podelimo u segmente prihvatanje Bitcoin-a na četiri različita „nivoa“:

1. Kežual amateri (prstom u vodi)

2. Alokatori 1% (stopalima u vodi)

3. Značajni vernici (do pojasa u vodi)

4. Bitcoin maximalisti (u vodi preko glave)

Pre nego što počnemo, potreban nam je imenilac. Mogli bismo da koristimo globalno stanovništvo, ali po mom mišljenju ovo daje loše rezultate. Ono što mi zaista procenjujemo je koji procenat sveta koji poseduje odredjeno bogatstvo za skladištenje u Bitcoin-u, je to i učinio. Prema podacima sa sajta Statista, 2,2 biliona ljudi na svetu poseduje najmanje 10k USD u neto vrednosti, što se čini kao razumna granica za zalihu koju žele da uskladište. Činjenica je da će siromašne zajednice takođe koristiti Bitcoin kao zalihu vrednosti i verovatno će iz njega izvući veću korist kao rezultat marginalnog pristupa tradicionalnoj bankarskoj infrastrukturi kao klijenti banaka sa „niskom vrednošću“. Međutim, u naše svrhe, jednostavno gledamo koliko je ljudi usvojilo Bitcoin među grupama sa značajnim bogatstvom za skladištenje, tako da će 2.2 biliona služiti kao naša puna potencijalna veličina tržišta.

1. Kežual amateri

Ovaj segment ljudi koji su prihvatili Bitcoin uključuje sve one koji imaju bilo koju količinu Bitcoin-a – vašeg prijatelja sa 20 USD BTC-a negde u nekom novčaniku ili vašu tetku koja se ne seća svoje Coinbase lozinke iz 2017. Po mom mišljenju, najveća zabuna oko broja ljudi koji su prihvatili Bitcoin nastaje zbog poistovećivanja „kežual amatera“ sa ljudima koji su u potpunosti prihvatili Bitcoin. Realnost je takva da ljudi ovog segmenta uglavnom samo eksperimentišu, bilo da bi stekli osećaj za ono o čemu svi pričaju, ili samo uložu nekoliko dolara u Bitcoin u nadi da će možda dobiti džekpot, kao što je slučaj sa greb-greb nagradnim igrama.

Zbog toga, „kežual amateri“ su razlog dovodjenja u zabludu pravog broja ljudi koji su u potpunosti prihvatili Bitcoin. Njihovo ponašanje zapravo ne predstavlja prihvatanje u pravom smislu te reči i stoga se ne bi trebalo smatrati ljudima koji su u potpunosti prihvatili Bitcoin. Istina je da, kada kežual amateri shvate da je Bitcoin najbolja zaliha vrednosti neke imovine u istoriji, neće ostati na samo 20 USD u Bitcoin-ima. Umesto toga, oni će svoju štednju prebaciti u mnogo većim iznosima.

Što se tiče odredjivanja veličine ovog segmenta, Willy Woo je sastavio razumno iscrpnu i sveobuhvatnu procenu od oko 187 miliona ljudi koji su prihvatili Bitcoin, što znači da su oni u najmanju ruku „kežual amateri“.

Koristeći ovaj i naš puni potencijal od 2,2 biliona ljudi kao imenioca, 8,5% potencijalnih ljudi koji su prihvatili Bitcoin-e dostiglo je nivo „kežual amatera“. Ovo je prilično velik broj i potpuno obmanjuje stvarni obim potpunog prihvatanja, a što će pokazati sledeći segmenti.

2. Alokatori 1%

Za preostale potkategorije, tačni podaci su manje dostupni. Kao takvi, sve što možemo je da smislimo razumne procene putem triangulacije.

Po mom mišljenju, „alokatori 1%“ se mogu okarakterisati kao ljudi koji su prihvatili Bitcoin, i koji žele da imaju mali, ali ne i zanemarljivi deo u Bitcoin-u. Za naše svrhu, mislim da je pristojan prag za ovu grupu svako ko ima najmanje 0,1 Bitcoin, i može se smatrati da imaju malu, ali ne i zanemarljivu poziciju u Bitcoin-u.

Gledajući Bitcoin blockchain, postoji oko 3 miliona adresa koje imaju najmanje 0,1 BTC. Pored ovih brojeva na blockchain-u, moramo da uzmemo u obzir i znatan broj ljudi koji imaju ovaj iznos na berzi ili GBTC-u. Kombinovanjem, mislim da je razumno proceniti da je 10 miliona ljudi dostiglo nivo „alokatora 1%“ ili veći.

Na osnovu ovih brojeva, samo 1⁄17 „kežual amatera“ dostiglo je nivo prihvatanja „alokatora 1%“, što znači da je ovaj nivo prihvatanja Bitcoin-a do danas postigao samo 0,5% penetracije. Ovaj strmi pad je razlog zašto je došlo do zablude da veliki broj „kežual amatera“ bude označeno kao grupa koja je u potpunosti prihvatila Bitcoin.

3. Značajni vernici

U ovu kategoriju spada svako ko je dostigao nivo razumevanja Bitcoin-a da alokacija od 1% ili čak 5% više ne izgleda dovoljna.

Uopšteno govoreći, ova grupa se kreće u rasponu od 5 – 50%. Išao bih toliko daleko da bih rekao da je većina ljudi koji sebe smatraju vernicima u Bitcoin-e, uključujući većinu Bitcoin Twitter-a, negde u ovoj grupi.

Procena veličine ove grupe postaje mnogo nejasnija, ali možemo se osloniti na podatke iz blockchain-a da bismo došli do razumne procene.

Za početak, hajde da utvrdimo da je većina ljudi koji su dostigli ovaj nivo verovanja i razumevanja Bitcoin-a, izborila da poseduje najmanje 1 Bitcoin. Pored toga, ovaj nivo ljudi koji su prihvatili Bitcoin je verovatno osigurao svoj Bitcoin u chain-u novčanika kojim oni upravljaju. Gledajući podatke na chain-u, oko 820k adresa ima najmanje 1 Bitcoin. Kao grubu pretpostavku, uzmimo da 500k od toga poseduju ljudi koji su dostigli nivo prihvatanja „značajnog vernika“.

Ako potom generički zaokružimo akaunte za ljude koji nisu postigli status whole­coiner-a (eng. osoba koja poseduje barem 1 BTC), ili koji svoja sredstva drže na berzi, dolazimo do grube procene od 2 miliona „značajnih vernika“.

4. Bitcoin maximal­isti

Za našu svrhu, recimo da ova grupa uključuje svakoga ko je dovoljno duboko ušao u Bitcoin da je zaključio da bi više od 50% njihove neto vrednosti trebalo da bude uskladišteno u Bitcoin-u.

Procena veličine ove grupe je gotovo nemoguća, zato ćemo morati da budemo kreativni.

1. Prodaja „Bitcoin Standard“

2. Hajde da konzervativno procenimo da je samo 20% maximalističara kupilo Bitcoin Standard, i da je 50% tih ljudi koji su ga razumeli, postali maksimalisti. Na osnovu knjige Amazon US rank (6,681), onlajn kalkulatori procenjuju da je prodato oko 15k primeraka.

3. Hajde da budemo velikodušni i da zaokružimo taj broj od oko 15k na 50k, uzimajući u obzir međunarodnu prodaju i kupovinu izvan Amazona.

Ovo nas dovodi do procene broja od 125k maximalista. Da ne bismo pogrešili, bićemo oprezni, i udvostručimo taj broj i rećićemo da ih ima 250k.

1. Kvalitativna triangulacija

Čisto subjektivno, ali čini mi se da na Twitter-u, primarnom domu za komunikaciju maximalista, postoji možda 10k aktivno angažovanih Bitcoin maximalista. Da budemo vrlo konzervativni, recimo da ovo predstavlja oko 5% maximalista (od ukupno 200k).

Uz to, kao procenu od vrha nadole, čini se opravdanim da je oko 10% ljudi koji su dostigli 5 – 50% alokacije Bitcoin-a napravilo skok ka maximalizmu.

Sve u svemu, cifra od oko 250k Bitcoin maximalista čini se konzervativnom, ako ne i velikodušnom pretpostavkom.

To nas dovodi do 0,01% penetracije.

Zaključak

Kako god gledali brojke, još uvek je rano za Bitcoin. Posmatrajući procenu vrednosti Bitcoin-a kao procenat njegovog punog potencijala, vidimo da je trenutna vrednost Bitcoin-a negde između 0,2% i 3% njegovog krajnjeg stanja, što znači da ostaje 30x do 500x rasta. Gledajući napredak prihvatanja Bitcoin-a, vidimo da je trenutna penetracija Bitcoin-a negde između 0,01% i 8,5%, u zavisnosti od toga koji prag prihvatanja gledate.

Ako verujete, kao što ja verujem, da je Bitcoin na putu da postane dominantna zaliha vrednosti i preferirani novac za ceo svet, na kraju će norma biti više od 50% posedovanja neto vrednosti u Bitcoin-u. Budući da naša analiza ovde sugeriše da samo 0,01% sveta zadovoljava ove standarde, opravdano je zaključiti da 99,99% sveta ostaje da sledi njihov primer.

Sve u svemu, dok svi koji se pojave na Bitcoin-u neizbežno osećaju žaljenje zbog toga što nisu ranije investirali i pitaju se da li su u potpunosti propustili brod, jasno je da većina rasta Bitcoin-a ostaje pred nama. Da stavimo ovo u neki kontekst, obzirom da može postojati samo 21 milion Bitcoin-a, prosečna osoba na zemlji (od 8 biliona ljudi) imaće samo 0,0025 Bitcoin-a. Još je toliko rano, da ukupna neto vrednost te prosečne osobe u Bitcoin-u može da se kupi za samo 90 USD.

I ako mislite da je kasno, zapravo je veoma rano, zato vam čestitam i uživajte u skupljanju sats-ova dok su još uvek ovako jeftini!

@ 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. 🫡

@ 6be5cc06:5259daf0

At

at é uma ferramenta de agendamento de tarefas em Linux usada para executar comandos únicos em um horário e data específicos. Diferente do cron, que serve para tarefas recorrentes, o at executa uma única vez.

Como usar o at

1. Verifique se o at está instalado

bash which at

Se não estiver instalado:

bash sudo apt install at

E inicie o serviço (caso necessário):

bash sudo systemctl enable --now atd

2. Agendar um comando

bash at 10:00 AM tomorrow

Você será levado a um prompt interativo. Digite o comando desejado e finalize com Ctrl + D.

Exemplo 1:

bash at 09:00 AM next Monday

(Entrada do usuário no prompt do at)

echo "Relatório pronto" >> ~/relatorio.txt Ctrl + D

Resultado: O trecho "relatório pronto" será incluído no documento relatorio.txt.

Exemplo 2:

bash at 21:00 Apr 15

Entrada no prompt:

notify-send "Hora de fazer backup!" Ctrl + D

Resultado: Às 21h do dia 15 de abril, o sistema exibirá uma notificação.

Formatos de Data e Hora Válidos

• now + 1 minute

• midnight

• tomorrow

• 5pm

• 08:30

• 7:00am next friday

• noon + 2 days

Visualizar tarefas agendadas

bash atq

Remover uma tarefa agendada

bash atrm <número_da_tarefa>

Você encontra o número da tarefa com atq.

---

cron

O cron é um utilitário de agendamento de tarefas baseado no tempo. Permite executar comandos ou scripts automaticamente em horários específicos. Ele depende do daemon crond, que deve estar ativo e em execução contínua no sistema.

Arquivo de configuração:

• Cada usuário pode editar seu próprio agendador com:

  bash crontab -e

• O formato padrão de uma linha no crontab:

  m h dom mon dow comando

|Campo|Descrição|Valores possíveis| |---|---|---| |m|Minuto|0–59| |h|Hora|0–23| |dom|Dia do mês|1–31| |mon|Mês|1–12| |dow|Dia da semana|0–6 (0 = Domingo)| |comando|Comando a executar|Qualquer comando shell válido|

Exemplos:

• Executar um script a cada minuto:

  bash * * * * * /usr/local/bin/execute/this/script.sh

• Fazer backup no dia 10 de junho às 08:30:

  bash 30 08 10 06 * /home/sysadmin/full-backup

• Backup todo domingo às 5h da manhã:

  bash 0 5 * * 0 tar -zcf /var/backups/home.tgz /home/

Limitações:

Tarefas agendadas com cron não são executadas se o computador estiver desligado ou suspenso no horário programado. O comando é simplesmente ignorado. Use cron para tarefas com data/hora exatas.

---

anacron

O anacron é uma alternativa ao cron voltada para sistemas que não ficam ligados o tempo todo, como notebooks e desktops. Ele garante a execução de tarefas periódicas (diárias, semanais, mensais) assim que possível após o sistema ser ligado, caso tenham sido perdidas. Use anacron para tarefas periódicas tolerantes a atrasos.

Verificação da instalação:

bash anacron -V

Instalação (caso necessário):

bash sudo apt update sudo apt install anacron

Arquivo de configuração:

/etc/anacrontab

Acessado com:

sudo nano /etc/anacrontab

Formato de cada linha:

PERIOD DELAY IDENT COMMAND

| Campo | Descrição | | ------- | ------------------------------------------- | | PERIOD | Intervalo em dias (1 = diário, 7 = semanal) | | DELAY | Minutos a esperar após o boot | | IDENT | Nome identificador da tarefa | | COMMAND | Comando ou script a ser executado |

Exemplo:

bash 1 3 limpeza-temporarios /home/usuario/scripts/limpar_tmp.sh

Executa o script uma vez por dia, 3 minutos após o sistema ser ligado.

Nota: Não é necessário usar run-parts nem cron.daily para tarefas personalizadas. Basta apontar diretamente para o script desejado. O run-parts só deve ser usado quando se deseja executar todos os scripts de um diretório.

Ativação do serviço:

bash sudo systemctl enable --now anacron

Verificação de status:

bash systemctl status anacron

Logs de execução:

bash grep anacron /var/log/syslog

/etc/anacrontab: Arquivo de Configuração do anacron

O arquivo /etc/anacrontab define tarefas periódicas a serem executadas pelo anacron, garantindo que comandos sejam executados mesmo que o computador esteja desligado no horário originalmente programado.

Cabeçalho Padrão

bash SHELL=/bin/sh HOME=/root LOGNAME=root

• SHELL: Shell padrão utilizado para executar os comandos.

• HOME: Diretório home usado durante a execução.

• LOGNAME: Usuário associado à execução das tarefas.

Entradas Padrão do Sistema

bash 1 5 cron.daily run-parts --report /etc/cron.daily 7 10 cron.weekly run-parts --report /etc/cron.weekly @monthly 15 cron.monthly run-parts --report /etc/cron.monthly

|Campo|Significado| |---|---| |1|Executa a tarefa diariamente (a cada 1 dia)| |5|Espera 5 minutos após o boot| |cron.daily|Identificador da tarefa (usado nos logs)| |run-parts|Executa todos os scripts dentro do diretório|

Diretórios utilizados:

• /etc/cron.daily: scripts executados uma vez por dia

• /etc/cron.weekly: scripts semanais

• /etc/cron.monthly: scripts mensais

O comando run-parts executa automaticamente todos os scripts executáveis localizados nesses diretórios.

Personalização

Para adicionar tarefas personalizadas ao anacron, basta adicionar novas linhas com o formato:

PERIOD DELAY IDENT COMMAND

Exemplo:

bash 1 3 limpeza-temporarios /home/usuario/scripts/limpar_tmp.sh

Executa o script limpar_tmp.sh diariamente, com 3 minutos de atraso após o boot.

Importante: Não é necessário — nem recomendado — usar run-parts quando a intenção é executar um script individual. O run-parts espera um diretório e ignora arquivos individuais. Usar run-parts com um script individual causará falha na execução.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ cae03c48:2a7d6671

Bitcoin Magazine

One out of Four People Own Bitcoin and Crypto in 2025: Report

Today, Gemini, a crypto platform, released its 2025 Global State of Crypto Report, revealing a notable increase in cryptocurrency adoption in different countries. According to a press release sent to Bitcoin Magazine, ownership among respondents in the US, UK, France, and Singapore rose from one in five (21%) in 2024 to one in four (24%) in 2025.

The Trump Administration’s treatment of Bitcoin may have played a major role in its global growth. Since taking office in January 2025, President Trump has launched a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, where he installed leadership at the SEC that are in favor of digital assets, and endorsed legislation aimed at regulating stablecoins and establishing a clear framework for digital assets.

“The United States has proven itself as a global leader in web3 and blockchain technology with the addition of Trump’s pro-crypto policies, which is a significant change from the previous Administration” said the CEO of Gemini Marshall Beard. “With this pro-innovation approach, the crypto industry is positioned for significant growth in the United States and around the world.”

In the US nearly 23% of non-owners said that President Trump’s launch of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve made them more confident in the value of Bitcoin and other cryptos. Similar feelings were shared by about one in five non-owners in the United Kingdom (21%) and Singapore (19%).

Europe is leading the way in crypto ownership growth. In 2025, 24% of people in the UK said they own cryptocurrency, up from 18% last year; the biggest jump of any country surveyed. France also saw an increase, with 21% owning crypto, compared to 18% in 2024. In the US, adoption rose from 20% to 22%, and Singapore went from 26% to 28%.

France’s strong pro-crypto stance has encouraged more people there to invest in digital assets, which is the highest rate among all surveyed nations with 67%. Following France are Singapore, Italy, the UK, the US, and Australia.

In the US, nearly two in five crypto owners (39%) have invested in crypto ETFs, showing a steady rise since their approval in early 2024. Additionally, half of Millennials and Gen Z globally have invested in crypto at some point, with 52% of Millennials and 48% of Gen Z reporting current or past ownership.

This post One out of Four People Own Bitcoin and Crypto in 2025: Report first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Oscar Zarraga Perez.

@ 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.

@ 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".

@ 6ad3e2a3:c90b7740

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . .

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

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

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

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

@ 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

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.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na bitcoin-balkan.com.

---

Pregled sadržaja

1. Šta je Bitcoin?
2. Šta Bitcoin može da učini za vas?
3. Zašto ljudi kupuju Bitcoin?
4. Da li je vaš novac siguran u dolarima, kućama, akcijama ili zlatu?
5. Šta je bolje za štednju od dolara, kuća i akcija?
6. Po čemu se Bitcoin razlikuje od ostalih valuta?
7. kako Bitcoin spašava svet?
8. Kako mogu da saznam više o Bitcoin-u?

---

Bitcoin čini da štednja novca bude kul – i praktična – ponovo. Ovaj članak objašnjava kako i zašto.

Šta je Bitcoin?

Bitcoin se naziva digitalno zlato, mašina za istinu, blockchain, peer to peer mreža čvorova, energetski ponor i još mnogo toga. Bitcoin je, u stvari, sve ovo. Međutim, ova objašnjenja su često toliko tehnička i suvoparna, da bi većina ljudi radije gledala kako trava raste. Što je najvažnije, ova objašnjenja ne pokazuju kako Bitcoin ima bilo kakve koristi za vas.

iPod nije postao kulturološka senzacija jer ga je Apple nazvao „prenosnim digitalnim medijskim uređajem“. Postao je senzacija jer su ga zvali “1,000 pesama u vašem džepu.”

Ne zanima vas šta je Bitcoin. Vas zanima šta on može da učini za vas.

Baš kao i Internet, vaš auto, vaš telefon, kao i mnogi drugi uređaji i sistemi koje svakodnevno koristite, vi ne treba da znate šta je Bitcoin ili kako to funkcioniše da biste razumeli šta on može da učini za vas.

Šta Bitcoin može da učini za vas?

Bitcoin može da sačuva vaš teško zarađeni novac.

Bitcoin je stekao veliku pažnju u 2017. i 2018. godini zbog svoje spekulativne upotrebe. Mnogi ljudi su ga kupili nadajući se da će se obogatiti. Cena je naglo porasla, a zatim se srušila. Ovo nije bio prvi put da je Bitcoin uradio to. Međutim, niko nikada nije izgubio novac držeći bitcoin duže od 3,5 godine – ćak i ako je kupio na apsolutnim vrhovima.

Zašto Bitcoin konstantno raste? Ljudi počinju da shvataju koliko je Bitcoin moćan, kao način uštede novca u svetu u kojem je ’novac’ poput dolara, eura i drugih nacionalnih valuta dizajniran da gubi vrednost.

Ovo čini Bitcoin odličnom opcijom za štednju novca na nekoliko godina ili više. Bitcoin je bolji od štednje novca u dolarima, akcijama, nekretninama, pa čak i u zlatu.

Zato pokušajte da zaboravite na trenutak na razumevanje blockchaina, digitalne valute, kriptografije, seed fraza, novčanika, rudarstva i svih ostalih nerazumljivih termina. Za sada, razgovarajmo o tome zašto ljudi kupuju Bitcoin: razlog je prostiji nego što vi mislite.

Zašto ljudi kupuju Bitcoin?

Naravno, svako ima svoj razlog za kupovinu Bitcoin-a. Jedan od razloga, koji verovatno često čujete, je taj što mu vrednost raste. Ljudi žele da se obogate. Uskoče kao spekulanti, krenu u vožnju i najverovatnije ih prodaju ubrzo nakon kupovine.

Međutim, čak i kada cena krene naglo prema gore i strmoglavo padne nazad, mnogi ljudi ostanu i nakon tog pada. Otkud mi to znamo? Broj aktivnih novčanika dnevno, koji je otprilike sličan broju korisnika Bitcoin-a, nastavlja da raste. Takođe, nakon svakog balona u istoriji Bitcoin-a, cena se nikada ne vraća na svoju cenu pre balona. Uvek ostane malo višlja. Bitcoin se penje, a svaka masovna spekulativna serija dovodi sve više i više ljudi.

Broj aktivnih Bitcoin novčanika neprekidno raste

„Aktivna adresa“ znači da je neko tog dana poslao Bitcoin transakciju. Donji grafikon je na logaritamskoj skali.

Izvor: Glassnode

Cena Bitcoina se neprestano penje

Kroz istoriju Bitcoin-a možemo videti divlje kolebanje cena, ali nakon svakog balona, cena se ostaje višlja nego pre. Ovo je cena Bitcoin-a na logaritamskoj skali.

Izvor: Glassnode

To pokazuje da se ljudi zadržavaju: potražnja za Bitcoin-om se povećava. Da je svaki masovni rast cena bio samo balon koji su iscenirali prevaranti koji žele brzo da se obogate, cena bi se vratila na nivo pre balona. To se dogodilo sa lalama, ali ne i sa Bitcoin-om.

I zašto se onda cena Bitcoin-a stalno povećava? Sve veći broj ljudi čuva Bitcoin dugoročno – oni razumeju šta Bitcoin može učiniti za njihovu štednju.

Zašto ljudi štede svoj novac u Bitcoin-u umesto na štednim računima, kućama, deonicama ili zlatu? Hajde da pogledajmo sve te metode štednje, i zatim da ih uporedimo sa Bitcoin-om.

Da li je vaš novac siguran u dolarima, kućama, akcijama ili zlatu?

Tokom mnogo godina, to su bile pristojne opcije za štednju. Međutim, sistem koji podržava vrednost svega ovoga je u krizi.

Dolari, Euri, Dinari

Dolari i sve ostale „tradicionalne“ valute koje proizvode vlade, stvorene su da izgube vrednost kroz inflaciju. Banke i tradicionalni monetarni sistem uzrokuju inflaciju stalnim stvaranjem i distribucijom novog novca. Kada Američke Federalne Rezerve objave ciljanu stopu od 2% inflacije, to znači da žele da vaš novac svake godine izgubi 2% od svoje vrednosti. Čak i sa inflacijom od samo 2%, vaša štednja u dolarima izgubiće polovinu vrednosti tokom 40-godišnjeg radnog veka.

Izveštena inflacija se danas opasno povečava, uprkos rastućem „buretu sa barutom“ koji bi mogao da explodira i dovede do masivne hiperinflacije. Što je više valute u opticaju, to je više baruta u buretu.

Naše vlade su ekonomiju napunile valutama da bankarski sistem ne bi propao nakon finansijske krize koja se dogodila 2008. godine. Od tada je većina glavnih centralnih banaka postavila vrlo niske kamatne stope, što pojedincima i korporacijama omogućava dobijanje jeftinijih kredita. To znači da mnogi pojedinci i korporacije podižu ogromne kredite i koriste ih za kupovinu druge imovine poput deonica, umetničkih dela i nekretnina. Sve ovo pozajmljivanje znači da stvaramo tone novog novca i stavljamo ga u opticaj.

Računi za podsticaje (stimulus bills) COVID-19 za 2020. godinu unose trilione u sistem. Ovoliko stvaranje valuta na kraju dovodi do inflacije – velikog gubitka u vrednosti valute.

Količina američkog dolara u opticaju gotovo se udvostručila od marta 2020. godine. Izvor

Računi za podsticaje su bez presedana, toliko da je neko izmislio meme da opiše ovu situaciju.

Resurs koji vlade mogu da naprave u većem broju da bi platile svoje račune? Ne zvuči kao dobro mesto za štednju novca.

Kuće

Kuće su tokom prošlog veka bile pristojan način štednje novca. Međutim, pad cena nekretnina 2007. godine doveo je do toga da su mnogi vlasnici kuća izgubili svu ušteđevinu.

Danas su kuće gotovo nepristupačne za prosečnog čoveka. Jedan od načina da se ovo izmeri je koliko godišnjih zarada treba prosečnom čoveku da zaradi ekvivalent vrednosti prosečne kuće. Prema CityLab-u, publikaciji Bloomberg-a koja pokriva gradove, porodica može da priuštiti određenu kuću ako košta manje od 2,6 godišnjih prihoda domaćinstva te porodice.

Međutim, prema RZS (Republički zavod za statistiku) prosečan prihod porodičnog domaćinstva u Srbiji iznosi oko 570 EUR mesečno ili otprilike 7.000 EUR godišnje. Nažalost, samo najjeftinija područja van gradova imaju srednje cene kuća od oko 2,6 prosečnih godišnjih prihoda domaćinstva. U većim gradovima poput Beograda i Novog Sada srednja cena kuće je veća od 10 prosečnih godišnjih prihoda jednog domaćinstva.

Ako nekako možete sebi da priuštite kuću, ona bi mogla biti pristojna zaliha vrednosti. Dokle god ne doživimo još jedan krah i izvršitelji zaplene ovu imovinu mnogim vlasnicima kuća.

Akcije

Berza je u prošlosti takođe dobro poslovala. Međutim, sporo i stabilno povećanje tržišta događa se u dosadnom, predvidljivom svetu. Svakog dana vidimo sve manje toga. Nakon ubrzanja korona virusa, videli smo smo najbrži pad američke berze u istoriji od 25% – brži od Velike depresije.

Neki se odlučuju za ulaganje u obveznice i drugu finansijsku imovinu, ali ’prinosi’ za tu imovinu – procenat kamate zarađene na imovinu iz godine u godinu – stalno opada. Sve veći broj odredjenih imovina ima čak i negativne prinose, što znači da posedovanje te imovine košta! Ovo je veliki problem za sve koji se oslanjaju na penziju. Plus, s obzirom na to da su akcije denominovane u tradicionalnim valutama poput dolara i evra, inflacija pojede prinos koji investitor dobije.

Najgore od svega je to što ti isti ekonomski krahovi koji uzrokuju masovna otpuštanja i teško tržište rada takođe znače i nagli pad cena akcija. Čuvanje ušteđevine u akcijama može značiti i gubitak štednje i gubitak posla zbog recesije. Teška vremena mogu da vas prisile da svoje akcije prodate po vrlo malim cenama samo da biste platili svoje račune.

A to nije baš siguran način štednje novca.

Zlato

Vrednost zlata neprekidno se povećavala tokom 5000 godina, obično padajući onda kada berza obećava jače prinose.

Cena zlata

Evidencija vrednosti zlata je solidna. Međutim, zlato nosi i druge rizike. Većina ljudi poseduje zlato na papiru. Oni fizički ne poseduju zlato, već ga njihova banka čuva za njih. Zbog toga je zlato veoma podložno konfiskaciji od strane vlade.

Zašto bi vlada konfiskovala nečije zlato, a kamoli u demokratskoj zemlji u „slobodnom svetu“? Ali to se dešavalo i ranije. 1933. godine Izvršnom Naredbom 6102, predsednik Roosevelt naredio je svim Amerikancima da prodaju svoje zlato vladi u zamenu za papirne dolare. Vlada je iskoristila pretnju zatvorom za prikupljanje zlata u fizičkom obliku. Znali su da se zlato više poštuje kao zaliha vrednosti širom sveta od papirnih dolara.

Ako posedujete svoje zlato na nekoj od aplikacija za trgovanje akcijama, možete se kladiti da će vam ga država oduzeti ako joj zatreba. Čak i ako posedujete fizičko zlato, onda ga izlažete mogućnosti krađe – od strane kriminalca ili vaše vlade.

Vaša uštedjevina nije bezbedna.

Rast cena svih gore navedenih sredstava zavisi od našeg trenutnog političkog i ekonomskog sistema koji se nastavlja kao i tokom proteklih 100 godina. Međutim, danas vidimo ogromne pukotine u ovom sistemu.

Sistem ne funkcioniše dobro za većinu ljudi.

Od 1971. plate većine američkih radnika nisu rasle. S druge strane, bogatstvo koje imaju najbogatiji u društvu nalazi se na nivoima koji nisu viđeni više od 80 godina. U međuvremenu, ljudi sve manje i manje veruju institucijama poput banaka i vlada.

EPI Plate VS Produktivnost

CBPP Nejednakost Bogatstva Tokom Vremena

Edelman Studija Poverenja

Širom sveta možemo videti dokaze o slamanju sistema kroz politički ekstremizam: izbor Trampa i drugih ekstremističkih desničarskih kandidata, Bregzit, pokret Occupy, popularizacija koncepta univerzalnog osnovnog dohotka, povratak pojma „socijalizam“ nazad u modu. Ljudi na svim delovima političkog i društvenog spektra osećaju problematična vremena i posežu za sve radikalnijim rešenjima.

Šta je bolje za štednju od dolara, kuća i akcija?

Pa kako ljudi mogu da štede novac u ovim teškim vremenima? Ili ne koriste tradicionalne valute, ili kupuju sredstva koja će zadržati vrednost u teškim vremenima.

Bitcoin ima najviše potencijala da zadrži vrednost kroz politička i ekonomska previranja od bilo koje druge imovine. Na tom putu će biti rupa na kojima će se rušiti ili pumpati, međutim, njegova svojstva čine ga takvim da će verovatno preživeti previranja kada druga imovina ne bude to mogla.

Šta Bitcoin čini drugačijim?

Bitcoini su retki.

Proces ‘rudarenja’ bitcoin-a, proizvodnju bitcoin-a čini veoma skupom, a Bitcoin protokol ograničava ukupan broj bitcoin-a na 21 milion novčića. To čini Bitcoin imunim na nagle poraste ponude. Ovo se veoma razlikuje od tradicionalnih valuta, koje vlade mogu da štampaju sve više kad god one to požele. Zapamtite, povećanje ponude vrši veliki pritisak na vrednost valute.

Bitcoini nemaju drugu ugovornu stranu.

Bitcoin se takođe razlikuje od imovine kao što su obveznice, akcije i kuće, jer mu nedostaje druga ugovorna strana. Druge ugovorne strane su drugi subjekti uključeni u vrednost sredstva, koji to sredstvo mogu obezvrediti ili vam ga uzeti. Ako imate hipoteku na svojoj kući, banka je druga ugovorna strana. Kada sledeći put dođe do velikog finansijskog kraha, banka vam može oduzeti kuću. Kompanije su kvazi-ugovorne strane akcijama i obveznicama, jer mogu da počnu da donose loše odluke koje utiču na njihovu cenu akcija ili na „neizvršenje“ duga (da ga ne vraćaju vama ili drugim poveriocima). Bitcoin nema ovih problema.

Bitcoin je pristupačan.

Svako sa 5 eura i mobilnim telefonom može da kupi i poseduje mali deo bitcoin-a. Važno je da znate da ne morate da kupite ceo bitcoin. Bitcoin-i su deljivi do 100-milionite jedinice, tako da možete da kupite Bitcoin u vrednosti od samo nekoliko eura. Neuporedivo lakše nego kupovina kuće, zlata ili akcija!

Bitcoin se ne može konfiskovati.

Banke drže većinu vaših eura, zlata i akcija za vas. Većina ljudi u razvijenom svetu veruje bankama, jer većina ljudi koji žive u današnje vreme nikada nije doživela konfiskaciju imovine ili ’šišanje’ od strane banaka ili vlada. Nažalost, postoji presedan za konfiskaciju imovine čak i u demokratskim zemljama sa snažnom vladavinom prava.

Kada vlada konfiskuje imovinu, ona obično ubedi javnost da će je menjati za imovinu jednake vrednosti. U SAD-u 1930-ih, vlada je davala dolare vlasnicima zlata. Vlada je znala da uvek može da odštampa još više dolara, ali da ne može da napravi više zlata. Na Kipru 2012. godine, jedna propala banka je svojim klijentima dala deonice banke da pokrije dolare klijenata koje je banka trebala da ima. I dolari i deonice su strmoglavo opali u odnosu na imovinu koja je uzeta od ovih ljudi.

Doći do bitcoin-a koji ljudi poseduju, biće mnogo teže jer se bitcoin-i mogu čuvati u novčaniku koji ne poseduje neka treća strana, a vi možete čak i da zapamtite privatne ključeve do vašeg bitcoin-a u glavi.

Bitcoin je za štednju.

Bitcoin se polako pokazuje kao najbolja opcija za dugoročnu štednju novca, posebno s obzirom na današnju ekonomsku klimu. Posedovanje čak i malog dela, je polisa osiguranja koja se isplati ako svet i dalje nastavi da ludi. Cena Bitcoin-a u dolarima može divlje da varira u roku od godinu ili dve, ali tokom 3+ godine skoro svi vide slične ili više cene od trenutka kada su ga kupili. U stvari, doslovno niko nije izgubio novac čuvajući Bitcoin duže od 3,5 godine – čak i ako je kupio BTC na apsolutnim vrhovima tržišta.

Imajte na umu da nakon ove tačke ti ljudi više nikada nisu videli rizik od gubitka. Cena se nikada nije smanjila niže od najviše cene u prethodnom ciklusu.

Po čemu se Bitcoin razlikuje od ostalih valuta?

Bitcoin funkcioniše tako dobro kao način štednje zbog svog neobičnog dizajna, koji ga čini drugačijim od bilo kog drugog oblika novca koji je postojao pre njega. Bitcoin je digitalna valuta, prvi i verovatno jedini primer valute koja ima ograničenu ponudu dok radi na otvorenom, decentralizovanom sistemu. Vlade strogo kontrolišu valute koje danas koristimo, poput dolara i eura, i proizvode ih za finansiranje ratova i dugova. Korisnici Bitcoin-a – poput vas – kontrolišu Bitcoin protokol.

Evo šta Bitcoin razlikuje od dolara, eura i drugih valuta:

Bitcoin je otvoren sistem.

Svako može da odluči da se pridruži Bitcoin mreži i primeni pravila softverskog protokola, što je dovelo do vrlo decentralizovanog sistema u kojem nijedan pojedinac ili entitet ne može da blokira transakciju, zamrzne sredstva ili da ukrade od druge osobe.Današnji savremeni bankarski sistem se uveliko razlikuje. Nekoliko banaka je dobilo poverenje da gotovo sve valute, akcije i druge vredne predmete čuvaju na “sigurnom” za svoje klijente. Da biste postali banka, potrebni su vam milioni dolara i neverovatne količine političkog uticaja. Da biste pokrenuli Bitcoin čvor i postali „svoja banka“, potrebno vam je nekoliko stotina dolara i jedno slobodno popodne.

Tako izgleda Bitcoin čvor – Node MyNode čvor vam omogućava da postanete svoja banka za samo nekoliko minuta.

Bitcoin ima ograničenu ponudu.

Softverski protokol otvorenog koda koji upravlja Bitcoin sistemom ograničava broj novih bitcoin-a koji se mogu stvoriti tokom vremena, sa ograničenjem od ukupno 21.000.000 bitcoin-a. S druge strane, valute koje danas koristimo imaju neograničenu ponudu. Istorija i sadašnje odluke centralnih banaka govore nam da će vlade uvek štampati sve više i više valuta, sve dok valuta ne bude bezvredna. Sve ovo štampanje uzrokuje inflaciju, što pravi štetu običnim radnim ljudima i štedišama.

Tradicionalne valute su dizajnirane tako da opadaju vremenom. Svaki put kada centralna banka kaže da cilja određenu stopu inflacije, oni ustvari kažu da žele da vaš novac svake godine izgubi određeni procenat svoje vrednosti.

Bitcoin-ova ograničena ponuda znači da je on tako dizajniran da raste vremenom kako se potražnja za njim povećava.

Bitcoin putuje oko sveta za nekoliko minuta.

Svako može da pošalje bitcoin-e za nekoliko minuta širom sveta, bez obzira na granice, banke i vlade. Potrebno je manje od minuta da se transakcija pojavi na novčaniku primaoca i oko 60 minuta da se transakcija u potpunosti „obračuna“, tako da primaoc može da bude siguran da su primljeni bitcoin-i sada njegovi (6 konfirmacija bloka). Slanje drugih valuta širom sveta traje danima ili čak mesecima ako se šalju milionski iznosi, a podrazumeva i visoke naknade.

Neke vlade i novinari tvrde da ova sloboda putovanja koju pruža Bitcoin pomaže kriminalcima i teroristima. Međutim, transakciju Bitcoin-a je lakše pratiti nego većinu transakcija u dolarima ili eurima.

Bitcoin se može čuvati na “USB-u”.

Dizajn Bitcoin-a je takav da vam treba samo da čuvate privatni ključ do svojih ‘bitcoin’ adresa (poput lozinke do bankovnih računa) da biste pristupili svojim bitcoin-ima odakle god poželite. Ovaj privatni ključ možete da sačuvate na disku ili na papiru u obliku 12 ili 24 reči na engleskom jeziku. Kao rezultat toga, možete da držite Bitcoin-e vredne milione dolara u svojoj šaci.

Sve ostale valute danas možete ili da strpate u svoj dušek ili da ih poverite banci na čuvanje. Za većinu ljudi koji žive u razvijenom svetu, i koji ne osporavaju autoritet i poverenje u banku, ovo deluje sasvim dobro. Međutim, oni kojima je potrebno da pobegnu od ugnjetavačke vlade ili koji naljute pogrešne ljude, ne mogu verovati bankama. Za njih je sposobnost da nose svoju ušteđevinu bez potrebe za ogromnim koferom neprocenjiva. Čak i ako ne živite na mestu poput ovog, cena Bitcoin-a se i dalje povećava kada ih neko kome oni trebaju kupi.

Kako Bitcoin spašava svet?

Bitcoin, kao ultimativni način štednje, je cakum pakum, ali da li on pomaže u poboljšanju sveta u celini?

Kao što ćete početi da shvatate, ulazeći sve dublje i u druge sadržaje na ovoj stranici, mnogi temeljni delovi našeg današnjeg monetarnog sistema i ekonomije su duboko slomljeni. Međutim, oni koji upravljaju imaju korist od ovakvih sistema, pa se on verovatno neće promeniti bez revolucije ili mirnog svrgavanja od strane naroda. Bitcoin predstavlja novi sistem, sa nekoliko glavnih prednosti:

• Bitcoin popravlja novac, koji je milenijumima služio kao važan alat za rast i poboljšanje društva.
• Bitcoin vraća zdrav razum pozajmljivanju, uklanjanjem apsurdnih situacija poput negativnih kamatnih stopa (gde zajmitelj plaća da bi se zadužio).
• Bitcoin pokreće ulaganja u obnovljive izvore energije i poboljšava energetsku efikasnost u mreži, služeći kao „krajnji kupac“ za sve vrste energije.

Kako mogu da saznam više o Bitcoin-u?

Ovaj članak vam je dao osnovno razumevanje zašto biste trebali razmišljati o Bitcoin-u. Ako želite da saznate više, preporučujem ove resurse:

• Film "Bitcoin: Kraj Novca Kakav Poznajemo"
• Još uvek je rano za Bitcoin
• Zasto baš Bitcoin?
• Šta je to Bitcoin?
• The Bitcoin Whitepaper ← objavljen 2008. godine, ovo je izložio dizajn za Bitcoin.

@ 34f1ddab:2ca0cf7c

Losing access to your cryptocurrency can feel like losing a part of your future. Whether it’s due to a forgotten password, a damaged seed backup, or a simple mistake in a transfer, the stress can be overwhelming. Fortunately, cryptrecver.com is here to assist! With our expert-led recovery services, you can safely and swiftly reclaim your lost Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Why Trust Crypt Recver? 🤝 🛠️ Expert Recovery Solutions At Crypt Recver, we specialize in addressing complex wallet-related issues. Our skilled engineers have the tools and expertise to handle:

Partially lost or forgotten seed phrases Extracting funds from outdated or invalid wallet addresses Recovering data from damaged hardware wallets Restoring coins from old or unsupported wallet formats You’re not just getting a service; you’re gaining a partner in your cryptocurrency journey.

🚀 Fast and Efficient Recovery We understand that time is crucial in crypto recovery. Our optimized systems enable you to regain access to your funds quickly, focusing on speed without compromising security. With a success rate of over 90%, you can rely on us to act swiftly on your behalf.

🔒 Privacy is Our Priority Your confidentiality is essential. Every recovery session is conducted with the utmost care, ensuring all processes are encrypted and confidential. You can rest assured that your sensitive information remains private.

💻 Advanced Technology Our proprietary tools and brute-force optimization techniques maximize recovery efficiency. Regardless of how challenging your case may be, our technology is designed to give you the best chance at retrieving your crypto.

Our Recovery Services Include: 📈 Bitcoin Recovery: Lost access to your Bitcoin wallet? We help recover lost wallets, private keys, and passphrases. Transaction Recovery: Mistakes happen — whether it’s an incorrect wallet address or a lost password, let us manage the recovery. Cold Wallet Restoration: If your cold wallet is failing, we can safely extract your assets and migrate them into a secure new wallet. Private Key Generation: Lost your private key? Our experts can help you regain control using advanced methods while ensuring your privacy. ⚠️ What We Don’t Do While we can handle many scenarios, some limitations exist. For instance, we cannot recover funds stored in custodial wallets or cases where there is a complete loss of four or more seed words without partial information available. We are transparent about what’s possible, so you know what to expect

Don’t Let Lost Crypto Hold You Back! Did you know that between 3 to 3.4 million BTC — nearly 20% of the total supply — are estimated to be permanently lost? Don’t become part of that statistic! Whether it’s due to a forgotten password, sending funds to the wrong address, or damaged drives, we can help you navigate these challenges

🛡️ Real-Time Dust Attack Protection Our services extend beyond recovery. We offer dust attack protection, keeping your activity anonymous and your funds secure, shielding your identity from unwanted tracking, ransomware, and phishing attempts.

🎉 Start Your Recovery Journey Today! Ready to reclaim your lost crypto? Don’t wait until it’s too late! 👉 cryptrecver.com

📞 Need Immediate Assistance? Connect with Us! For real-time support or questions, reach out to our dedicated team on: ✉️ Telegram: t.me/crypptrcver 💬 WhatsApp: +1(941)317–1821

Crypt Recver is your trusted partner in cryptocurrency recovery. Let us turn your challenges into victories. Don’t hesitate — your crypto future starts now! 🚀✨

Act fast and secure your digital assets with cryptrecver.com.Losing access to your cryptocurrency can feel like losing a part of your future. Whether it’s due to a forgotten password, a damaged seed backup, or a simple mistake in a transfer, the stress can be overwhelming. Fortunately, cryptrecver.com is here to assist! With our expert-led recovery services, you can safely and swiftly reclaim your lost Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

# Why Trust Crypt Recver? 🤝

🛠️ Expert Recovery Solutions\ At Crypt Recver, we specialize in addressing complex wallet-related issues. Our skilled engineers have the tools and expertise to handle:

• Partially lost or forgotten seed phrases
• Extracting funds from outdated or invalid wallet addresses
• Recovering data from damaged hardware wallets
• Restoring coins from old or unsupported wallet formats

You’re not just getting a service; you’re gaining a partner in your cryptocurrency journey.

🚀 Fast and Efficient Recovery\ We understand that time is crucial in crypto recovery. Our optimized systems enable you to regain access to your funds quickly, focusing on speed without compromising security. With a success rate of over 90%, you can rely on us to act swiftly on your behalf.

🔒 Privacy is Our Priority\ Your confidentiality is essential. Every recovery session is conducted with the utmost care, ensuring all processes are encrypted and confidential. You can rest assured that your sensitive information remains private.

💻 Advanced Technology\ Our proprietary tools and brute-force optimization techniques maximize recovery efficiency. Regardless of how challenging your case may be, our technology is designed to give you the best chance at retrieving your crypto.

Our Recovery Services Include: 📈

• Bitcoin Recovery: Lost access to your Bitcoin wallet? We help recover lost wallets, private keys, and passphrases.
• Transaction Recovery: Mistakes happen — whether it’s an incorrect wallet address or a lost password, let us manage the recovery.
• Cold Wallet Restoration: If your cold wallet is failing, we can safely extract your assets and migrate them into a secure new wallet.
• Private Key Generation: Lost your private key? Our experts can help you regain control using advanced methods while ensuring your privacy.

⚠️ What We Don’t Do\ While we can handle many scenarios, some limitations exist. For instance, we cannot recover funds stored in custodial wallets or cases where there is a complete loss of four or more seed words without partial information available. We are transparent about what’s possible, so you know what to expect

# Don’t Let Lost Crypto Hold You Back!

Did you know that between 3 to 3.4 million BTC — nearly 20% of the total supply — are estimated to be permanently lost? Don’t become part of that statistic! Whether it’s due to a forgotten password, sending funds to the wrong address, or damaged drives, we can help you navigate these challenges

🛡️ Real-Time Dust Attack Protection\ Our services extend beyond recovery. We offer dust attack protection, keeping your activity anonymous and your funds secure, shielding your identity from unwanted tracking, ransomware, and phishing attempts.

🎉 Start Your Recovery Journey Today!\ Ready to reclaim your lost crypto? Don’t wait until it’s too late!\ 👉 cryptrecver.com

📞 Need Immediate Assistance? Connect with Us!\ For real-time support or questions, reach out to our dedicated team on:\ ✉️ Telegram: t.me/crypptrcver\ 💬 WhatsApp: +1(941)317–1821

Crypt Recver is your trusted partner in cryptocurrency recovery. Let us turn your challenges into victories. Don’t hesitate — your crypto future starts now! 🚀✨

Act fast and secure your digital assets with cryptrecver.com.

@ 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 posição do libertário que rejeita o cristianismo padece de sérias incoerências lógicas, históricas e filosóficas. Ao renegar as bases espirituais e culturais que tornaram possível o próprio ideal libertário, tal posição demonstra ser, ao mesmo tempo, autofágica e irracional. É o caso de alguém que se gloria dos frutos de uma árvore que corta pela raiz.

---

I. Fundamento histórico: a civilização da liberdade é cristã

Não foi o secularismo moderno, nem o paganismo antigo, que ergueram as instituições que protegem a dignidade da pessoa humana e os limites ao poder. Desde os primeiros séculos, a Igreja resistiu ao culto estatal romano, afirmando a soberania de Deus sobre os Césares — "Mais importa obedecer a Deus que aos homens" (Atos 5,29).

Foi o cristianismo que:

• Fundou universidades livres, onde o saber era buscado sob o primado da verdade;

• Defendeu a lei natural como fundamento do direito — uma doutrina que protege o indivíduo contra tiranias;

• Resgatou e aprofundou o conceito de pessoa, dotada de razão e livre-arbítrio, imagem de Deus, e, portanto, inalienavelmente digna e responsável.

Em momentos-chave da história, como nas disputas entre papado e império, nas resistências contra absolutismos, e na fundação do direito internacional por Francisco de Vitoria e a Escola de Salamanca, foi o cristianismo quem freou o poder estatal em nome de princípios superiores. A tradição cristã foi frequentemente o principal obstáculo à tirania, não seu aliado.

Negar isso é amputar a própria genealogia da liberdade ocidental.

Uma das chaves do cristianismo para a construção dessa civilização da liberdade foi a exaltação do individualismo. Ao afirmar que o ser humano é feito à imagem de Deus e que sua salvação é uma escolha pessoal, o cristianismo colocou o indivíduo no centro da moralidade e da liberdade. Diferente dos gregos, cuja ética era voltada para a polis e a cidade-estado, o cristianismo reafirma a suprema importância do indivíduo, com sua capacidade de escolha moral, responsabilidade pessoal e dignidade intrínseca. Esse princípio, mais do que qualquer outra religião, foi o alicerce do desenvolvimento da liberdade individual e da autonomia, valores que sustentam a civilização ocidental.

A ética grega, na melhor das hipóteses, descreve a ordem natural — mas não consegue justificar por que essa ordem deveria obrigar a vontade humana. Um Logos impessoal não tem autoridade moral. Uma ordem cósmica sem um Legislador é apenas um dado de fato, não uma norma vinculante. A vontade pode rebelar-se contra o telos — e sem um Deus justo, que ordena a natureza à perfeição, não há razão última para não o fazer.

A cultura grega teve uma influência indiscutível sobre o desenvolvimento da civilização ocidental, mas o cristianismo não só absorveu o que havia de bom na cultura grega, como também elevou e completou esses aspectos. O cristianismo, ao afirmar que todos os homens são feitos à imagem e semelhança de Deus e têm dignidade intrínseca, levou a uma noção de igualdade moral e liberdade que transcende as limitações da pólis grega.

---

II. Falsa dicotomia: fé e liberdade não são opostas

Com frequência equiparam a religião à coerção e à obediência cega. Mas isso é um equívoco: o cristianismo não se impõe pela força, mas apela à consciência. O próprio Deus, em sua relação com a criatura racional, respeita sua liberdade. Como ensina a Escritura:

"Se alguém quiser vir após mim..." (Mt 16,24);
"Eis que estou à porta e bato. Se alguém ouvir a minha voz e abrir a porta, entrarei em sua casa e cearei com ele." (Ap 3,20);
"Assim falai, e assim procedei, como devendo ser julgados pela lei da liberdade." (Tiago 2,12).

A adesão à fé deve ser livre, voluntária e racional, pois sem liberdade não há verdadeiro mérito, nem amor genuíno. Isso é mais compatível com o princípio de não agressão do que qualquer utopia secular. Ora, o núcleo do evangelho é voluntarista: salvação pessoal, conversão interior, caridade.

Ninguém deve ser forçado, contra sua vontade, a abraçar a fé, pois o ato de fé é por sua natureza voluntário (Dignitatis Humanae; CDC, cân. 748,2)

Se algum Estado usa da força para impor o cristianismo, afirmar que o cristianismo causou as coerções é tão equivocado quanto dizer que a propriedade privada causa o comunismo; é uma inversão da realidade, pois o comunismo surge precisamente da violação da propriedade. Portanto, a fé forçada é inválida em si mesma, pois viola a natureza do ato de crer, que deve ser livre.

---

III. Fundamento moral: sem transcendência, o libertarianismo flutua no vácuo

O libertário anticristão busca defender princípios objetivos — como a inviolabilidade do indivíduo e a ilegitimidade da agressão — sem um fundamento transcendente que lhes dê validade universal. Por que a agressão é errada? Por que alguém tem direito à vida, à liberdade, à propriedade? Sem uma explicação transcendental, as respostas para tais perguntas se tornam apenas opiniões ou convenções, não obrigações morais vinculantes. Se a moralidade é puramente humana, então os direitos podem ser modificados ou ignorados conforme a vontade da sociedade. O conceito de direitos naturais, tão caro ao libertarianismo, precisa de um solo metafísico que justifique sua universalidade e imutabilidade. Caso contrário, eles podem ser tratados apenas como acordos utilitários temporários ou preferências culturais, sem qualquer obrigatoriedade para todos os seres humanos em todas as circunstâncias.

Pensadores libertários seculares, como Ayn Rand e Murray Rothbard, tentaram ancorar os direitos naturais na razão humana ou na natureza do homem. Rand baseia sua ética no egoísmo racional, enquanto Rothbard apela à lei natural. Embora essas abordagens busquem objetividade, elas carecem de uma resposta definitiva para por que a razão ou a natureza humana obrigam moralmente todos os indivíduos. Sem um fundamento transcendente, suas concepções permanecem vulneráveis a interpretações subjetivas ou a cálculos utilitários.

Aqui, o cristianismo oferece uma explicação sólida e transcendental que fundamenta os direitos naturais. A visão cristã de que o ser humano foi criado à imagem e semelhança de Deus confere à pessoa uma dignidade intrínseca, imutável e universal. Essa dignidade não depende de fatores externos, como consenso social ou poder político, mas é uma característica inerente ao ser humano pela sua criação divina. A partir dessa perspectiva teológica, torna-se possível afirmar com base sólida que os direitos naturais são dados por Deus e, portanto, são universais e vinculantes.

O cristianismo também é a base de um sistema moral que distingue claramente justiça de legalidade. O Estado pode criar leis, mas isso não significa que essas leis sejam justas. A justiça, sob a ótica cristã, é uma expressão da ordem moral objetiva, algo que transcende as leis humanas e é definido pela vontade divina. Por isso, o libertarianismo cristão vê a agressão como uma violação de uma ordem moral objetiva, e não apenas uma violação de uma convenção social ou de um acordo utilitário.

Se a moralidade e os direitos naturais não forem fundamentados em um Logos criador e legislador, o que acontece é que o conceito de direito natural degenera para algo mais frágil, como um simples acordo utilitário. Nesse cenário, os direitos do indivíduo se tornam algo acordado entre os membros de uma sociedade, em vez de princípios imutáveis e universais. Os direitos podem ser negociados, alterados ou ignorados conforme o interesse do momento.

---

IV. Fundamento científico: a racionalidade moderna é filha da fé cristã

A ciência moderna só foi possível no contexto cultural cristão. Nenhuma outra civilização — nem a grega, nem a islâmica, nem a chinesa — produziu o método científico como o Ocidente cristão o fez.

Isso se deve a quatro premissas teológicas:

1. Criação racional: O mundo é ordenado por um Deus racional.

2. Distinção entre Criador e criatura: A natureza não é divina e pode ser estudada sem sacrilégio.

3. Valor do trabalho e da observação empírica, herdado do monaquismo.

4. Autonomia institucional, presente nas universidades medievais.

A doutrina cristã da Criação ex nihilo ensina que o mundo foi criado por um Deus racional, sábio e pessoal. Portanto, o cosmos é ordenado, possui leis, e pode ser compreendido pela razão humana — que é imagem do Criador. Isso contrasta fortemente com as cosmovisões panteístas ou mitológicas, onde o mundo é cíclico, arbitrário ou habitado por forças caprichosas.

Sem essa fé no Logos criador, não há razão para crer que a natureza tenha uma ordem inteligível universal e constante, que pode ser descoberta por observação e dedução. A ciência moderna só é possível porque, antes de investigar a natureza, pressupôs-se que ela era investigável — e isso foi uma herança direta do pensamento cristão.

Homens como Bacon, Newton, Kepler e Galileu viam na ciência um modo de glorificar o Criador. O ateísmo cientificista é, portanto, parasitário da teologia cristã, pois toma seus frutos e rejeita suas raízes. A ciência moderna nasceu como filha legítima da fé cristã. E os que hoje a usam contra sua mãe, ou são ingratos, ou ignorantes.

---

V. O cristianismo como barreira à revolução cultural

O cristianismo é a barreira mais sólida contra a infiltração revolucionária. A chamada "marcha gramsciana", que visa corroer os fundamentos morais da sociedade para subjugar o indivíduo ao coletivo, encontra sua resistência mais firme nos princípios cristãos. A fé cristã, ao proclamar a existência de uma verdade objetiva, de uma lei moral imutável e de uma dignidade humana que transcende o Estado e o consenso social, imuniza a civilização contra o relativismo e o igualitarismo nivelador do marxismo cultural.

Além disso, o cristianismo é uma tradição milenar, profundamente enraizada no cotidiano das pessoas, não sendo uma novidade a ser imposta ou implementada, mas uma força presente há séculos, que permeia a estrutura social, moral e cultural da sociedade. Sua presença constante nas comunidades, desde os tempos mais antigos, oferece uma resistência robusta contra qualquer tentativa de subverter a ordem natural e moral estabelecida.

Não por acaso, tanto Karl Marx quanto Antonio Gramsci identificaram no cristianismo o principal obstáculo à realização de seus projetos revolucionários. Marx chamou a religião de "ópio do povo" porque sabia que uma alma ancorada em Deus não se submete facilmente ao poder terreno; Gramsci, mais sutil, propôs a destruição da cultura cristã como pré-condição para o triunfo do socialismo. Sem essa âncora transcendente, a sociedade torna-se presa fácil das engenharias sociais que pretendem redefinir arbitrariamente o homem, a família e a liberdade.

---

Conclusão

O libertário anticristão, consciente ou não, nega as fundações mesmas do edifício que habita. Ao rejeitar o cristianismo, cava o abismo sob os próprios pés, privando o ideal libertário de sua base moral, cultural e racional. Ele defende a ética voluntária, a liberdade individual e a ordem espontânea, mas sem o solo metafísico e histórico que torna esses princípios inteligíveis e possíveis. É um erro tentar preservar a liberdade em termos absolutos sem reconhecer as raízes cristãs que a sustentam, pois o cristianismo é a única tradição que a legitima e a viabiliza.

Negar o cristianismo é racionalmente insustentável. A liberdade, como a conhecemos, é filha da fé cristã, que oferece a base moral e metafísica que torna a liberdade tanto desejável quanto possível. Mesmo que ateu, o libertário que ama a liberdade deveria, no mínimo, respeitar — e, idealmente, redescobrir — essas raízes cristãs. Pois sem fé, restam apenas o niilismo e o relativismo, que, eventualmente, desaguam na servidão.

Como nos ensina a tradição: Ubi fides ibi libertas — onde há fé, há liberdade.

@ 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.

@ cae03c48:2a7d6671

Bitcoin Magazine

1.5 Million Users to Access Bitcoin’s Lightning Network on Xverse thanks to Sati

Sati, a Bitcoin payments app and Lightning infrastructure provider, today announced the launch of its Lightning integration with Xverse, a Bitcoin wallet used by over 1.5 million people worldwide. Thanks to the integration, Xverse users can now send and receive sats (Bitcoin’s smallest denomination) instantly over the Lightning Network with no setup, no app switching, and no custodial risk.

Initially designed in 2017, the Lightning Network has grown to become Bitcoin’s leading layer-2, with a current BTC capacity of over $465M. Sati is now leveraging this technology to bring the world’s favorite digital currency into the pockets of almost 3 billion users worldwide, thanks to its powerful API integration with WhatsApp.

“Bitcoin was not meant to be an asset for Wall Street—it was built for peer-to-peer money, borderless and accessible,” said Felipe Servin, Founder and CEO of Sati. “Integrating Lightning natively into Xverse brings that vision back to life, making Bitcoin usable at scale for billions.”

Thanks to the integration, every Xverse user now gets a Lightning Address instantly. That means they can receive tips, pay invoices, and use Bitcoin for microtransactions—all without having to manage channels or switch between different apps. Sati expects USDT on Lightning to be supported as early as Q3 for the Xverse wallet and in July 2025
for users accessing Sati through WhatsApp.

This integration positions Sati’s role as a Lightning infrastructure provider, not just a consumer app. By leveraging its API-based solution, the company provides plug-and-play backend services to wallets and platforms looking to add Bitcoin payments without compromising on security or UX.

The Xverse launch follows the debut of Parasite Pool, a new mining pool leveraging Sati and Xverse’s tech stack and focused on democratizing Bitcoin mining. Parasite Pool charges 0% fees and pays out instantly over Lightning, making it ideal for small-scale miners, especially those running ultra-low-power hardware like Bitaxe.

With over 500 users joining Parasite Pool within weeks of launch and an average pool hashrate of 5 PH/s, Parasite Pool is steadily growing its presence in the home mining space. Thanks to the Lightning integration, Parasite Pool supports the smallest Lightning payouts in the industry (a fraction of a cent), lowering the barrier to entry for anyone interested in mining.

Sati recently closed a $600K pre-seed round backed by Bitcoin-focused investors, including Draper Associates, BitcoinFi, Arcanum, BoostVC, and Ricardo Salinas. The funding is being used to support global expansion, stablecoin integration, Lightning infrastructure growth, and broader access to Bitcoin in emerging markets.

Sati will be conducting live product demos at Bitcoin 2025 in Las Vegas on May 27-29. To learn more about Sati, visit sati.pro

About Sati
Sati is a Bitcoin payments infrastructure provider. Launched in 2025 with investors of the likes as Draper Associates and Ricardo Salinas, Sati powers fast, seamless Bitcoin payments on applications such as WhatsApp to fuel the next wave of adoption. Learn more at sati.pro

About Xverse
Xverse is the on-chain platform for the Bitcoin economy—think Revolut meets Alchemy, built natively on Bitcoin. Trusted by over 1.5 million users, Xverse is launching a unified portfolio platform for Bitcoin L1 and Layer 2s, alongside developer infrastructure to power seamless Bitcoin-native apps.

Press Contact
press@sati.pro

Disclaimer: This is a sponsored press release. Readers are encouraged to perform their own due diligence before acting on any information presented in this article.

This post 1.5 Million Users to Access Bitcoin’s Lightning Network on Xverse thanks to Sati first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Sati.

@ 5391098c:74403a0e

Você trabalha 5 meses do ano somente para pagar impostos. Ou seja, 42% da sua renda serve para bancar serviços públicos de péssima qualidade. Mesmo que você tivesse a liberdade de usar esses 42% da sua renda para contratar serviços privados de qualidade (saúde, segurança e ensino), ainda assim você seria um escravo porque você recebe dinheiro em troca do seu trabalho, e o dinheiro perde cerca de 10% do valor a cada ano. Em outras palavras todo seu dinheiro que sobra depois de comprar comida, vestuário e moradia perde 100% do valor a cada 10 anos. Isso acontece porque o Estado imprime dinheiro do nada e joga na economia de propósito para gerar INFLAÇÃO e manter todos nós escravizados. Você pode deixar seu dinheiro investido em qualquer aplicação que imaginar e ainda assim nunca terá uma rentabilidade superior a inflação real. No final, acaba perdendo tudo do mesmo jeito. Caso você se ache esperto por investir o que sobra da sua renda em bens duráveis como imóveis ou veículos, sabia que esses bens também não são seus, porque se deixar de pagar os impostos desses bens (iptu, itr, ipva) você também perde tudo. Além disso, o custo de manutenção desses bens deve ser levado em consideração na conta das novas dívidas que você assumiu. No caso dos imóveis urbanos é impossível alugá-lo por mais de 0,38% do seu valor mensalmente. Em outras palavras, a cada ano você recebe menos de 5% do que investiu, tem que pagar o custo de manutenção, mais impostos e a valorização do bem nunca será superior a inflação real, também fazendo você perder quase tudo em cerca de 15 anos. A situação é ainda pior com os imóveis rurais e veículos, basta fazer as contas. Caso o dinheiro que você receba em troca do seu trabalho seja suficiente apenas para comprar comida, vestuário e moradia, você já sabe que é um escravo né?… Precisamos entender que a escravidão não acabou, apenas foi democratizada. Hoje a escravidão é financeira, nós somos os castiços e os donos do dinheiro são o senhorio. Os donos do dinheiro são os Globalistas e os Estados seus fantoches. O esquema é simples: fazer todo mundo trabalhar em troca de algo que perde 100% do valor a cada 10 anos, ou seja o dinheiro. Se você pudesse trabalhar em troca de algo que aumentasse de valor acima da inflação real a cada 10 anos você finalmente conquistaria sua liberdade financeira e deixaria de ser escravo. Pois bem, isso já é possível, e não se trata de ouro ou imóveis e sim sobre o Bitcoin, que sobe de valor mais de 100% a cada 10 anos, com a vantagem de ser inconfiscável e de fácil transferência para seus herdeiros quando você morrer, através de uma simples transação LockTime feita em vida. Portanto, mesmo que você não tenha dinheiro para comprar Bitcoin, passar a aceitar Bitcoin em troca de seus produtos e serviços é a única forma de se libertar da escravidão financeira. A carta de alforria financeira proporcionada pelo Bitcoin não é imediata, pois a velocidade da sua libertação depende do quanto você está disposto a aprender sobre o assunto. Eu estou aqui para te ajudar, caso queira. No futuro o Bitcoin estará tão presente na sua vida quanto o pix e o cartão de crédito, você querendo ou não. Assim como o cartão de crédito foi a evolução do cheque pós-datado e o pix a evolução do cartão, o Bitcoin e outras criptomoedas serão a evolução de todos esses meios de pagamento. O que te ofereço é a oportunidade de abolição da sua escravatura antes dos demais escravos acordarem para a realidade, afinal a história sempre se repete: desde o ano de 1300 a.c. a escravidão era defendida pelos próprios escravos, que mais cedo ou mais tarde, foram libertados por Moisés em êxodo 11 da Bíblia Sagrada e hoje o povo de israel se tornou a nação mais rica do mundo. A mesma história se repetiu na Roma Antiga: com o pão e circo. Da mesma forma todo esse império escravocrata ruiu porque mais cedo ou mais tarde os escravos se revoltam, bastam as coisas piorarem bastante. O atual regime de escravidão teve início com a queda do padrão-ouro para impressão do dinheiro no ano de 1944. A escravidão apenas ficou mais sofisticada, pois em vez de pagar os escravos com cerveja como no Egito Antigo ou com pão e circo como na Roma Antiga, passou-se a pagar os escravos com dinheiro sem lastro, ou seja dinheiro inventado, criado do nada, sem qualquer representação com a riqueza real da economia. Mesmo sendo a escravidão atual mais sofisticada, que deixou de ser física para ser financeira, o que torna a mentira mais bem contada, mais cedo ou mais tarde os escravos modernos irão acordar, basta as coisas piorarem mais ou perceberem que todos os bens e serviços do mundo não representam nem 1% de todo o dinheiro que impresso sem lastro. Em outras palavras, se os donos de todo o dinheiro do mundo resolvessem utilizá-lo para comprar tudo o que existe à venda, o preço do quilo do café subiria para R$ 297.306,00 e o preço médio dos imóveis subiria para um número tão grande que sequer caberia nesta folha de papel. Hoje, o dinheiro não vale nada, seus donos sabem disso e optam por entregar o dinheiro aos poucos para os escravos em troca do seu trabalho, para manter o atual regime o máximo de tempo possível. Mesmo assim, o atual regime de escravidão financeira está com os dias contados e depende de você se posicionar antes do efeito manada. Nunca é tarde para entrar no Bitcoin, mesmo ele tendo uma quantidade de emissão limitada, seu valor subirá infinitamente. A menor unidade do Bitcoin é o satoshi, cuja abreviação é sats. Diferente do centavo, cada sat vale um centésimo milionésimo de bitcoin. Hoje (25/05/25), cada unidade de Bitcoin equivale a setecentos mil reais. Logo, cada R$ 0,01 equivale à 0,007 sats. Lembrando que o centavo é um real dividido por cem e o sat é um bitcoin dividido por cem milhões, por isso ainda não existe a paridade entre 1 centavo de real e 1 sat. Essa paridade será alcançada quando um Bitcoin passar a valer um milhão de reais. Com a velocidade que nosso dinheiro está perdendo valor isso não irá demorar muito. Utilizando dados econômicos avançados, prevejo que cada unidade de Bitcoin passará a valer hum milhão de reais até o ano de 2029, assim equiparando 1 sat para cada R$ 0,01. Nesse momento, certamente muitos empresários, comerciantes e profissionais liberais passarão a aceitar o Bitcoin como forma de pagamento pelos seus produtos e serviços, assim como o cheque foi substituído pelo cartão de crédito e o cartão pelo pix. Sabendo disso, você pode entrar na onda de transição no futuro junto com a manada e perder essa alta valorização, ou passar a aceitar Bitcoin agora pelos seus produtos e serviços, assinando assim, a própria carta de alforria da sua escravidão financeira. É importante dizer que os próprios globalistas e governos estão trocando dinheiro por Bitcoin como nunca na história e mesmo que eles adquiram todos os bitcoins disponíveis, ainda assim não será mais possível manter seu regime de escravidão financeira funcionando porque a emissão de Bitcoin é limitada, sendo impossível criar Bitcoin sem lastro, como é feito com o dinheiro hoje. Com o presente artigo, te ofereço a oportunidade de conquistar seus primeiros sats agora, de forma segura e independente, sem precisar de corretoras, bancos, intermediários ou terceiros, basta você querer pois toda a informação necessária está disponível na internet gratuitamente. Se ainda assim você quiser continuar sendo escravo financeiro, depois não adiantar se arrepender quando as janelas de oportunidade se fecharem, o Drex for implantado, papel moeda restringido e sua vida piorar bastante. Importante mencionar que a Lei Brasileira ainda permite a movimentação de até R$ 30.000,00 em Bitcoin por mês sem a necessidade de declaração à Receita Federal e que esse direito pode deixar de existir a qualquer momento, e que quando o Drex for implantado você perderá diversos outros direitos, dentre ele a liberdade de gastar seu dinheiro como quiser e o sigilo. Ofereço ainda, a oportunidade de você baixar uma carteira de Bitcoin gratuita e segura no seu aparelho de celular que funciona de forma semelhante a um banco digital como Nubank e Pagseguro por exemplo, para poder começar à receber Bitcoin pelos seus produtos e serviços agora, de forma fácil e gratuita. Utilizando o qrcode abaixo você ainda ganha alguns sats de graça, promoção válida até o dia 29/05/25 e patrocinada pela Corretora Blink de El Salvador, onde o Bitcoin já é moeda oficial do país, basta acessar o link e instalar o aplicativo: https://get.blink.sv/btcvale

Aviso: disponibilizei o link da carteira de Bitcoin da Corretora Blink apenas como exemplo de como é fácil aceitar Bitcoin como forma de pagamento pelos seus produtos e serviços. Não recomento depender de qualquer corretora para guardar seus valores em Bitcoin. A melhor forma de fazer isso é mantendo dois computadores ou notebook em casa, um conectado à internet com memória em disco disponível de 1 terabyte ou mais para armazenar e visualizar suas transações e outro computador ou notebook desconectado da internet para armazenar suas senhas e chaves privadas para assinar as transações via pendrive. Somente assim você estará 100% livre e seguro. Importante ainda fazer backup em vários CDs com criptografia do seu computador ou notebook que assina as transações, assim também ficando 100% livre e seguro para restaurar sua carteira em qualquer outro computador caso necessário. Todas as instruções de como fazer isso já estão disponíveis gratuitamente na internet. Caso deseje contratar uma consultoria pessoal que inclui aulas particulares por vídeo conferência, onde você aprenderá:

→ Tudo o que precisa saber sobre Bitcoin e demais criptomoedas; → Sistema operacional Linux; → Como instalar sua carteira de Bitcoin em dois computadores para assinaturas air gapped; → Se manter 100% livre e seguro. → Com carga horária à combinar conforme sua disponibilidade.

O custo do investimento pelo meu serviço individual para esse tipo de consultoria é de 204.000 sats (R$ 1.543,46 na cotação atual) valor válido até 31/07/25, interessados entrar em contato por aqui ou através da Matrix: @davipinheiro:matrix.org https://davipinheiro.com/voce-e-escravo-e-nem-sabe-eu-vou-te-provar-agora/

@ b83a28b7:35919450

This article was originally part of the sermon of Plebchain Radio Episode 110 (May 2, 2025) that nostr:nprofile1qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqpqtvqc82mv8cezhax5r34n4muc2c4pgjz8kaye2smj032nngg52clq7fgefr and I did with nostr:nprofile1qythwumn8ghj7ct5d3shxtnwdaehgu3wd3skuep0qyt8wumn8ghj7ct4w35zumn0wd68yvfwvdhk6tcqyzx4h2fv3n9r6hrnjtcrjw43t0g0cmmrgvjmg525rc8hexkxc0kd2rhtk62 and nostr:nprofile1qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqpq4wxtsrj7g2jugh70pfkzjln43vgn4p7655pgky9j9w9d75u465pqahkzd0 of the nostr:nprofile1qythwumn8ghj7ct5d3shxtnwdaehgu3wd3skuep0qyt8wumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcqyqwfvwrccp4j2xsuuvkwg0y6a20637t6f4cc5zzjkx030dkztt7t5hydajn

Listen to the full episode here:

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpwp69zm7fewjp0vkp306adnzt7249ytxhz7mq3w5yc629u6er9zsqqsy43fwz8es2wnn65rh0udc05tumdnx5xagvzd88ptncspmesdqhygcrvpf2

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

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

Concern

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

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.

@ cae03c48:2a7d6671

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitlux Announced Private Jet Cards Accepting Bitcoin and Crypto Payments

Bitlux, a global private aviation company with charter solutions based on blockchain technology, just announced the industry’s first cryptocurrency-enabled Private Jet Card Program at the 2025 Bitcoin Conference.

“Bitcoin 2025 convenes innovators who are defining the future of money, mobility, and freedom,” stated Patel. “Our Jet Card is a natural continuation of that dialogue. We’re not just keeping up – we’re setting the new benchmark for what’s possible in luxury flight.”

The Bitlux Jet Card allows clients to fund their accounts using Bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies. By integrating Bitcoin payments with private aviation, Bitlux aims to deliver transparency, and control for high-frequency private flyers

“The private aviation industry has needed a reboot for a long time,” said Bitlux CEO Kyle Patel. “We didn’t simply put a new face on the old model – we reconstructed it with transparency, efficiency, and user control as the guiding principles. This card is for individuals who demand more from their travel experience and their payment infrastructure.”

The card includes fixed hourly rates and does not apply blackout dates, peak surcharges, or additional fees. Payments are held in escrow until the completion of the flight. The program allows access to a global fleet, includes Wi-Fi on domestic flights, and permits cancellation of one-way bookings after reservation.

Bitlux offers four jet cards: Ascent, Cardinal, Sovereignty, and Nomad, corresponding to cabin classes that include midsize, super-midsize, large, and ultra-long haul. Operational terms specify a 48 hour callout on off-peak days, 36 peak days, and minimum daily flight times that vary depending on the aircraft size.

“Our clients are global citizens – entrepreneurs, investors, tech entrepreneurs – who conduct business in real-time environments,” said Patel. “They don’t have time for ambiguous language or antiquated payment structures. We’re coming to them where they are, with a smarter, safer way to fly.”

This post Bitlux Announced Private Jet Cards Accepting Bitcoin and Crypto Payments first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Oscar Zarraga Perez.

@ 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

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

Concern

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

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

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

Optimism

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

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

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

Realism

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

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

@ 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. 👀️️️️️️

@ 5391098c:74403a0e

Você trabalha 5 meses do ano somente para pagar impostos. Ou seja, 42% da sua renda serve para bancar serviços públicos de péssima qualidade. Mesmo que você tivesse a liberdade de usar esses 42% da sua renda para contratar serviços privados de qualidade (saúde, segurança e ensino), ainda assim você seria um escravo porque você recebe dinheiro em troca do seu trabalho, e o dinheiro perde cerca de 10% do valor a cada ano. Em outras palavras todo seu dinheiro que sobra depois de comprar comida, vestuário e moradia perde 100% do valor a cada 10 anos. Isso acontece porque o Estado imprime dinheiro do nada e joga na economia de propósito para gerar INFLAÇÃO e manter todos nós escravizados. Você pode deixar seu dinheiro investido em qualquer aplicação que imaginar e ainda assim nunca terá uma rentabilidade superior a inflação real. No final, acaba perdendo tudo do mesmo jeito. Caso você se ache esperto por investir o que sobra da sua renda em bens duráveis como imóveis ou veículos, sabia que esses bens também não são seus, porque se deixar de pagar os impostos desses bens (iptu, itr, ipva) você também perde tudo. Além disso, o custo de manutenção desses bens deve ser levado em consideração na conta das novas dívidas que você assumiu. No caso dos imóveis urbanos é impossível alugá-lo por mais de 0,38% do seu valor mensalmente. Em outras palavras, a cada ano você recebe menos de 5% do que investiu, tem que pagar o custo de manutenção, mais impostos e a valorização do bem nunca será superior a inflação real, também fazendo você perder quase tudo em cerca de 15 anos. A situação é ainda pior com os imóveis rurais e veículos, basta fazer as contas. Caso o dinheiro que você receba em troca do seu trabalho seja suficiente apenas para comprar comida, vestuário e moradia, você já sabe que é um escravo né?… Precisamos entender que a escravidão não acabou, apenas foi democratizada. Hoje a escravidão é financeira, nós somos os castiços e os donos do dinheiro são o senhorio. Os donos do dinheiro são os Globalistas e os Estados seus fantoches. O esquema é simples: fazer todo mundo trabalhar em troca de algo que perde 100% do valor a cada 10 anos, ou seja o dinheiro. Se você pudesse trabalhar em troca de algo que aumentasse de valor acima da inflação real a cada 10 anos você finalmente conquistaria sua liberdade financeira e deixaria de ser escravo. Pois bem, isso já é possível, e não se trata de ouro ou imóveis e sim sobre o Bitcoin, que sobe de valor mais de 100% a cada 10 anos, com a vantagem de ser inconfiscável e de fácil transferência para seus herdeiros quando você morrer, através de uma simples transação LockTime feita em vida. Portanto, mesmo que você não tenha dinheiro para comprar Bitcoin, passar a aceitar Bitcoin em troca de seus produtos e serviços é a única forma de se libertar da escravidão financeira. A carta de alforria financeira proporcionada pelo Bitcoin não é imediata, pois a velocidade da sua libertação depende do quanto você está disposto a aprender sobre o assunto. Eu estou aqui para te ajudar, caso queira. No futuro o Bitcoin estará tão presente na sua vida quanto o pix e o cartão de crédito, você querendo ou não. Assim como o cartão de crédito foi a evolução do cheque pós-datado e o pix a evolução do cartão, o Bitcoin e outras criptomoedas serão a evolução de todos esses meios de pagamento. O que te ofereço é a oportunidade de abolição da sua escravatura antes dos demais escravos acordarem para a realidade, afinal a história sempre se repete: desde o ano de 1300 a.c. a escravidão era defendida pelos próprios escravos, que mais cedo ou mais tarde, foram libertados por Moisés em êxodo 11 da Bíblia Sagrada e hoje o povo de israel se tornou a nação mais rica do mundo. A mesma história se repetiu na Roma Antiga: com o pão e circo. Da mesma forma todo esse império escravocrata ruiu porque mais cedo ou mais tarde os escravos se revoltam, bastam as coisas piorarem bastante. O atual regime de escravidão teve início com a queda do padrão-ouro para impressão do dinheiro no ano de 1944. A escravidão apenas ficou mais sofisticada, pois em vez de pagar os escravos com cerveja como no Egito Antigo ou com pão e circo como na Roma Antiga, passou-se a pagar os escravos com dinheiro sem lastro, ou seja dinheiro inventado, criado do nada, sem qualquer representação com a riqueza real da economia. Mesmo sendo a escravidão atual mais sofisticada, que deixou de ser física para ser financeira, o que torna a mentira mais bem contada, mais cedo ou mais tarde os escravos modernos irão acordar, basta as coisas piorarem mais ou perceberem que todos os bens e serviços do mundo não representam nem 1% de todo o dinheiro que impresso sem lastro. Em outras palavras, se os donos de todo o dinheiro do mundo resolvessem utilizá-lo para comprar tudo o que existe à venda, o preço do quilo do café subiria para R$ 297.306,00 e o preço médio dos imóveis subiria para um número tão grande que sequer caberia nesta folha de papel. Hoje, o dinheiro não vale nada, seus donos sabem disso e optam por entregar o dinheiro aos poucos para os escravos em troca do seu trabalho, para manter o atual regime o máximo de tempo possível. Mesmo assim, o atual regime de escravidão financeira está com os dias contados e depende de você se posicionar antes do efeito manada. Nunca é tarde para entrar no Bitcoin, mesmo ele tendo uma quantidade de emissão limitada, seu valor subirá infinitamente. A menor unidade do Bitcoin é o satoshi, cuja abreviação é sats. Diferente do centavo, cada sat vale um centésimo milionésimo de bitcoin. Hoje (25/05/25), cada unidade de Bitcoin equivale a setecentos mil reais. Logo, cada R$ 0,01 equivale à 0,007 sats. Lembrando que o centavo é um real dividido por cem e o sat é um bitcoin dividido por cem milhões, por isso ainda não existe a paridade entre 1 centavo de real e 1 sat. Essa paridade será alcançada quando um Bitcoin passar a valer um milhão de reais. Com a velocidade que nosso dinheiro está perdendo valor isso não irá demorar muito. Utilizando dados econômicos avançados, prevejo que cada unidade de Bitcoin passará a valer hum milhão de reais até o ano de 2029, assim equiparando 1 sat para cada R$ 0,01. Nesse momento, certamente muitos empresários, comerciantes e profissionais liberais passarão a aceitar o Bitcoin como forma de pagamento pelos seus produtos e serviços, assim como o cheque foi substituído pelo cartão de crédito e o cartão pelo pix. Sabendo disso, você pode entrar na onda de transição no futuro junto com a manada e perder essa alta valorização, ou passar a aceitar Bitcoin agora pelos seus produtos e serviços, assinando assim, a própria carta de alforria da sua escravidão financeira. É importante dizer que os próprios globalistas e governos estão trocando dinheiro por Bitcoin como nunca na história e mesmo que eles adquiram todos os bitcoins disponíveis, ainda assim não será mais possível manter seu regime de escravidão financeira funcionando porque a emissão de Bitcoin é limitada, sendo impossível criar Bitcoin sem lastro, como é feito com o dinheiro hoje. Com o presente artigo, te ofereço a oportunidade de conquistar seus primeiros sats agora, de forma segura e independente, sem precisar de corretoras, bancos, intermediários ou terceiros, basta você querer pois toda a informação necessária está disponível na internet gratuitamente. Se ainda assim você quiser continuar sendo escravo financeiro, depois não adiantar se arrepender quando as janelas de oportunidade se fecharem, o Drex for implantado, papel moeda restringido e sua vida piorar bastante. Importante mencionar que a Lei Brasileira ainda permite a movimentação de até R$ 30.000,00 em Bitcoin por mês sem a necessidade de declaração à Receita Federal e que esse direito pode deixar de existir a qualquer momento, e que quando o Drex for implantado você perderá diversos outros direitos, dentre ele a liberdade de gastar seu dinheiro como quiser e o sigilo. Ofereço ainda, a oportunidade de você baixar uma carteira de Bitcoin gratuita e segura no seu aparelho de celular que funciona de forma semelhante a um banco digital como Nubank e Pagseguro por exemplo, para poder começar à receber Bitcoin pelos seus produtos e serviços agora, de forma fácil e gratuita. Utilizando o qrcode abaixo você ainda ganha alguns sats de graça, promoção válida até o dia 29/05/25 e patrocinada pela Corretora Blink de El Salvador, onde o Bitcoin já é moeda oficial do país, basta acessar o link e instalar o aplicativo: https://get.blink.sv/btcvale

Aviso: disponibilizei o link da carteira de Bitcoin da Corretora Blink apenas como exemplo de como é fácil aceitar Bitcoin como forma de pagamento pelos seus produtos e serviços. Não recomento depender de qualquer corretora para guardar seus valores em Bitcoin. A melhor forma de fazer isso é mantendo dois computadores ou notebook em casa, um conectado à internet com memória em disco disponível de 1 terabyte ou mais para armazenar e visualizar suas transações e outro computador ou notebook desconectado da internet para armazenar suas senhas e chaves privadas para assinar as transações via pendrive. Somente assim você estará 100% livre e seguro. Importante ainda fazer backup em vários CDs com criptografia do seu computador ou notebook que assina as transações, assim também ficando 100% livre e seguro para restaurar sua carteira em qualquer outro computador caso necessário. Todas as instruções de como fazer isso já estão disponíveis gratuitamente na internet. Caso deseje contratar uma consultoria pessoal que inclui aulas particulares por vídeo conferência, onde você aprenderá:

→ Tudo o que precisa saber sobre Bitcoin e demais criptomoedas; → Sistema operacional Linux; → Como instalar sua carteira de Bitcoin em dois computadores para assinaturas air gapped; → Se manter 100% livre e seguro. → Com carga horária à combinar conforme sua disponibilidade.

O custo do investimento pelo meu serviço individual para esse tipo de consultoria é de 204.000 sats (R$ 1.543,46 na cotação atual) valor válido até 31/07/25, interessados entrar em contato por aqui ou através da Matrix: @davipinheiro:matrix.org https://davipinheiro.com/voce-e-escravo-e-nem-sabe-eu-vou-te-provar-agora/

@ 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

@ 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.

@ cae03c48:2a7d6671

Bitcoin Magazine

Asigna Raises $3M Funding and Launches Bitcoin Multisig v2 Upgrade

Asigna, a smart multisig vault operator for Bitcoin, has raised $3 million in a funding round led by Hivemind and Tykhe Block Ventures, with participation from Sats Ventures, Trust Machines, and others, according to an exclusive press release sent to Bitcoin Magazine. The raise follows a pre-seed round led by Portal Ventures.

“With Asigna, we are establishing foundational infrastructure for institutions and large holders to securely and confidently participate in the evolving Bitcoin ecosystem,” said the Co-Founder of Asigna Viven. “There’s a critical need for robust, transparent, and programmable non-custodial solutions, and the multisig infrastructure is at the heart of this transformation.”

Alongside the funding, Asigna is launching its v2 upgrade, which includes support for Embedded Apps and a developer SDK. The update enables developers to integrate multisig functionality directly into Bitcoin applications.

“Asigna’s innovative approach to Bitcoin security and its seamless integration with Layer-2 protocols make it a game-changer for institutional investors,” said the Senior Investment Principal at Hivemind Capital Kayla Phillips. “We are thrilled to support their mission to provide robust and transparent non-custodial solutions for the evolving Bitcoin ecosystem.”

The update also adds a custom dashboard, BTC swaps, and new tools like the Connection SDK and Multisig SDK, allowing for vault creation, transaction management, and app integration. Other features include sub accounts, email notifications, governance, customizable signer permissions, privacy mode, and advanced UTXO management.

“What’s unique about Asigna is that, unlike many other onchain smart wallet implementations, it is fully native to the Bitcoin layer, with no smart contract risks,” said the Co-Founder of Asigna Vlad. “We don’t directly interact with private keys and account owners can use any wallet to sign their transactions. Which means these multisig wallets can never be frozen or lost, regardless of what happens to Asigna. As it should be”.

Bitcoin has recently risen to a $2.2 trillion market cap and with a growing DeFi sector with over $6 billion in Total Value Locked (TVL), the company plans to use the new funding to provide their clients with access to DeFi and yield generation through staking and lending with a white-glove service.

This post Asigna Raises $3M Funding and Launches Bitcoin Multisig v2 Upgrade first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Oscar Zarraga Perez.

@ f0fcbea6:7e059469

Muita gente, hoje em dia, acha que a leitura já não é tão necessária quanto foi no passado. O rádio e a televisão acabaram assumindo as funções que outrora pertenciam à mídia impressa, da mesma maneira que a fotografia assumiu as funções que outrora pertenciam à pintura e às artes gráficas. Temos de reconhecer - é verdade - que a televisão cumpre algumas dessas funções muito bem; a comunicação visual dos telejornais, por exemplo, tem impacto enorme. A capacidade do rádio em transmitir informações enquanto estamos ocupados - dirigindo um carro, por exemplo - é algo extraordinário, além de nos poupar muito tempo. No entanto, é necessário questionar se as comunicações modernas realmente aumentam o conhecimento sobre o mundo à nossa volta.

Talvez hoje saibamos mais sobre o mundo do que no passado. Dado que o conhecimento é pré-requisito para o entendimento, trata-se de algo bom. Mas o conhecimento não é um pré-requisito tão importante ao entendimento quanto normalmente se supõe. Não precisamos saber tudo sobre determinada coisa para que possamos entendê-la. Uma montanha de fatos pode provocar o efeito contrário, isto é, pode servir de obstáculo ao entendimento. Há uma sensação, hoje em dia, de que temos acesso a muitos fatos, mas não necessariamente ao entendimento desses fatos.

Uma das causas dessa situação é que a própria mídia é projetada para tornar o pensamento algo desnecessário - embora, é claro, isso seja apenas mera impressão. O ato de empacotar ideias e opiniões intelectuais é uma atividade à qual algumas das mentes mais brilhantes se dedicam com grande diligência. O telespectador, o ouvinte, o leitor de revistas - todos eles se defrontam com um amálgama de elementos complexos, desde discursos retóricos minuciosamente planejados até dados estatísticos cuidadosamente selecionados, cujo objetivo é facilitar o ato de "formar a opinião" das pessoas com esforço e dificuldade mínimos. Por vezes, no entanto, o empacotamento é feito de maneira tão eficiente, tão condensada, que o telespectador, o ouvinte ou o leitor não conseguem formar sua opinião. Em vez disso, a opinião empacotada é introjetada em sua mente mais ou menos como uma gravação é inserida no aparelho de som. No momento apropriado, aperta-se o play e a opinião é "tocada". Eles reproduzem a opinião sem terem pensado a respeito.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ cae03c48:2a7d6671

Bitcoin Magazine

The Bitcoin Mempool: Private Mempools

In the last Mempool article, I went through the dynamics of transaction propagation when different nodes on the network are running different mempool relay policies. In this piece I’ll be looking at the dynamics of private mempools, and the implications that has for the utility of the public mempool, mining incentives, and the health of the Bitcoin network overall. 

At the heart of the purpose of the mempool is facilitating the aligned incentives of two different parties, miners and transacting users. Users want to transact, and are willing to pay miners’ transaction fees in order to do so. Miners want to make money, and transaction fees are an additional source of revenue in addition to the new coin subsidy in each block, as well as a necessary primary revenue source to cultivate in the long term as the subsidy dwindles. 

Bitcoin is a system secured by incentives. This core dynamic is what drives the security of the system, you have a customer(s) and a provider, and the two of them attempting to fulfill their wants and needs is what ensures the blockchain continues ticking forward with a sufficient amount of thermodynamic security. 

Attempts to introduce friction into this facilitation mechanism does not ultimately do anything at all to change the incentives of these two parties. A user who wants to make a certain kind of transaction is still going to want to make that transaction, and pay for it. A miner who is willing to accept those kinds of transactions is still going to want to accept them, and collect the fee by including them in a block. 

If the transaction is valid, then these two parties are still going to have their unmet wants and needs, and are still going to be strongly motivated to meet them in some form or fashion. 

Miner API

Individual end users are not necessarily capitalized enough or competent enough in order to route around friction artificially introduced between both ends of a coincidence of wants, but miners most definitely are. As the old adage goes, “if you build it, they will come.”

The preferential situation for miners is obviously to acquire fee paying transactions in-band through the public mempool. It requires the lowest overhead possible for them, simply running a standard Bitcoin client out of the box, it is a very resilient propagation mechanism that ensures a very high degree of reliability in getting miners the highest fee paying transactions, and they don’t have to do anything. Just download the client and run it. 

However, in a very hostile environment such as a network wide effort to filter consensus valid transactions during their propagation across the network, that traditional assumption can be drawn into question. 

In such a scenario miners have every incentive to set up out-of-band mechanisms for accepting transactions that are not properly being relayed across the network. Marathon’s Slipstream API for non-standard transactions is not the only example of this. There is in fact a long standing precedent from almost ten years ago that was widely implemented by many mining pools, and still exists to this day. Transaction accelerators. 

We now live in a world of Full-RBF, where any transaction, regardless of using the historical “opt-in” flag, can be fee-bumped. Any node who has upgraded to Full-RBF will relay any transaction that is spending an unconfirmed output already pending in the mempool as long as it is paying a higher fee. This has not always been the case. Historically only transactions that were originally made with a flag to opt-in to RBF use could be replaced and expected to propagate across the network. 

Transaction accelerators were created by miners in order to facilitate this behavior for transactions that did not opt-in to RBF use. 

Third Party APIs

While the overhead is not exorbitantly high for a miner or pool to create their own transaction submission API, it isn’t free. It still does require at least one developer and time to go through the design and release cycle of any piece of software. The curve isn’t particularly exaggerated, but it still does favor larger miners over smaller ones in terms of how much resources they will have to devote to such an endeavor. 

Mempool.space has proven that it is a viable endeavour for a third party unrelated to miners to create such an API, allowing miners to simply connect to their service rather than expend the effort to create one themselves from scratch. This does have its issues though, such a third party is not going to build and operate such a service for free. They will want their cut. 

There are two ways that this dynamic can go, either these services wind up requiring a higher cost in order to allow both the miners and service providers to earn revenue, or miners will have to share a smaller cut of the revenue in order for such services to remain competitive with directly miner operated ones. This means miners using a third party submission API rather than their own will earn less revenue than the miners operating their own API. 

Private Order Flow

Either of the above possibilities introduces serious problems when it comes to the overall system incentives, reliability of end-user software, and potentially even the security model of second layer systems that rely on the use of pre-signed transactions and a reactive security model in order to keep user funds safe. 

When transactions are submitted to a private API, they are not visible to network participants until they are actually confirmed in a block. The entire queue of unconfirmed transactions making use of these systems is opaque. This could be made public by the operators of these APIs, but not in a trustless fashion. There is no way to prove or guarantee that operators are not withholding information. 

Withholding transactions from public view could distort fee estimates that users make, and even open the door to the possibility of manipulating those feerates by stuffing blocks with their own transactions. Transactions used in the operation of second layer systems could be withheld from public view until confirmation, which can delay users ability to react to transactions they must respond to in order to guarantee the security of their funds. 

Lastly, just the existence of such APIs if the demand or need for them is high enough is a massive centralization pressure. Having to handle connecting to each individual API to submit a transaction is a hassle, poor UX, and potential back end complexity. This tends to reinforce the use of the largest API(s) and ignoring the tailend, which creates a feedback loop. 

The API operators with the largest hashrate will have the quickest and most reliable confirmations, guaranteeing only those largest miners reliably earn this extra revenue, giving them more capital to grow larger, etc. 

Parallel Mempools

On the other end of the spectrum is the possibility of creating totally independent public relay networks. While this does replicate the current openness of the existing public mempool, and avoids the worst of the centralizing pressures of central APIs, it still is not ideal. 

Having multiple mempools introducing complexity for miners, for end users, and for end user applications. Users now need to keep track of all the independent mempools, especially ones used for systems they interact with that are not propagated over the primary relay network, in order to have a view of unconfirmed transactions. 

If Lightning (or some other Layer 2) were to start making use of a parallel mempool, tracking it would be critical for any user of Lightning (or that other Layer 2). It would also be necessary to track all of the parallel relay networks in order to have an accurate view of the other unconfirmed transactions you are bidding against for inclusion in the next block. Tracking only a subset of them would lead to potentially large margins of error in any users fee estimation. 

You Just Make Things Worse

Trying to prevent transactions with willing fee paying users without addressing them at the consensus level is just not possible. Bitcoin is an engine driven by incentives, and when the incentives of multiple parties align they will be facilitated in one form or another. 

Trying to pretend that is not the case, and that things can be stopped, disincentivized, or otherwise delayed is a fool’s errand. Not only that, but trying at any serious scale comes with very serious negative consequences, in addition to being doomed to fail. 

Bitcoin’s consensus rules are the framework in which incentives are played out. The only thing that can trump incentives is changing that framework. It is literally what informs and shapes the incentives in the first place. 

Trying to interfere with those incentives at any other layer is a fool’s errand, and can do nothing but exacerbate the negative outcomes driven by incentives, i.e. centralization.

This post The Bitcoin Mempool: Private Mempools first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Shinobi.

@ 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.

@ 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

@ 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".

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

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

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

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

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

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

@ 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.

@ d360efec:14907b5f

@ d61f3bc5:0da6ef4a

I remember the first gathering of Nostr devs two years ago in Costa Rica. We were all psyched because Nostr appeared to solve the problem of self-sovereign online identity and decentralized publishing. The protocol seemed well-suited for textual content, but it wasn't really designed to handle binary files, like images or video.

The Problem

When I publish a note that contains an image link, the note itself is resilient thanks to Nostr, but if the hosting service disappears or takes my image down, my note will be broken forever. We need a way to publish binary data without relying on a single hosting provider.

We were discussing how there really was no reliable solution to this problem even outside of Nostr. Peer-to-peer attempts like IPFS simply didn't work; they were hopelessly slow and unreliable in practice. Torrents worked for popular files like movies, but couldn't be relied on for general file hosting.

Awesome Blossom

A year later, I attended the Sovereign Engineering demo day in Madeira, organized by Pablo and Gigi. Many projects were presented over a three hour demo session that day, but one really stood out for me.

Introduced by hzrd149 and Stu Bowman, Blossom blew my mind because it showed how we can solve complex problems easily by simply relying on the fact that Nostr exists. Having an open user directory, with the corresponding social graph and web of trust is an incredible building block.

Since we can easily look up any user on Nostr and read their profile metadata, we can just get them to simply tell us where their files are stored. This, combined with hash-based addressing (borrowed from IPFS), is all we need to solve our problem.

How Blossom Works

The Blossom protocol (Blobs Stored Simply on Mediaservers) is formally defined in a series of BUDs (Blossom Upgrade Documents). Yes, Blossom is the most well-branded protocol in the history of protocols. Feel free to refer to the spec for details, but I will provide a high level explanation here.

The main idea behind Blossom can be summarized in three points:

1. Users specify which media server(s) they use via their public Blossom settings published on Nostr;
2. All files are uniquely addressable via hashes;
3. If an app fails to load a file from the original URL, it simply goes to get it from the server(s) specified in the user's Blossom settings.

Just like Nostr itself, the Blossom protocol is dead-simple and it works!

Let's use this image as an example:

If you look at the URL for this image, you will notice that it looks like this:

blossom.primal.net/c1aa63f983a44185d039092912bfb7f33adcf63ed3cae371ebe6905da5f688d0.jpg

All Blossom URLs follow this format:

[server]/[file-hash].[extension]

The file hash is important because it uniquely identifies the file in question. Apps can use it to verify that the file they received is exactly the file they requested. It also gives us the ability to reliably get the same file from a different server.

Nostr users declare which media server(s) they use by publishing their Blossom settings. If I store my files on Server A, and they get removed, I can simply upload them to Server B, update my public Blossom settings, and all Blossom-capable apps will be able to find them at the new location. All my existing notes will continue to display media content without any issues.

Blossom Mirroring

Let's face it, re-uploading files to another server after they got removed from the original server is not the best user experience. Most people wouldn't have the backups of all the files, and/or the desire to do this work.

This is where Blossom's mirroring feature comes handy. In addition to the primary media server, a Blossom user can set one one or more mirror servers. Under this setup, every time a file is uploaded to the primary server the Nostr app issues a mirror request to the primary server, directing it to copy the file to all the specified mirrors. This way there is always a copy of all content on multiple servers and in case the primary becomes unavailable, Blossom-capable apps will automatically start loading from the mirror.

Mirrors are really easy to setup (you can do it in two clicks in Primal) and this arrangement ensures robust media handling without any central points of failure. Note that you can use professional media hosting services side by side with self-hosted backup servers that anyone can run at home.

Using Blossom Within Primal

Blossom is natively integrated into the entire Primal stack and enabled by default. If you are using Primal 2.2 or later, you don't need to do anything to enable Blossom, all your media uploads are blossoming already.

To enhance user privacy, all Primal apps use the "/media" endpoint per BUD-05, which strips all metadata from uploaded files before they are saved and optionally mirrored to other Blossom servers, per user settings. You can use any Blossom server as your primary media server in Primal, as well as setup any number of mirrors:

## Conclusion

For such a simple protocol, Blossom gives us three major benefits:

1. Verifiable authenticity. All Nostr notes are always signed by the note author. With Blossom, the signed note includes a unique hash for each referenced media file, making it impossible to falsify a media file and maliciously ascribe it to the note author.
2. File hosting redundancy. Having multiple live copies of referenced media files (via Blossom mirroring) greatly increases the resiliency of media content published on Nostr.
3. Censorship resistance. Blossom enables us to seamlessly switch media hosting providers in case of censorship.

Thanks for reading; and enjoy! 🌸

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Zvanični vebsajt knjige

Srpski prevod knjige "The Little Bitcoin Book"

---

Zašto je Bitkoin bitan za vašu slobodu, finansije i budućnost?

Verovatno ste čuli za Bitkoin u vestima ili da o njemu raspravljaju vaši prijatelji ili kolege. Kako to da se cena stalno menja? Da li je Bitkoin dobra investicija? Kako to uopšte ima vrednost? Zašto ljudi stalno govore o tome kao da će promeniti svet?

"Mala knjiga o Bitkoinu" govori o tome šta nije u redu sa današnjim novcem i zašto je Bitkoin izmišljen da obezbedi alternativu trenutnom sistemu. Jednostavnim rečima opisuje šta je Bitkoin, kako funkcioniše, zašto je vredan i kako utiče na individualnu slobodu i mogućnosti ljudi svuda - od Nigerije preko Filipina do Venecuele do Sjedinjenih Država. Ova knjiga takođe uključuje odeljak "Pitanja i odgovori" sa nekim od najčešće postavljanih pitanja o Bitkoinu.

Ako želite da saznate više o ovom novom obliku novca koji i dalje izaziva interesovanje i usvajanje širom sveta, onda je ova knjiga za vas.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na bitcoin-balkan.com.

---

Pregled sadržaja

1. 5 Razloga Zašto je Novac Važan za Vas, Individualno
2. 3 Razloga Zašto je Novac Važan za Društvo u Celini
3. Zašto ljudi mrze novac?

Novac vs trenuci – da li oni treba da budu u sukobu? Kakva je uloga novca?

Novac je nepredvidiva zver modernog društva – neki ga veličaju sa stalnom željom da steknu više, dok ga drugi demonizuju i kažu da je pohlepa srž društvenih problema. Tokom mnogih godina svog života, ja sam često prelazio sa jednog na drugo gledište, i naučio mnogo toga upoznajući druge ljude koji žive na oba kraja ovog spektra. Kao i kod mnogih složenih tema, istina leži negde u sredini.

Novac je važan zato što on može da pomogne u uklanjanju materijalnih želja i patnji – omogućavanjem da preuzmete kontrolu nad svojim životom i da brinete o voljenima. Novac podiže životni standard društva omogućavanjem trgovine, a pritom minimalizuje potrebu za poverenjem.

Na novac možemo gledati kao na način da svoj uloženi trud sačuvamo u odredjenom obliku, i da ga vremenom prenesemo, tako da možemo da uživamo u plodovima svog rada. Novac kao alat je jedna od najvažnijih stvari za rast civilizacije. Na nesreću, mnogi su vremenom zlostavljali novac, ali sa dobrim razlogom: način na koji naš novac danas funkcioniše dovodi do duboko podeljenog društva – što ću i objasniti.

5 Razloga Zašto je Novac Važan za Vas, Individualno

Novac je važan za rast bogatstva, što je malo drugačije od toga da imamo veliku platu ili jednostavno zarađivati velike količine novca. Bogatstvo je otklanjanje želja, kako bi mogli da obratimo više pažnje na neke korisnije stvari u životu, od pukog preživljavanja i osnovnih udobnosti.

Bogata osoba je ona koja zaradi više novca nego što potroši, i koja ga čuva – ona čuva svoj rad tokom vremena. Uporedite ovo sa visoko plaćenim lekarom koji živi u velikoj vili sa hipotekom i sa Mercedesom na lizing. Iako ova osoba ima visoke prihode, ona takođe ima velike rashode u vidu obaveze plaćanja te hipoteke i lizinga. Te obaveze sprečavaju ovu osobu da uživa u istinskim blagodetima novca i bogatstva koje one predstavljaju:

1. Sloboda od potrebe za radom

Bez bogatstva, vi morate da radite da biste preživeli. Dostizanjem bogatstva i odredjenom imovinom koja vam donosi novac bez potrebe da vi trošite svoje vreme, vi možete da oslobodite svoj raspored. Više ne zavisite od posla koji mrzite, i nemorate da provodite 40 sati nedeljno odvojeni od porodice, samo da biste se pobrinuli za svoje osnovne potrebe. Dobijanje otkaza u padu ekonomije neće vas dovesti do finansijske propasti ili nečeg goreg.

2. Kontrola nad time kako vi trošite svoje vreme

Kada steknete bogatstvo, vi možete da odlučite kako želite da provodite svoje vreme. Kada se nalazimo u trci pacova i radimo 40+ sati nedeljno, često se naviknemo da novac trošimo onda kada imamo slobodnog vremena. Idemo na lepe večere ili idemo na skupe odmore. Međutim, sa više vremena, a možda čak i sa manje novca, mi možemo da imamo isto ili više uživanja živeći usporenije.

Razmislite o ovome – ukoliko imate samo 1 nedelju slobodno od posla, vi onda morate da kupite onaj mnogo skuplji let u Petak uveče koji se vraća u sledeću Nedelju, kako biste maksimalno iskoristili svoje vreme na nekom egzotičnom mestu za odmor. Međutim, ukoliko ste u mogućnosti da izdržavate sebe bez potrebe da mnogo vremena provodite na poslu, vi onda možete u Utorak da krenete jeftinijim letom i vratite se u sledeću Sredu. Takođe nećete osećati toliki pritisak da se opustite u uživanju tokom vaše nedelje u inostranstvu – možda ćete čak moći i da ostanete duže i da istražujete više, bez plaćanja skupih turističkih agencija i hotela kako bi organizovali vaše kraće putovanje.

3. Sposobnost da pomažete vašim prijateljima i porodici

Onda kada novca imate na pretek, možete poboljšati svoje odnose sa prijateljima i porodicom ne samo kroz dodatno slobodno vreme koje provodite sa njima, već i sa samim novcem. Ako je vašem prijatelju potrebna hitna operacija, vi možete da mu izadjete u susret i pomognete mu da stane na svoje noge. Ukoliko vam je tetka bolesna, vi možete da provedete vreme pored nje, umesto da je pozovete na kratko dok putujete prema kući vraćajući se nakon celog dana provedenog u kancelariji.

4. Smanjen finansijski stres

Stres je sveobuhvatno i opasno stanje modernog doba, sa kojim gotovo svi mi živimo u nekoj odredjenoj meri. Povezan je sa lošim zdravljem, sa preko 43% svih odraslih koji kažu da pate od odredjenih zdravstvenih problema uzrokovanih stresom. Stres zbog posla pogađa 83% zaposlenih.

Pravo bogatstvo – koje znači eliminaciju želja i potreba – može da ukloni ovaj stres i njegove negativne uticaje na druge delove života. Ovo bi čak moglo da ukloni većinu stresa u vašem životu, uzimajući u obzir da je uzrok stresa broj 1 upravo novac.

5. Bolje možete da pomognete vašoj zajednici

Mnogi od nas žele da volontiraju u svojim zajednicama i pomognu onima koja je pomoć preko potrebna, ali nisu u stanju da pronađu slobodnog vremena i energije zbog svog posla, porodice i društvenih aktivnosti koje nas mentalno i fizički čine srećnima, zdravima i hranjenima. Sa bogatstvom, mi možemo da posvetimo vreme koje nam je potrebno za razumevanje i doprinos drugima – a ne samo da sa vremena na vreme pomognemo slanjem humanitarnog SMS-a.

---

Novac, koji se pametno koristi, je moćno sredstvo za poboljšanje vašeg života i života vaših najmilijih i zajednice. Međutim, novac je takođe moćno sredstvo za poboljšanje društva u celini – ukoliko je dobro strukturiran.

3 Razloga Zašto je Novac Važan za Društvo u Celini

Novac poboljšava sposobnost ljudi da trguju jedni s drugima, što podstiče određene specijalizacije. Ako je imanje vašeg komšije odlično za proizvodnju vina, a vaše je pogodno za žito, obojica možete da profitirate trgovinom. Sad oboje imate i hleb i vino, umesto jednog pijanog vlasnika vinograda i jednog proizvodjača žita kome je dosadno!

Novac poboljšava društvo na nekoliko načina:

1. Omogućava specijalizaciju

Kao u primeru vlasnika vinograda i proizvodjača žita, novac omogućava povećanu specijalizaciju poboljšavajući sposobnost trgovine. Svaka razmena dobara ima problem sa ‘sticajima potreba’ – oba partnera u trgovini moraju da žele ono što druga osoba ima da bi pristala na trgovinu.

Možemo da mislimo o novcu kao o dobru koje žele gotovo svi. Ovo trgovinu čini mnogo jednostavnijom – da biste stekli odredjeno dobro, sve što vam je potrebno je novac, a ne neka slučajna stvar koju prodavac tog dobra takođe želi u tom trenutku. Vremenom je upotreba novca omogućila specijalizaciju, što je povećalo kvalitet i složenost roba i usluga.

Zamislite da sami pokušate da napravite svoj telefon – a bili su potrebni milioni stručnjaka i specijalizovana oprema da bi proizveli taj uređaj. Svi ti stručnjaci i kompanije plaćaju jedni drugima u novcu, omogućavajući složenom plesu globalnih proizvođača i lanaca snabdevanja da taj telefon isporuče na dlan vaše ruke. Čak i nešto tako jednostavno kao flaša za vodu uključuje naftna polja i proizvodne pogone koji su možda hiljadama kilometara od vaše kuće.

Kada ljudi mogu da se specijalizuju, kvalitet robe i usluga može da se poveća.

2. Omogućava korisnu trgovinu uz smanjeno poverenje

Mala društva mogu mirno i produktivno da posluju bez novca koristeći usluge, “dodjem ti” i uzajamno razumevanje. Međutim, kako se društva uvećavaju, svima brzo postaje nemoguće da održavaju lične odnose i isti stepen poverenja sa svima ostalima. Sistem trgovine uslugama i međusobnog poverenja ne funkcioniše previše dobro sa putnikom koji se nalazi na proputovanju kroz grad, i provede samo 15 minuta svog života u vašoj prodavnici.

Novac minimizira poverenje potrebno za trgovinu u većim društvima. Sada više ne moram da verujem da ćete mi pomoći kasnije kada mi zatreba – mogu samo da prihvatim uplatu od vas i da to koristim da bih sebi pomogao kasnije. Jedan od mojih omiljenih mislilaca, Nick Szabo, ovo naziva ‘društvena prilagodljivost’.

3. Smanjuje upotrebu sile

Kada društvo teži upotrebi određenog oblika novca za olakšavanje trgovine, može u velikoj meri da smanji nasilje u tom društvu. Kako to može biti tako? Zar ljudi ne bi i dalje želeli da kradu jedni od drugih ili da se svete?

Ukoliko razmišljamo van uobičajnih okvira, možemo da počnemo da razumemo kako novac može da smanji nasilje. Ako ti i ja živimo u susednim zemljama i želimo nešto što druga zemlja ima, imamo dva načina da to dobijemo: uzimanjem na silu ili menjanjem nečeg našeg za to. Kao što je ranije rečeno, novac znatno olakšava trgovinu – pa ćemo postojanjem zajedničkog monetarnog sistema verovatnije radje izvršiti trgovinu nego napad na zemlju. Zašto bismo rizikovali svoje živote kad možemo samo mirno da trgujemo jedni sa drugima?

Zašto ljudi mrze novac?

Pa ako novac ima toliko koristi za nas lično i za društvo u celini, zašto toliko ljudi mrzi novac? Zašto je demonizovan, zajedno sa onima koji ga imaju puno?

Za deo ovoga može biti okrivljen problem u jednakosti mogućnosti – to da je nekima teže da izadju iz nemaštine i postanu bogati. Bez sumnje, neki mali deo potiče od ljudi koji jednostavno ne žele da se trude ili preduzmu neophodne rizike da bi postali bogati.

Međutim, oba ova problema imaju više veze sa problemima kako naš novac danas funkcioniše, nego sa bilo kojim problemom u samom konceptu novca. Novčani sistem treba da nagrađuje ljude koji proizvode vredne stvari i trguju njima sa drugima. Verujem da većina ljudi danas misli da novac tako funkcioniše, i to ne bi smelo da bude daleko od istine.

Naš trenutni monetarni sistem, na žalost, nagrađuje ’finansijalizaciju’ – pretvarajući sve u imovinu, čija vrednost može da se napumpava ili spušta stvaranjem dobre priče i navođenjem drugih da veruju u nju. Razuzdani dug pogonjen stalnim omalovažavanjem svih glavnih valuta dodat je ovom blatu finansijalizacije. Sada je isplativije podići ogroman kredit i koristiti ga za brzo okretanje imovine radi zarade nego izgraditi posao koji društvu nudi korisne robe i usluge.

Tradicionalni monetarni sistem dodatno nagradjuje predatore, partnere u zločinu i neradnike.

Propast našeg novca razvila se tokom proteklih pola veka, počevši od toga kada su naše valute postale ništa više od parčeta papira, podržanog sa verom i kreditima naših vlada. Da biste bolje razumeli ovu promenu, pogledajte moj post o svrsi i istoriji novca.

Ako vam se sviđa moj rad, molim vas da ga podelite sa svojim prijateljima i porodicom. Cilj mi je da svima pružim pogled u ekonomiju i na to kako ona utiče na njihov život.

@ 2183e947:f497b975

Most darknet markets (DNMs) are designed poorly in the following ways:

1. Hosting

Most DNMs use a model whereby merchants fill out a form to create their listings, and the data they submit then gets hosted on the DNM's servers. In scenarios where a "legal" website would be forced to censor that content (e.g. a DMCA takedown order), DNMs, of course, do not obey. This can lead to authorities trying to find the DNM's servers to take enforcement actions against them. This design creates a single point of failure.

A better design is to outsource hosting to third parties. Let merchants host their listings on nostr relays, not on the DNM's server. The DNM should only be designed as an open source interface for exploring listings hosted elsewhere, that way takedown orders end up with the people who actually host the listings, i.e. with nostr relays, and not with the DNM itself. And if a nostr relay DOES go down due to enforcement action, it does not significantly affect the DNM -- they'll just stop querying for listings from that relay in their next software update, because that relay doesn't work anymore, and only query for listings from relays that still work.

2. Moderation

Most DNMs have employees who curate the listings on the DNM. For example, they approve/deny listings depending on whether they fit the content policies of the website. Some DNMs are only for drugs, others are only for firearms. The problem is, to approve a criminal listing is, in the eyes of law enforcement, an act of conspiracy. Consequently, they don't just go after the merchant who made the listing but the moderators who approved it, and since the moderators typically act under the direction of the DNM, this means the police go after the DNM itself.

A better design is to outsource moderation to third parties. Let anyone call themselves a moderator and create lists of approved goods and services. Merchants can pay the most popular third party moderators to add their products to their lists. The DNM itself just lets its users pick which moderators to use, such that the user's choice -- and not a choice by the DNM -- determines what goods and services the user sees in the interface.

That way, the police go after the moderators and merchants rather than the DNM itself, which is basically just a web browser: it doesn't host anything or approve of any content, it just shows what its users tell it to show. And if a popular moderator gets arrested, his list will still work for a while, but will gradually get more and more outdated, leading someone else to eventually become the new most popular moderator, and a natural transition can occur.

3. Escrow

Most DNMs offer an escrow solution whereby users do not pay merchants directly. Rather, during the Checkout process, they put their money in escrow, and request the DNM to release it to the merchant when the product arrives, otherwise they initiate a dispute. Most DNMs consider escrow necessary because DNM users and merchants do not trust one another; users don't want to pay for a product first and then discover that the merchant never ships it, and merchants don't want to ship a product first and then discover that the user never pays for it.

The problem is, running an escrow solution for criminals is almost certain to get you accused of conspiracy, money laundering, and unlicensed money transmission, so the police are likely to shut down any DNM that does this. A better design is to oursource escrow to third parties. Let anyone call themselves an escrow, and let moderators approve escrows just like they approve listings. A merchant or user who doesn't trust the escrows chosen by a given moderator can just pick a different moderator. That way, the police go after the third party escrows rather than the DNM itself, which never touches user funds.

4. Consequences

Designing a DNM along these principles has an interesting consequence: the DNM is no longer anything but an interface, a glorified web browser. It doesn't host any content, approve any listings, or touch any money. It doesn't even really need a server -- it can just be an HTML file that users open up on their computer or smart phone. For two reasons, such a program is hard to take down:

First, it is hard for the police to justify going after the DNM, since there are no charges to bring. Its maintainers aren't doing anything illegal, no more than Firefox does anything illegal by maintaining a web browser that some people use to browse illegal content. What the user displays in the app is up to them, not to the code maintainers. Second, if the police decided to go after the DNM anyway, they still couldn't take it down because it's just an HTML file -- the maintainers do not even need to run a server to host the file, because users can share it with one another, eliminating all single points of failure.

Another consequence of this design is this: most of the listings will probably be legal, because there is more demand for legal goods and services than illegal ones. Users who want to find illegal goods would pick moderators who only approve those listings, but everyone else would use "legal" moderators, and the app would not, at first glance, look much like a DNM, just a marketplace for legal goods and services. To find the illegal stuff that lurks among the abundant legal stuff, you'd probably have to filter for it via your selection of moderators, making it seem like the "default" mode is legal.

5. Conclusion

I think this DNM model is far better than the designs that prevail today. It is easier to maintain, harder to take down, and pushes the "hard parts" to the edges, so that the DNM is not significantly affected even if a major merchant, moderator, or escrow gets arrested. I hope it comes to fruition.

@ 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.

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

19. März 2025

🔐 1. SHA-256 is Quantum-Resistant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

🕵️♂️ 2.1 The Public Key Never Appears

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

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

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

🔄 3. Bitcoin Can Upgrade

Even if quantum computers eventually become a real threat:

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

🔄 7. The Logarithmic Difficulty Adjustment Neutralizes Threats

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

---

🔥 Final Verdict: Quantum Computers Are Too Slow for Bitcoin

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

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

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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 94e2c22d:d50b08a3

Definition and Basic Principle

Light painting is a photographic technique in which light sources are moved or purposefully used during a long exposure to create images, patterns, or lettering in space. The light source can appear visibly in the image (light drawing), be used to illuminate the subject (light painting), or the camera itself can be moved (kinetic light painting).

History

The history of light painting ranges from scientific experiments in the 19th century, through the artistic avant-garde of the 1930s, to the diverse, technically sophisticated forms of expression seen today. The sources span from early photographers and scientists like Marey, Demeny, and the Gilbreths, to artists such as Man Ray and Picasso, and on to contemporary light painters experimenting with new light sources and techniques.

Early Scientific Applications (1889–1914)

Étienne-Jules Marey and Georges Demeny (1889):

The earliest documented light paintings originated from scientific motion studies. *Demeny *attached light bulbs to the joints of an assistant and photographed their movements with long exposure. This image (Pathological Walk From in Front) is considered the earliest known example of lightpainting.

Frank and Lillian Gilbreth (1914):

The couple used small lights and open shutters to analyze workflows in industry. Their goal was not art, but the optimization of work processes. Nevertheless, some of the first light painting photographs were created this way.

Artistic Light Painting (from the 1930s)

Man Ray (1935):

The American artist Man Ray is considered the first to use light painting as an artistic means of expression. In his Space Writing series, he wrote his name in the air with a small light pen, creating abstract light trails that were only recognized as his signature in 2009.

Barbara Morgan (1935–1941):

She experimented with light drawings, especially in dance photography, by equipping dancers with lights and capturing their movements.

Famous Light Painters and Innovations (1940s–1970s)

Gjon Mili & Pablo Picasso (1949):

Gjon Mili showed Picasso photographs of figure skaters with lights attached to their skates. Picasso was fascinated and, using a flashlight in a darkened room, created his famous "light drawings," including the well-known Picasso draws a Centaur.

Peter Keetman (1949):

The German photographer developed complex light patterns using point light sources on pendulums, shaping experimental photography in post-war Germany.

Modern Developments and Artists (1970s–Today)

Starting in the 1970s, lightpainting expanded beyond experimental and portrait photography into more diverse and expressive artistic realms. Swiss photographer Jacques Pugin was a pioneer in using lightpainting in natural landscapes, employing candlelight and subtle illumination to reveal hidden shapes and textures. His work often bridges the tangible with the ephemeral, evoking a sense of time and memory in the environment.

From the late 20th century onwards, advances in camera technology—such as more sensitive film and later digital sensors—made long-exposure photography more accessible and versatile. This technological progress allowed artists to experiment with new light sources like LED lights, fiber optics, and even programmable light tools, vastly expanding the creative possibilities.

Lightpainting also intersected with other art forms, such as performance art and installation. Artists began incorporating movement, music, and interactive elements, transforming lightpainting into immersive experiences.

The history of light painting reveals an impressive evolution from scientific studies of human movement to a creative form of artistic expression. By combining technology, creativity, and light, works are created that push the boundaries of photography and captivate the viewer.

Author: Mafu Fuma

Sources: Wikipedia

Picture: Frank Gilbreth

@ 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.

@ 45d6c2bf:56915a25

published without nostr installed

@ cae03c48:2a7d6671

Bitcoin Magazine

Exodus Launches XO Pay, An In-App Bitcoin And Crypto Purchase Solution

Exodus has officially launched XO Pay, a new crypto purchasing feature that allows users to buy and sell digital assets directly within the Exodus mobile wallet, and is now live across the United States. XO Pay aims to simplify the process for its users to easily purchase cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. 

XO Pay is powered by Coinme’s Crypto-as-a-Service (CaaS) API platform and is a self custody Bitcoin wallet. This means customers can now purchase BTC within the wallet without going through third-party exchanges while keeping full control of their assets. 

“XO Pay represents our commitment to making cryptocurrency more accessible to everyday customers,” said JP Richardson, Co-Founder and CEO of Exodus, in a recent press release sent to Bitcoin Magazine. “By integrating the purchasing process directly into our mobile wallet, we’re removing barriers and simplifying the journey from fiat to crypto, and back.” 

With XO Pay, Exodus offers a self custodial way to complete Bitcoin transactions. This rollout is part of Exodus’ broader mission to make digital assets more secure, as the demand for Bitcoin is increasing. 

“By creating a Web2 checkout experience into a Web3 self-custody wallet, Exodus has set a new bar for crypto user experience,” said Neil Bergquist, CEO and co-founder of Coinme. “Exodus’ innovative integration of Coinme’s APIs delivers the seamless in-app purchase flow users expect while keeping them in full control of their assets.” 

This post Exodus Launches XO Pay, An In-App Bitcoin And Crypto Purchase Solution first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Jenna Montgomery.

@ 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.

@ 43baaf0c:d193e34c

During the incredible Bitcoin Filmfest, I attended a community session where a discussion emerged about zapping and why I believe zaps are important. The person leading the Nostr session who is also developing an app that’s partially connected to Nostr mentioned they wouldn’t be implementing the zap mechanism directly. This sparked a brief but meaningful debate, which is why I’d like to share my perspective as an artist and content creator on why zaps truly matter.

Let me start by saying that I see everything from the perspective of an artist and creator, not so much from a developer’s point of view. In 2023, I started using Nostr after spending a few years exploring the world of ‘shitcoins’ and NFTs, beginning in 2018. Even though I became a Bitcoin maximalist around 2023, those earlier years taught me an important lesson: it is possible to earn money with my art.

Whether you love or hate them, NFTs opened my eyes to the idea that I could finally take my art to the next level. Before that, for over 15 years, I ran a travel stock video content company called @traveltelly. You can read the full story about my journey in travel and content here: https://yakihonne.com/article/traveltelly@primal.net/vZc1c8aXrc-3hniN6IMdK

When I truly understood what Bitcoin meant to me, I left all other coins behind. Some would call that becoming a Bitcoin maximalist.

The first time I used Nostr, I discovered the magic of zapping. It amazed me that someone who appreciates your art or content could reward you—not just with a like, but with real value: Bitcoin, the hardest money on earth. Zaps are small amounts of Bitcoin sent as a sign of support or appreciation. (Each Bitcoin is divisible into 100 million units called Satoshis, or Sats for short—making a Satoshi the smallest unit of Bitcoin recorded on the blockchain.)

The Energy of Zaps

If you’re building an app on Nostr—or even just connecting to it—but choose not to include zaps, why should artists and content creators share their work there? Why would they leave platforms like Instagram or Facebook, which already benefit from massive network effects?

Yes, the ability to own your own data is one of Nostr’s greatest strengths. That alone is a powerful reason to embrace the protocol. No one can ban you. You control your content. And the ability to post once and have it appear across multiple Nostr clients is an amazing feature.

But for creators, energy matters. Engagement isn’t just about numbers—it’s about value. Zaps create a feedback loop powered by real appreciation and real value, in the form of Bitcoin. They’re a signal that your content matters. And that energy is what makes creating on Nostr so special.

But beyond those key elements, I also look at this from a commercial perspective. The truth is, we still can’t pay for groceries with kisses :)—we still need money as a medium of exchange. Being financially rewarded for sharing your content gives creators a real incentive to keep creating and sharing. That’s where zaps come in—they add economic value to engagement.

A Protocol for Emerging Artists and Creators

I believe Nostr offers a great starting point for emerging artists and content creators. If you’re just beginning and don’t already have a large following on traditional social media platforms, Nostr provides a space where your work can be appreciated and directly supported with Bitcoin, even by a small but engaged community.

On the other hand, creators who already have a big audience and steady income on platforms like Instagram or YouTube may not feel the urgency to switch. This is similar to how wealthier countries are often slower to understand or adopt Bitcoin—because they don’t need it yet. In contrast, people in unbanked regions or countries facing high inflation are more motivated to learn how money really works.

In the same way, emerging creators—those still finding their audience and looking for sustainable ways to grow—are often more open to exploring new ecosystems like Nostr, where innovation and financial empowerment go hand in hand.

The same goes for Nostr. After using it for the past two years, I can honestly say: without Nostr, I wouldn’t be the artist I am today.

Nostr motivates me to create and share every single day. A like is nice but receiving a zap, even just 21 sats, is something entirely different. Once you truly understand that someone is willing to pay you for what you share, it’s no longer about the amount. It’s about the magic behind it. That simple gesture creates a powerful, positive energy that keeps you going.

Even with Nostr’s still relatively small user base, I’ve already been able to create projects that simply wouldn’t have been possible elsewhere.

Zaps do more than just reward—they inspire. They encourage you to keep building your community. That inspiration often leads to new projects. Sometimes, the people who zap you become directly involved in your work, or even ask you to create something specifically for them.

That’s the real value of zaps: not just micro-payments, but micro-connections sparks that lead to creativity, collaboration, and growth.

Proof of Work (PoW)

Over the past two years, I’ve experienced firsthand how small zaps can evolve into full art projects and even lead to real sales. Here are two examples that started with zaps and turned into something much bigger:

Halving 2024 Artwork

When I started the Halving 2024 project, I invited people on Nostr to be part of it. 70 people zapped me 2,100 sats each, and in return, I included their Npubs in the final artwork. That piece was later auctioned and sold to Jurjen de Vries for 225,128 Sats.

Magic Internet Money

For the Magic Internet Money artwork, I again invited people to zap 2,100 sats to be included. Fifty people participated, and their contributions became part of the final art frame. The completed piece was eventually sold to Filip for 480,000 sats.

These examples show the power of zaps: a simple, small act of appreciation can turn into larger engagement, deeper connection, and even the sale of original art. Zaps aren’t just tips—they’re a form of collaboration and support that fuel creative energy.

I hope this article gives developers a glimpse into the perspective of an artist using Nostr. Of course, this is just one artist’s view, and it doesn’t claim to speak for everyone. But I felt it was important to share my Proof of Work and perspective.

For me, Zaps matter.

Thank you to all the developers who are building these amazing apps on Nostr. Your work empowers artists like me to share, grow, and be supported through the value-for-value model.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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!

@ 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!

@ 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.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

I. Introduction: Money as a Function of Efficiency and Preference

Money is not defined by law, but by power over productivity. In any open economy, the most economically efficient actors—those who control the most valuable goods, services, and knowledge—ultimately dictate the medium of exchange. Their preferences signal to the broader market what form of money is required to access the highest-value goods, from durable commodities to intangibles like intellectual property and skilled labor.

Whatever money these actors prefer becomes the de facto unit of account and store of value, regardless of its legal status. This emergent behavior is natural and reflects a hierarchy of monetary utility.

II. Classical Gresham’s Law: A Product of Market Distortion

Gresham’s Law, famously stated as:

"Bad money drives out good"

is only valid under coercive monetary conditions, specifically: - Legal tender laws that force the acceptance of inferior money at par with superior money. - Fixed exchange rates imposed by decree, not market valuation. - Governments or central banks backing elastic fiduciary media with promises of redemption. - Institutional structures that mandate debt and tax payments in the favored currency.

Under these conditions, superior money (hard money) is hoarded, while inferior money (soft, elastic, inflationary) circulates. This is not an expression of free market behavior—it is the result of suppressed price discovery and legal coercion.

Gresham’s Law, therefore, is not a natural law of money, but a law of distortion under forced parity and artificial elasticity.

III. The Collapse of Coercion: Inversion of Gresham’s Law

When coercive structures weaken or are bypassed—through technological exit, jurisdictional arbitrage, monetary breakdown, or political disintegration—Gresham’s Law inverts:

Good money drives out bad.

This occurs because: - Market actors regain the freedom to select money based on utility, scarcity, and credibility. - Legal parity collapses, exposing the true economic hierarchy of monetary forms. - Trustless systems (e.g., Bitcoin) or superior digital instruments (e.g., stablecoins) offer better settlement, security, and durability. - Elastic fiduciary media become undesirable as counterparty risk and inflation rise.

The inversion marks a return to monetary natural selection—not a breakdown of Gresham’s Law, but the collapse of its preconditions.

IV. Elasticity and Control

Elastic fiduciary media (like fiat currency) are not intrinsically evil. They are tools of state finance and debt management, enabling rapid expansion of credit and liquidity. However, when their issuance is unconstrained, and legal tender laws force their use, they become weapons of economic coercion.

Banks issue credit unconstrained by real savings, and governments enforce the use of inflated media through taxation and courts. This distorts capital allocation, devalues productive labor, and ultimately hollows out monetary confidence.

V. Monetary Reversion: The Return of Hard Money

When the coercion ends—whether gradually or suddenly—the monetary system reverts. The preferences of the productive and wealthy reassert themselves:

• Superior money is not just saved—it begins to circulate.
• Weaker currencies are rejected not just for savings, but for daily exchange.
• The hoarded form becomes the traded form, and Gresham’s Law inverts completely.

Bitcoin, gold, and even highly credible stable instruments begin to function as true money, not just stores of value. The natural monetary order returns, and the State becomes a late participant, not the originator of monetary reality.

VI. Conclusion

Gresham’s Law operates only under distortion. Its inversion is not an anomaly—it is a signal of the collapse of coercion. The monetary system then reorganizes around productive preference, technological efficiency, and economic sovereignty.

The most efficient market will always dictate the form of hard money. The State can delay this reckoning through legal force, but it cannot prevent it indefinitely. Once free choice returns, bad money dies, and good money lives again.

@ 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

@ cae03c48:2a7d6671

Bitcoin Magazine

🔴 LIVE: The Bitcoin Conference 2025 – Day 1

The liveblog has ended.

No liveblog updates yet.

Load more

This post 🔴 LIVE: The Bitcoin Conference 2025 – Day 1 first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Bitcoin Magazine.

@ 94e2c22d:d50b08a3

Night photography opens up a whole new dimension of creativity—and with a bit of know-how, your camera becomes a tool for painting with light. Whether you're a curious beginner or looking to refine your technique, these 12 practical tips will help you get started on the right foot. From gear choices to artistic mindset, here’s what you need to know.

1. Know Your Gear – Learn how to operate your camera in complete darkness. You should be comfortable using settings like ISO, aperture, and manual focus without relying on the display.

2. Understand Exposure – Manual settings are crucial. Use low ISO for noise reduction and long exposure times to capture light trails. A tripod is essential for stability.

3. Experiment and Learn – Review your images critically and learn from mistakes. Every attempt offers an opportunity to refine your technique.

4. Avoid Gear Obsession – You don’t need the latest camera. Even basic models can produce impressive results with the right approach.

5. Pack Light – Carry minimal equipment to stay flexible and creative. Too many tools can hinder spontaneity.

6. Use Prime Lenses – Fixed focal length lenses often deliver better quality and let in more light. They also force you to think more about composition.

7. Create Images on Site – Aim to achieve effects in-camera, not later through editing. This improves your skills and leads to more authentic outcomes.

8. See It as a Journey – Be patient and enjoy the process. Your artistic voice will develop over time.

9. Set Goals – Give yourself creative challenges or themes to stay motivated.

10. Plan Your Shoots – Research your location and check weather and moonlight conditions in advance. This minimizes wasted time and frustration.

11. Get Inspired by Others – Study the work of other light painters or night photographers. Join communities to share experiences and gather new ideas.

12. Question the Rules – Creativity often involves breaking away from norms. Don’t be afraid to try unconventional techniques or styles.

Night photography and light painting are not just technical exercises—they're a playful exploration of light, time, and creativity. Don’t stress about perfection. Instead, enjoy the process, embrace the learning curve, and let your imagination run wild. With a bit of patience and these tips in your toolkit, you're well on your way to capturing the magic of the light at night.

Picture created by: Kim Von Coels / Model: Mafu Fuma

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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

@ a0e937b7:50db609a

Because we are not merely addicted to #Narrativium: It is our drive, imbued into our very essence. And it is so much easier to absorb our daily dose from the billions of trickles provided by everyone else as a substitute drug #Gossipium, or temporarily saturate our unquenchable thirst by just giving in to the temptation by the incessable stream of Movies and Series providing #Fictionium than it is to find a properly satisfying Source Of Narrativium (acronymize that 😉), let alone create our own Narrativium that might even be worthy of sharing. And yet, there is so much more fulfilment possible by letting one's creativity work instead of merely using a "share" button - which briefly seems to trick the human brain into believing that one has actually participated in providing one's peers with proper Narrativium, possibly as part of an implicit social contract: "I give you all some Narrativium I found, now give me more in return". It is such a trivial action to take, even more effortless than gossiping. But let's be honest, it often just feels hollow. And even when we write something, it is again tempting to just create #Rantium instead of something actually useful.

Gossypium herbaceum, the cotton plant (Photo by H. Zell from Wikipedia)

Originally I merely wanted to post a witty quote from https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Narrativium about Narrativium on Facebook:

"Humans add narrativium to their world. They insist on interpreting the universe as if it's telling a story. This leads them to focus on facts that fit the story, while ignoring those that don't." - T. Pratchett, I. Steward, J. Cohen, The Science of Discworld I

Maybe even subtly allude to how that might explain quite a lot about the everyday insanity that seems to surround us, especially these days.

"We are not Homo sapiens, Wise Man. We are the third chimpanzee. [...] We are Pan narrans, the storytelling ape. [...] if you understand the power of story, and learn to detect abuses of it, you might actually deserve the appellation Homo sapiens." - T. Pratchett, I. Steward, J. Cohen, The Science of Discworld II

Really. I was just going to quote a bit and go on about my day with some meaningless procrastination. Why already bother with housework when I can delay that until tomorrow or the day after and just watch some series in the Arrowverse now? But after ten minutes of a Legends of Tomorrow episode called "Lucha de Apuestas", curiosity got the better of me. What is it with Luchadores and their masks, I mockingly wondered. So I read Wikipedia on it. Lots of culture, history and, most importantly to me, Narrativium. I probably couldn't care less for to guys bumping fists on a stage, I don't really care about watching any sports either. But there's a certain fascination to stories, isn't there? So I felt like sharing about Narrativium, and here we are.

—

That's it for now, I might keep writing on this. One day. Just as I keep continuing writing everything else I start. Not. Well, motivate me.

@ 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

@ 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

@ cae03c48:2a7d6671

Bitcoin Magazine

Cake Wallet Introduces PayJoin v2, Increasing Bitcoin Privacy For The Masses

Cake Wallet, a non-custodial open-source wallet for cryptocurrencies, has officially launched PayJoin v2, becoming the first major mobile wallet to offer Bitcoin silent payments to everyday users. 

This integration introduces a protocol upgrade that disrupts blockchain surveillance by mixing transaction inputs from both the sender and receiver, undermining the common blockchain surveillance techniques chain analysts typically rely on. 

JUST LAUNCHED: Cake Wallet v4.28.0 brings Bitcoin Payjoin v2!

• No need for both parties to be online
• No server required
• Just a few taps in your wallet

It's that simple Update Cake Wallet to try it out! pic.twitter.com/IjOccnBYy7

— Cake Wallet (@cakewallet) May 19, 2025

“Bitcoin is open and permissionless — but without privacy, it’s a surveillance tool,” said Vikrant Sharma, CEO of Cake Wallet in a recent press release sent to Bitcoin Magazine. “This upgrade gives everyday users the ability to transact privately, without needing to be online or run a server.”

Cake Wallet’s implementation removes the limitation of requiring both parties to be online or run a server to coordinate a transaction. Users can now send or receive Bitcoin through asynchronous, serverless PayJoin transactions—no Tor, no apps, no advanced configuration. 

“This makes Bitcoin privacy accessible to people who aren’t developers or hardcore cypherpunks,” said Sharma. “We’ve seen huge progress with Monero privacy tools. Now, Bitcoin users can take a step towards privacy as well, built right into a mainstream wallet.”

This announcement follows closely on the heels of another major privacy upgrade: Cake Wallet recently became one of the first major wallets to support Silent Payments, allowing users to receive Bitcoin without exposing a reusable address. 

This post Cake Wallet Introduces PayJoin v2, Increasing Bitcoin Privacy For The Masses first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Jenna Montgomery.

@ 0c65eba8:4a08ef9a

Most people assume that the future will look like the present, just more of it. That’s why they get blindsided. Ideas and events that seemed “unthinkable” yesterday often become the norm tomorrow. The end of slavery, universal suffrage, legal equality for women, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the legalization of gay marriage, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the mass adoption of smartphones, and even the outbreak of world wars, none of these were considered likely or even possible by the majority until they were already happening.

Why does this happen? Because what drives large-scale change isn't today's opinions or moral sentiments. It's shifting incentives.

When people change their minds at scale, it's not because everyone suddenly found a better argument. It's because the costs and rewards of holding their previous views changed. Incentives shifted. And when incentives shift, behavior follows. Belief is downstream of necessity.

We have been going in a particular direction for over a century now, a direction increasingly out of alignment with Natural Law. Liberalization, moral relativism, and institutional centralization have undermined the evolutionary constraints that sustain functional cooperation. As the distance from a Natural Law equilibrium grows, so do the costs. The pressure to restore reciprocity, sovereignty, and truth builds beneath the surface.

And this buildup doesn't continue indefinitely. It snaps. When it does, the pendulum swings hard in the other direction. Just as many societal liberalizations once seemed impossible until they occurred, many of the restorations and clawbacks now deemed unthinkable will appear inevitable in hindsight.

This is not a matter of nostalgia or ideology, it’s a matter of survival. Restoration of traditional values aligned with Natural Law will happen, not because it is wanted by all, but because it will become necessary for continued cooperation and survival.

That’s why instead of guessing what the future holds based on what feels right today, we can calculate what is likely based on Natural Law.

Natural Law isn’t a philosophy, it’s a description of the rules that govern cooperation and conflict. It defines the pressures, constraints, and evolutionary incentives that force people to adapt. And it shows how those pressures produce large-scale changes in thought, behavior, and institutions.

That’s the common-language version. But to really understand why this works, and why most predictions fail, we need to move from intuition to computation. We need a scientific grammar of change.

Understanding Natural Law and Its Predictive Power:

Natural Law is a framework developed and refined by Curt Doolittle and a collaborative body of thinkers at the Natural Law Institute. It is not a philosophy or ideology, but a scientific system that explains how incentives shape human cooperation, belief, and institutional stability over time.

This explanation draws on the key principles of Natural Law to clarify why seemingly impossible cultural reversals become inevitable. For more, seek out and follow the Natural Law Institute and Curt Doolittle.

1. First Principle: All human behavior is reducible to acquisition under constraint. Constraints are physical, biological, and institutional.

2. Causal Chain: Beliefs are not causes; they are consequences. What people consider “possible” or “acceptable” is a strategy for surviving current incentive structures. When those structures change, beliefs change.

3. Decidability: Natural Law operationalizes this by providing a decidable, commensurable, and testifiable logic of human cooperation. It identifies invariant incentives and maps them across scales: individual, institutional, and civilizational.

4. Prediction: Prediction is not sentiment or analogy, it is adversarial computation over time. What is inconceivable today becomes obvious tomorrow because people adapt to pressures, not principles.

5. Conclusion: Therefore, we reject moral intuitionism and ideological forecasting. We use Natural Law to trace changes in cooperation and conflict as evolutionary computation. It allows us to model not what people believe, but what they must do to survive within new equilibria of constraint.

Final Thoughts:

Most people attempt to forecast the future using moral intuitions, wishful thinking, ideological narratives, or historical analogies. These methods are little more than guesswork, prophecies dressed up as analysis. They offer comfort, not clarity.

Natural Law offers something different: a method of calculation. A system of first principles, constraints, and causal chains that can be used to project outcomes and identify the likely direction of change. Whether you are a father making long-term decisions for your family, an entrepreneur allocating resources, a CEO steering a corporation, or a statesman crafting policy, Natural Law gives you the tools to understand what pressures are building, what constraints are shifting, and what behaviors will be necessary in the near future.

You don’t need to master every element of Natural Law to benefit from it. That’s what the Natural Law Institute is for. If you have strategic questions, if you are responsible for people, capital, or institutions, reach out. We will help you identify your opportunities, clarify your risks, and calculate the range of outcomes you need to prepare for.

Contact us directly or engage with us online. We exist to make the future decidable.

Noah Revoy Senior Fellow at the Natural Law Institute Natural Law Applied Psychology

@ 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.

@ 9cb3545c:2ff47bca

Introduction

Public companies that hold Bitcoin on behalf of investors (often issuing securities backed by those Bitcoin holdings) have faced growing pressure to demonstrate proof of reserves – evidence that they genuinely hold the cryptocurrency they claim. One approach is to publish the company’s Bitcoin wallet addresses so that anyone can verify the balances on the blockchain. This practice gained momentum after high-profile crypto collapses (e.g. FTX in 2022) eroded trust, leading major exchanges and fund issuers like Binance, Kraken, OKX, and Bitwise to publicize wallet addresses as proof of assets . The goal is transparency and reassurance for investors. However, making wallet addresses public comes with significant security and privacy risks. This report examines those risks – from cybersecurity threats and blockchain tracing to regulatory and reputational implications – and weighs them against the transparency benefits of on-chain proof of reserves.

Proof of Reserves via Public Wallet Addresses

In the cryptocurrency ethos of “don’t trust – verify,” on-chain proof of reserves is seen as a powerful tool. By disclosing wallet addresses (or cryptographic attestations of balances), a company lets investors and analysts independently verify that the Bitcoin reserves exist on-chain. For example, some firms have dashboards showing their addresses and balances in real time . In theory, this transparency builds trust by proving assets are not being misreported or misused. Shareholders gain confidence that the company’s Bitcoin holdings are intact, potentially preventing fraud or mismanagement.

Yet this approach essentially sacrifices the pseudonymity of blockchain transactions. Publishing a wallet address ties a large, known institution to specific on-chain funds. While Bitcoin addresses are public by design, most companies treat their specific addresses as sensitive information. Public proof-of-reserve disclosures break that anonymity, raising several concerns as detailed below.

Cybersecurity Threats from Visible Wallet Balances

Revealing a wallet address with a large balance can make a company a prime target for hackers and cybercriminals. Knowing exactly where significant reserves are held gives attackers a clear blueprint. As Bitcoin advocate (and MicroStrategy Executive Chairman) Michael Saylor warned in 2025, “publicly known wallet addresses become prime targets for malicious actors. Knowing where significant reserves are held provides hackers with a clear target, potentially increasing the risk of sophisticated attacks” . In other words, publishing the address increases the attack surface – attackers might intensify phishing campaigns, malware deployment, or insider bribery aimed at obtaining the keys or access to those wallets.

Even if the wallets are secured in cold storage, a public address advertisement may encourage attempts to penetrate the organization’s security. Custodians and partners could also be targeted. Saylor noted that this exposure isn’t just risky for the company holding the Bitcoin; it can indirectly put their custodial providers and related exchanges at risk as well . For instance, if a third-party custodian manages the wallets, hackers might attempt to breach that custodian knowing the reward (the company’s Bitcoin) is great.

Companies themselves have acknowledged these dangers. Grayscale Investments, which runs the large Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC), pointedly refused to publish its wallet addresses in late 2022, citing “security concerns” and complex custody arrangements that have “kept our investors’ assets safe for years” . Grayscale implied that revealing on-chain addresses could undermine those security measures, and it chose not to “circumvent complex security arrangements” just to appease public demand . This highlights a key point: corporate treasury security protocols often assume wallet details remain confidential. Publicizing them could invalidate certain assumptions (for example, if an address was meant to be operationally secret, it can no longer serve that role once exposed).

Additionally, a publicly known trove of cryptocurrency might invite physical security threats. While not a purely “cyber” issue, if criminals know a particular company or facility controls a wallet with, say, thousands of Bitcoin, it could lead to threats against personnel (extortion or coercion to obtain keys). This is a less common scenario for large institutions (which typically have robust physical security), but smaller companies or key individuals could face elevated personal risk by being associated with huge visible crypto reserves.

In summary, cybersecurity experts consider public proof-of-reserve addresses a double-edged sword: transparency comes at the cost of advertising exactly where a fortune is held. As Saylor bluntly put it, “the conventional way of issuing proof of reserves today is actually insecure… This method undermines the security of the issuer, the custodian, the exchanges and the investors. This is not a good idea”  . From a pure security standpoint, broadcasting your wallets is akin to drawing a bullseye on them.

Privacy Risks: Address Clustering and Blockchain Tracing

Blockchain data is public, so publishing addresses opens the door to unwanted analytics and loss of privacy for the business. Even without knowing the private keys, analysts can scrutinize every transaction in and out of those addresses. This enables address clustering – linking together addresses that interact – and other forms of blockchain forensics that can reveal sensitive information about the company’s activities.

One immediate risk is that observers can track the company’s transaction patterns. For example, if the company moves Bitcoin from its reserve address to an exchange or to another address, that move is visible in real time. Competitors, investors, or even attackers could deduce strategic information: perhaps the company is planning to sell (if coins go to an exchange wallet) or is reallocating funds. A known institution’s on-chain movements can thus “reveal strategic movements or holdings”, eroding the company’s operational privacy . In a volatile market, advance knowledge of a large buy or sell by a major player could even be exploited by others (front-running the market, etc.).

Publishing one or a few static addresses also violates a basic privacy principle of Bitcoin: address reuse. Best practice in Bitcoin is to use a fresh address for each transaction to avoid linking them  . If a company continuously uses the same “proof of reserve” address, all counterparties sending funds to or receiving funds from that address become visible. Observers could map out the company’s business relationships or vendors by analyzing counterparties. A Reddit user commenting on an ETF that published a single address noted that “reusing a single address for this makes me question their risk management… There are much better and more privacy-preserving ways to prove reserves… without throwing everything in a single public address” . In other words, a naive implementation of proof-of-reserve (one big address) maximizes privacy leakage.

Even if multiple addresses are used, if they are all disclosed, one can perform clustering analysis to find connections. This happened in the Grayscale case: although Grayscale would not confirm any addresses, community analysts traced and identified 432 addresses likely belonging to GBTC’s custodial holdings by following on-chain traces from known intermediary accounts . They managed to attribute roughly 317,705 BTC (about half of GBTC’s holdings) to those addresses . This demonstrates that even partial information can enable clustering – and if the company directly published addresses, the task becomes even easier to map the entirety of its on-chain asset base.

Another threat vector is “dusting” attacks, which become more feasible when an address is publicly known. In a dusting attack, an adversary sends a tiny amount of cryptocurrency (dust) to a target address. The dust itself is harmless, but if the target address ever spends that dust together with other funds, it can cryptographically link the target address to other addresses in the same wallet. Blockchain security researchers note that “with UTXO-based assets, an attacker could distribute dust to an address to reveal the owner’s other addresses by tracking the dust’s movement… If the owner unknowingly combines this dust with their funds in a transaction, the attacker can… link multiple addresses to a single owner”, compromising privacy . A company that publishes a list of reserve addresses could be systematically dusted by malicious actors attempting to map out all addresses under the company’s control. This could unmask cold wallet addresses that the company never intended to publicize, further eroding its privacy and security.

Investor confidentiality is another subtle concern. If the business model involves individual investor accounts or contributions (for instance, a trust where investors can deposit or withdraw Bitcoin), public addresses might expose those movements. An outside observer might not know which investor corresponds to a transaction, but unusual inflows/outflows could signal actions by big clients. In extreme cases, if an investor’s own wallet is known (say a large investor announces their involvement), one might link that to transactions in the company’s reserve addresses. This could inadvertently reveal an investor’s activities or holdings, breaching expectations of confidentiality. Even absent direct identification, some investors might simply be uncomfortable with their transactions being part of a publicly traceable ledger tied to the company.

In summary, publishing reserve addresses facilitates blockchain tracing that can pierce the veil of business privacy. It hands analysts the keys to observe how funds move, potentially exposing operational strategies, counterparties, and internal processes. As one industry publication noted, linking a large known institution to specific addresses can compromise privacy and reveal more than intended . Companies must consider whether they are ready for that level of transparency into their every on-chain move.

Regulatory and Compliance Implications

From a regulatory perspective, wallet address disclosure lies in uncharted territory, but it raises several flags. First and foremost is the issue of incomplete information: A wallet address only shows assets, not the company’s liabilities or other obligations. Regulators worry that touting on-chain holdings could give a false sense of security. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has cautioned investors to “not place too much confidence in the mere fact a company says it’s got a proof-of-reserves”, noting that such reports “lack sufficient information” for stakeholders to ascertain if liabilities can be met . In other words, a public company might show a big Bitcoin address balance, but if it has debts or customer liabilities of equal or greater value, the proof-of-reserve alone is “not necessarily an indicator that the company is in a good financial position” .

This regulatory stance implies that address disclosure, if done, must be paired with proper context. A public company would likely need to clarify in its financial statements or investor communications that on-chain reserves are unencumbered (not pledged as loan collateral, not already sold forward, etc.) and that total liabilities are accounted for. Otherwise, there’s a risk of misleading investors, which could have legal consequences. For example, if investors interpret the on-chain balance as proof of solvency but the company actually had leveraged those bitcoins for loans, lawsuits or regulatory enforcement could follow for misrepresentation.

There’s also a compliance burden associated with revealing addresses. Once an address is known to be the company’s, that company effectively must monitor all transactions related to it. If someone sends funds to that address (even without permission), the company might receive tainted coins (from hacked sources or sanctioned entities). This could trigger anti-money laundering (AML) red flags. Normally, compliance teams can ignore random deposits to unknown wallets, but they cannot ignore something sent into their publicly identified corporate wallet. Even a tiny dust amount sent from a blacklisted address could complicate compliance – for instance, the company would need to prove it has no relation to the sender and perhaps even avoid moving those tainted outputs. Being in the open increases such exposure. Threat actors might even exploit this by “poisoning” a company’s address with unwanted transactions, just to create regulatory headaches or reputational smears.

Another consideration is that custodial agreements and internal risk controls might forbid public disclosure of addresses. Many public companies use third-party custodians for their Bitcoin (for example, Coinbase Custody, BitGo, etc.). These custodians often treat wallet details as confidential for security. Grayscale noted that its Bitcoin are custodied on Coinbase and implied that revealing on-chain info would interfere with security arrangements  . It’s possible that some custodians would object to their clients broadcasting addresses, or might require additional assurances. A company going against such advice might be seen as negligent if something went wrong.

Regulators have so far not mandated on-chain proofs for public companies – in fact, recent laws have exempted public companies from proof-of-reserve mandates on the assumption they are already subject to rigorous SEC reporting. For example, a Texas bill in 2023 required crypto exchanges and custodians to provide quarterly proof-of-reserves to the state, but it “specifically carved out public reporting companies” since they already file audited financials with the SEC . The rationale was that between SEC filings and audits, public companies have oversight that private crypto firms lack . However, this also highlights a gap: even audited financials might not verify 100% of crypto assets (auditors often sample balances). Some observers noted that standard audits “may not ever include the 100% custodial asset testing contemplated by proof of reserves”, especially since quarterly SEC filings (10-Q) are often not audited . This puts public companies in a nuanced position – they are trusted to use traditional audits and internal controls, but the onus is on them if they choose to add extra transparency like on-chain proofs.

Finally, securities regulators focus on fair disclosure and accuracy. If a company publicly posts addresses, those essentially become investor disclosures subject to anti-fraud rules. The firm must keep them up to date and accurate. Any mistake (such as publishing a wrong address or failing to mention that some coins are locked up or lent out) could attract regulatory scrutiny for being misleading. In contrast, a formal audit or certification from a third-party comes with standards and disclaimers that are better understood by regulators. A self-published wallet list is an unprecedented form of disclosure that regulators haven’t fully vetted – meaning the company bears the risk if something is misinterpreted.

In summary, wallet address disclosure as proof-of-reserve must be handled very carefully to avoid regulatory pitfalls. The SEC and others have warned that on-chain assets alone don’t tell the whole story . Public companies would need to integrate such proofs with their official reporting in a responsible way – otherwise they risk confusion or even regulatory backlash for giving a false sense of security.

Reputational and Operational Risks

While transparency is meant to enhance reputation, in practice public wallet disclosures can create new reputational vulnerabilities. Once an address is public, a company’s every on-chain action is under the microscope of the crypto community and media. Any anomaly or perceived misstep can snowball into public relations problems.

One vivid example occurred with Crypto.com in late 2022. After the exchange published its cold wallet addresses to prove reserves (a move prompted by the FTX collapse), on-chain analysts quickly noticed a “suspicious transfer of 320,000 ETH” – about 82% of Crypto.com’s Ether reserves – moving from their cold wallet to another exchange (Gate.io)  . This large, unexpected transfer sparked immediate panic and FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) on social media. Observers speculated that Crypto.com might be insolvent or was manipulating snapshots of reserves by borrowing funds. The CEO had to publicly respond, admitting it was an operational error – the ETH was supposed to go to a new cold storage address but ended up at a whitelisted external address by mistake . The funds were eventually returned, but not before reputational damage was done: the incident made headlines about mishandled funds and rattled user confidence  . This case illustrates how full public visibility can turn an internal slip-up into a highly public crisis. If the addresses had not been public, the mistake might have been quietly corrected; with on-chain transparency, there was nowhere to hide and no way to control the narrative before the public drew worst-case conclusions.

Even routine operations can be misinterpreted. Blockchain data lacks context – analysts may jump to conclusions that hurt a company’s reputation even if nothing is actually wrong. For instance, Binance (the world’s largest crypto exchange) encountered scrutiny when on-chain observers noted that one of its reserve wallets (labeled “Binance 8”) contained far more assets than it should have. This wallet was meant to hold collateral for Binance’s issued tokens, but held an excess balance, suggesting possible commingling of customer funds with collateral  . Bloomberg and others reported a ~$12.7 billion discrepancy visible on-chain . Binance had to acknowledge the issue as a “clerical error” and quickly separate the funds, all under the glare of public attention  . While Binance maintained that user assets were fully backed and the mistake was purely operational, the episode raised public concern over Binance’s practices, feeding a narrative that even the largest exchange had internal control lapses. The key point is that public proof-of-reserves made the lapse obvious to everyone, forcing a reactive explanation. The reputational hit (even if temporary) was an operational risk of being so transparent.

Additionally, strategic confidentiality is lost. If a company holding Bitcoin as a reserve asset decides to make a major move (say, reallocating to a different wallet, or using some Bitcoin for a strategic investment or loan), doing so with known addresses broadcasts that strategy. Competitors or market analysts can infer things like “Company X is moving 10% of its BTC — why? Are they selling? Hedging? Using it as collateral?” This can erode any competitive advantage of keeping financial strategies discreet. It might even affect the company’s stock price if investors interpret moves negatively. For example, if a blockchain analysis shows the company’s reserves dropping, shareholders might fear the company sold Bitcoin (perhaps due to financial distress), even if the reality is benign (like moving funds to a new custodian). The company would be forced into continuous public explanation of on-chain actions to prevent misunderstanding.

There’s also a risk of exposing business partnerships. Suppose the company uses certain exchanges or OTC desks to rebalance its holdings – transactions with those service providers will be visible and could link the company to them. If one of those partners has issues (say a hacked exchange or a sanctioned entity inadvertently), the company could be reputationally contaminated by association through the blockchain trail.

Finally, not all publicity is good publicity in the crypto world. A public proof-of-reserve might invite armchair auditors to scrutinize and criticize every aspect of the company’s crypto management. Minor issues could be blown out of proportion. On the flip side, if a company chooses not to publish addresses, it could face reputational risk from a different angle: skeptics might question why it isn’t being transparent. (Indeed, Grayscale’s refusal to disclose wallet addresses led to social media chatter about whether they truly held all the Bitcoin they claimed, contributing to investor nervousness and a steep discount on GBTC shares .) Thus, companies are in a delicate spot: share too much and every move invites scrutiny; share too little and you breed distrust.

Balancing Transparency Benefits vs. Risks

The central question is whether the benefit of proving reserve holdings to investors outweighs these security and privacy risks. It’s a classic risk-reward calculation, and opinions in the industry are divided.

On the side of transparency, many argue that the credibility and trust gained by proof-of-reserves is invaluable. Advocates note that Bitcoin was designed for open verification – “on-chain auditability and permissionless transparency” are core features . By embracing this, companies demonstrate they are good stewards of a “trustless” asset. In fact, some believe public companies have a duty to be extra transparent. A recent Nasdaq report contended that “when a publicly traded company holds Bitcoin but offers no visibility into how that Bitcoin is held or verified, it exposes itself to multiple levels of risk: legal, reputational, operational, and strategic”, undermining trust . In that view, opacity is riskier in the long run – a lack of proof could weaken investor confidence or invite regulatory suspicion. Shareholders and analysts may actually penalize a company that refuses to provide verifiable proof of its crypto assets .

Transparency done right can also differentiate a firm as a leader in governance. Publishing reserve data (whether via addresses or through third-party attestations) can be seen as a commitment to high standards. For example, Metaplanet, an investment firm, publicly discloses its BTC reserve addresses and even provides a live dashboard for anyone to verify balances . This proactive openness signals confidence and has been touted as an industry best practice in some quarters. By proving its reserves, a company can potentially avoid the fate of those that lost public trust (as happened with opaque crypto firms in 2022). It’s also a means to preempt false rumors – if data is out in the open, misinformation has less room to grow.

However, the pro-transparency camp increasingly acknowledges that there are smarter ways to achieve trust without courting all the risks. One compromise is using cryptographic proofs or audits instead of plain address dumps. For instance, exchanges like Kraken have implemented Merkle tree proof-of-reserves: an independent auditor verifies all customer balances on-chain and provides a cryptographic report, and customers can individually verify their account is included without the exchange revealing every address publicly. This method proves solvency to those who need to know without handing over a complete roadmap to attackers. Another emerging solution is zero-knowledge proofs, where a company can prove knowledge or ownership of certain assets without revealing the addresses or amounts to the public. These technologies are still maturing, but they aim to deliver the best of both worlds: transparency and privacy.

On the side of caution, many experts believe the risks of full public disclosure outweigh the incremental gain in transparency, especially for regulated public companies. Michael Saylor encapsulates this viewpoint: he calls on-chain proof-of-reserve “a bad idea” for institutions, arguing that it “offers one-way transparency” (assets only) and “leaves organizations open to cyberattacks” . He stresses that no serious security expert would advise a Fortune 500 company to list all its wallet addresses, as it essentially compromises corporate security over time . Saylor and others also point out the pointlessness of an assets-only proof: unless you also prove liabilities, showing off reserves might even be dangerous because it could lull investors into a false sense of security .

Regulators and traditional auditors echo this: proof-of-reserves, while a useful tool, “is not enough by itself” to guarantee financial health . They advocate for holistic transparency – audits that consider internal controls, liabilities, and legal obligations, not just a snapshot of a blockchain address  . From this perspective, a public company can satisfy transparency demands through rigorous third-party audits and disclosures rather than raw on-chain data. Indeed, public companies are legally bound to extensive reporting; adding public crypto addresses on top may be seen as redundant and risky.

There is also an implicit cost-benefit analysis: A successful attack resulting from over-sharing could be catastrophic (loss of funds, legal liability, reputational ruin), whereas the benefit of public proof is somewhat intangible (improved investor sentiment, which might be achieved via other assurance methods anyway). Given that trade-off, many firms err on the side of caution. As evidence, few if any U.S.-listed companies that hold Bitcoin have published their wallet addresses. Instead, they reference independent custodians and audits for assurance. Even crypto-native companies have pulled back on full transparency after realizing the downsides – for example, some auditing firms halted issuing proof-of-reserves reports due to concerns about how they were interpreted and the liability involved  .

Industry best practices are still evolving. A prudent approach gaining favor is to prove reserves without leaking sensitive details. This can involve disclosing total balances and having an auditor or blockchain oracle confirm the assets exist, but without listing every address publicly. Companies are also encouraged to disclose encumbrances (whether any of the reserves are collateralized or lent out) in tandem, to address the liabilities issue . By doing so, they aim to achieve transparency and maintain security.

In evaluating whether to publish wallet addresses, a company must ask: Will this level of openness meaningfully increase stakeholder trust, or would a more controlled disclosure achieve the same goal with less risk? For many public companies, the answer has been to avoid public addresses. The risks – from attracting hackers to revealing strategic moves – tend to outweigh the marginal transparency benefit in their judgment. The collapse of unregulated exchanges has certainly proven the value of reserve verification, but public companies operate in a different context with audits and legal accountability. Thus, the optimal solution may be a middle ground: proving reserves through vetted processes (auditor attestations, cryptographic proofs) that satisfy investor needs without blatantly exposing the company’s financial backend to the world.

Conclusion

Publishing Bitcoin wallet addresses as proof of reserves is a bold transparency measure – one that speaks to crypto’s ideals of open verification – but it comes with a laundry list of security considerations. Public companies weighing this approach must contend with the heightened cybersecurity threat of advertising their treasure troves to hackers, the loss of privacy and confidentiality as on-chain sleuths dissect their every transaction, and potential regulatory complications if such disclosures are misunderstood or incomplete. Real-world incidents illustrate the downsides: firms that revealed addresses have seen how quickly online communities flag (and sometimes misinterpret) their blockchain moves, causing reputational turbulence and forcing rapid damage control  .

On the other hand, proving reserves to investors is important – it can prevent fraud and bolster trust. The question is how to achieve it without incurring unacceptable risk. Many experts and industry leaders lean towards the view that simply publishing wallet addresses is too risky a method, especially for public companies with much to lose  . The risks often do outweigh the direct benefits in such cases. Transparency remains crucial, but it can be provided in safer ways – through regular audits, cryptographic proofs that don’t expose all wallet details, and comprehensive disclosures that include liabilities and controls.

In conclusion, while on-chain proof of reserves via public addresses offers a tantalizing level of openness, it must be approached with extreme caution. For most public companies, the smart strategy is to balance transparency with security: verify and show investors that assets exist and are sufficient, but do so in a controlled manner that doesn’t compromise the very assets you’re trying to protect. As the industry matures, we can expect more refined proof-of-reserve practices that satisfy the demand for honesty and solvency verification without unduly endangering the enterprise. Until then, companies will continue to tread carefully, mindful that transparency is only truly valuable when it doesn’t come at the price of security and trust.

Sources:

•   Grayscale statement on refusal to share on-chain proof-of-reserves 
•   Community analysis identifying Grayscale’s wallet addresses 
•   Cointelegraph – Crypto.com’s mistaken 320k ETH transfer spotted via on-chain proof-of-reserves  
•   Axios – Binance wallet “commingling” error observed on-chain  
•   Michael Saylor’s remarks on security risks of publishing wallet addresses   
•   SEC Acting Chief Accountant on limitations of proof-of-reserves reports 
•   Nasdaq (Bitcoin for Corporations) – argument for corporate transparency & proof-of-reserves   
•   1inch Security Blog – explanation of dusting attacks and privacy loss via address linking 

@ 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/

@ 90c656ff:9383fd4e

Since its creation, Bitcoin has been a revolutionary asset, challenging the traditional financial system and proposing a new form of decentralized money. However, its future remains uncertain and the subject of intense debate. Among the possible outcomes, two extreme scenarios stand out: hyperbitcoinization-where Bitcoin becomes the dominant currency in the global economy—and obsolescence, where the network loses relevance and is replaced by other solutions.

• Hyperbitcoinization: The World Adopts Bitcoin as a Monetary Standard

01 - Loss of trust in fiat currencies: Due to excessive money printing by central banks, many economies face rampant inflation. Bitcoin, with its fixed supply of 21 million units, emerges as a more trustworthy alternative.

02 - Growing adoption by companies and governments: Some countries have already begun integrating Bitcoin into their economies, accepting it for payments and as a store of value. If this trend continues, Bitcoin’s legitimacy as a global currency will grow.

03 - Ease of global transactions: Bitcoin enables fast and low-cost international transfers, removing the need for financial intermediaries and reducing operational costs.

04 - Technological advancements: Scalability improvements, such as the Lightning Network, can make Bitcoin more efficient for daily use, encouraging mass adoption.

If hyperbitcoinization becomes reality, the world may witness a radical shift in the financial system—with greater decentralization, censorship resistance, and an economy based on sound, predictable money.

• Obsolescence: Bitcoin Loses Relevance and Is Replaced

01 - Restrictive government regulations: If major economic powers enforce strict regulations on Bitcoin, adoption could slow, reducing its utility.

02 - Technological shortcomings or lack of innovation: Despite its security and decentralization, Bitcoin may struggle to scale effectively. If superior solutions emerge and gain acceptance, Bitcoin could lose its leading position.

03 - Competition from faster, more user-friendly alternatives: Other forms of digital money may surpass Bitcoin in scalability and usability, potentially leading to a decline in Bitcoin adoption.

04 - Decreasing miner incentives: As new Bitcoin issuance halves every four years, miners will rely increasingly on transaction fees. If those fees are insufficient to sustain network security, long-term viability could be at risk.

In summary, Bitcoin’s future could unfold along multiple paths, depending on factors like innovation, global adoption, and resilience to external challenges. Hyperbitcoinization would represent an economic revolution—ushering in a decentralized, inflation-resistant monetary system. Yet, obsolescence remains a risk if the network fails to adapt to future demands. Regardless of the outcome, Bitcoin has already made its mark on financial history, paving the way for a new era of digital money and economic freedom.

Thank you very much for reading this far. I hope everything is well with you, and sending a big hug from your favorite Bitcoiner maximalist from Madeira. Long live freedom!

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ da8b7de1:c0164aee

Globális nukleáris reneszánsz és új kapacitások

A 2025-ös év a globális nukleáris energiaipar újabb lendületét hozza, amit a Nemzetközi Energiaügynökség (IEA) is megerősít: rekordtermelés várható, jelenleg több mint 70 GW új nukleáris kapacitás épül világszerte, és több mint 40 ország tervezi a nukleáris energia szerepének növelését az energiamixében. A világ számos pontján – Kínában, az Egyesült Államokban, Indiában, az Egyesült Arab Emírségekben és Franciaországban – új blokkok csatlakoznak a hálózatra, miközben nyolc új egység építése is elindult. A cél, hogy 2050-re a jelenlegi 416 GW globális nukleáris kapacitás meghaladja az 1000 GW-ot, ami elengedhetetlen a klímavédelmi és energiabiztonsági célok teljesítéséhez[vg.hu][paks2.hu].

SMR-ek: technológiai áttörés és globális terjeszkedés

A kis moduláris reaktorok (SMR) forradalmasíthatják az iparágat: ezek a kompakt, előregyártott, gyorsan telepíthető egységek különösen alkalmasak távoli területek energiaellátására, ipari hőtermelésre vagy akár tengervíz sótalanítására is. Az SMR-ek fejlesztése világszerte zajlik, az USA, Kína, Oroszország és Európa élen jár, de már több mint 17 országban terveznek ilyen létesítményeket. 2025 májusában Oroszország és Üzbegisztán történelmi megállapodást kötött hat RITM-200N típusú SMR építéséről, amely az első ilyen egység lesz Közép-Ázsiában. Az Egyesült Arab Emírségekben és az USA-ban is új SMR-projektek indulnak, például a Tennessee Valley Authority hivatalosan is engedélyt kért egy BWRX-300 típusú SMR-re a Clinch River telephelyen[makronom.eu][world-nuclear-news.org][nucnet.org].

Nukleáris üzemanyag-ellátás és ellátásbiztonság

Az orosz-ukrán háború és az ellátásbiztonsági kockázatok miatt Európában is felgyorsult az alternatív nukleáris üzemanyag-beszállítók keresése. Franciaországban az EDF, az Orano és az amerikai Westinghouse tárgyalásokat folytat egy új, nyugat-európai üzemanyag-feldolgozó létesítmény létrehozásáról, hogy csökkentsék az orosz függőséget. Az Európai Bizottság részletes útmutatót adott ki az orosz nukleáris technológiákról való leválásról, de a tagállamok jelentős készleteket halmoztak fel orosz üzemanyagból, mivel az azonnali leválás az energiabiztonságot veszélyeztetné[pakspress.hu][nucnet.org].

Technológiai innovációk és üzemanyagciklus-zárás

A gyorsneutronos reaktorok és a MOX-üzemanyag alkalmazása új távlatokat nyit a nukleáris hulladék mennyiségének és veszélyességének csökkentésében, valamint a földi uránkészletek hatékonyabb felhasználásában. Az orosz BN–800 gyorsreaktor már kizárólag kevert, urán-plutónium MOX-üzemanyagot használ, és folyamatban van a BN–1200 típusú egység fejlesztése is. Ezek a fejlesztések a zárt üzemanyagciklus megvalósítását célozzák, amely jelentősen csökkentheti a végleges elhelyezésre kerülő sugárzó hulladék mennyiségét és kezelési költségeit[vg.hu].

Nukleáris energia és digitális infrastruktúra

Az adatközpontok növekvő energiaigénye miatt egyre több technológiai vállalat fordul az atomenergia felé. Az amerikai Oklo és az RPower, valamint a Deep Fission és az Endeavour együttműködése révén föld alatti SMR-eket telepítenek adatközpontok energiaellátására. Ezek a projektek kiemelik a nukleáris energia szerepét a digitális infrastruktúra fenntartható működtetésében[nucnet.org].

Piaci kilátások és geopolitikai kihívások

A Cameco vezérigazgatója szerint a globális nukleáris keresletet nem befolyásolják jelentősen a kereskedelmi vagy geopolitikai feszültségek, mivel a reaktorokra világszerte szükség van, még magasabb költségek vagy vámok mellett is. A magántőke beáramlása, az új szabályozási reformok (pl. az USA-ban az ADVANCE törvény), valamint a nemzetközi együttműködések mind hozzájárulnak az iparág hosszú távú stabilitásához és bővüléséhez[world-nuclear-news.org][nucnet.org].

---

Források:

world-nuclear-news.org
nucnet.org
vg.hu
makronom.eu
paks2.hu
pakspress.hu

@ 90c656ff:9383fd4e

Since its creation, Bitcoin has been much more than just an alternative to traditional money. With the ongoing digitalization of the global economy, Bitcoin has emerged as a foundational pillar for new forms of transactions, commerce, and value storage. Its decentralization, transparency, and censorship resistance make it a solid base for digital economies, where financial interactions occur without the need for traditional intermediaries.

• Bitcoin’s role in the digital economy

01 - Global, borderless transactions: Anyone with internet access can send and receive Bitcoin without needing a bank or government authorization.

02 - Limited and predictable supply: Unlike fiat currencies that can be inflated by central banks, Bitcoin has a fixed cap of 21 million units, making it a scarce and reliable asset.

03 - Security and transparency: The Bitcoin blockchain or timechain publicly records all transactions, ensuring a secure and auditable system.

04 - Censorship resistance: No government or institution can block Bitcoin transactions, enabling a freer and more accessible digital economy.

With these characteristics, Bitcoin is already transforming various economic sectors and driving new forms of commerce and investment.

• Bitcoin in digital commerce and the global economy

01 - E-commerce: Businesses and consumers can use Bitcoin for fast international transactions without exorbitant fees.

02 - International remittances: Workers sending money to their home countries can avoid high fees and long delays by using Bitcoin.

03 - Emerging economies: In countries with unstable currencies and unreliable banking systems, Bitcoin serves as a secure and decentralized alternative for storing wealth and conducting daily transactions.

Additionally, Bitcoin is being adopted by companies and even governments as a store of value, reinforcing its role as a foundation for the digital economy of the future.

• Challenges and adapting to the new economy

01 - Price volatility: Bitcoin’s fluctuating value can make it difficult to use as a daily medium of exchange.

02 - Regulations and governmental resistance: Some countries attempt to restrict or regulate Bitcoin to maintain control over the traditional financial system.

03 - Education and adoption: Many people still lack the knowledge to use Bitcoin safely and effectively.

In summary, Bitcoin is transforming the way the world interacts with money, offering a decentralized and transparent alternative for digital economies. As more individuals and businesses adopt Bitcoin for payments, savings, and global commerce, its impact becomes increasingly clear. Despite the challenges, Bitcoin continues to solidify its place as the foundation of a new economic paradigm—where financial freedom and technological innovation go hand in hand.

Thank you very much for reading this far. I hope everything is well with you, and sending a big hug from your favorite Bitcoiner maximalist from Madeira. Long live freedom!

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued new guidance halting spending on most foreign aid grants for 90 days, including military assistance to Ukraine. This immediate order shocked State Department officials and mandates “stop-work orders” on nearly all existing foreign assistance awards.

While it allows exceptions for military financing to Egypt and Israel, as well as emergency food assistance, it restricts aid to key allies like Ukraine, Jordan, and Taiwan. The guidance raises potential liability risks for the government due to unfulfilled contracts.

A report will be prepared within 85 days to recommend which programs to continue or discontinue.

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

Chef's notes

arbitray

• test
• of
• chefs notes

hedding 2

Details

• ⏲️ Prep time: 20
• 🍳 Cook time: 1 hour
• 🍽️ Servings: 5

Ingredients

• Test ingredient
• 2nd test ingredient

Directions

1. Bake
2. Cool

@ 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

-

@ 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.

@ 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"

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

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

---

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

---

Der Schweizer Historiker Daniele Ganser startet eine Plakataktion. Auf Facebook schreibt er:

"Dieses Plakat habe ich ab heute an sechs Bahnhöfen in der Schweiz aufhängen lassen: Die Schweiz muss die Neutralität bewahren. Keine Zusammenarbeit mit der NATO!

Die Aktion läuft eine Woche. Das Plakat hängt in Basel (Gleis 5 und 7), Zürich (Gleis 9 und 12), Bern (Gleis 3 und 11), Luzern (Gleis 7 und 11), St. Gallen (Gleis 1 und 2) und Chur (Gleis 4 und Arosabahn).

Wenn jemand ein Plakat sieht und fotografiert und es mir per Email schickt freut mich das!

https://globalbridge.ch/die-schweiz-muss-die.../

Daniele Ganser kann man über folgende Seite kontaktieren.

---

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.

@ 6be5cc06:5259daf0

Bitcoin: Um sistema de dinheiro eletrônico direto entre pessoas.

Satoshi Nakamoto
satoshin@gmx.com
www.bitcoin.org

---

Resumo

O Bitcoin é uma forma de dinheiro digital que permite pagamentos diretos entre pessoas, sem a necessidade de um banco ou instituição financeira. Ele resolve um problema chamado gasto duplo, que ocorre quando alguém tenta gastar o mesmo dinheiro duas vezes. Para evitar isso, o Bitcoin usa uma rede descentralizada onde todos trabalham juntos para verificar e registrar as transações.

As transações são registradas em um livro público chamado blockchain, protegido por uma técnica chamada Prova de Trabalho. Essa técnica cria uma cadeia de registros que não pode ser alterada sem refazer todo o trabalho já feito. Essa cadeia é mantida pelos computadores que participam da rede, e a mais longa é considerada a verdadeira.

Enquanto a maior parte do poder computacional da rede for controlada por participantes honestos, o sistema continuará funcionando de forma segura. A rede é flexível, permitindo que qualquer pessoa entre ou saia a qualquer momento, sempre confiando na cadeia mais longa como prova do que aconteceu.

---

1. Introdução

Hoje, quase todos os pagamentos feitos pela internet dependem de bancos ou empresas como processadores de pagamento (cartões de crédito, por exemplo) para funcionar. Embora esse sistema seja útil, ele tem problemas importantes porque é baseado em confiança.

Primeiro, essas empresas podem reverter pagamentos, o que é útil em caso de erros, mas cria custos e incertezas. Isso faz com que pequenas transações, como pagar centavos por um serviço, se tornem inviáveis. Além disso, os comerciantes são obrigados a desconfiar dos clientes, pedindo informações extras e aceitando fraudes como algo inevitável.

Esses problemas não existem no dinheiro físico, como o papel-moeda, onde o pagamento é final e direto entre as partes. No entanto, não temos como enviar dinheiro físico pela internet sem depender de um intermediário confiável.

O que precisamos é de um sistema de pagamento eletrônico baseado em provas matemáticas, não em confiança. Esse sistema permitiria que qualquer pessoa enviasse dinheiro diretamente para outra, sem depender de bancos ou processadores de pagamento. Além disso, as transações seriam irreversíveis, protegendo vendedores contra fraudes, mas mantendo a possibilidade de soluções para disputas legítimas.

Neste documento, apresentamos o Bitcoin, que resolve o problema do gasto duplo usando uma rede descentralizada. Essa rede cria um registro público e protegido por cálculos matemáticos, que garante a ordem das transações. Enquanto a maior parte da rede for controlada por pessoas honestas, o sistema será seguro contra ataques.

---

2. Transações

Para entender como funciona o Bitcoin, é importante saber como as transações são realizadas. Imagine que você quer transferir uma "moeda digital" para outra pessoa. No sistema do Bitcoin, essa "moeda" é representada por uma sequência de registros que mostram quem é o atual dono. Para transferi-la, você adiciona um novo registro comprovando que agora ela pertence ao próximo dono. Esse registro é protegido por um tipo especial de assinatura digital.

O que é uma assinatura digital?

Uma assinatura digital é como uma senha secreta, mas muito mais segura. No Bitcoin, cada usuário tem duas chaves: uma "chave privada", que é secreta e serve para criar a assinatura, e uma "chave pública", que pode ser compartilhada com todos e é usada para verificar se a assinatura é válida. Quando você transfere uma moeda, usa sua chave privada para assinar a transação, provando que você é o dono. A próxima pessoa pode usar sua chave pública para confirmar isso.

Como funciona na prática?

Cada "moeda" no Bitcoin é, na verdade, uma cadeia de assinaturas digitais. Vamos imaginar o seguinte cenário:

1. A moeda está com o Dono 0 (você). Para transferi-la ao Dono 1, você assina digitalmente a transação com sua chave privada. Essa assinatura inclui o código da transação anterior (chamado de "hash") e a chave pública do Dono 1.
2. Quando o Dono 1 quiser transferir a moeda ao Dono 2, ele assinará a transação seguinte com sua própria chave privada, incluindo também o hash da transação anterior e a chave pública do Dono 2.
3. Esse processo continua, formando uma "cadeia" de transações. Qualquer pessoa pode verificar essa cadeia para confirmar quem é o atual dono da moeda.

Resolvendo o problema do gasto duplo

Um grande desafio com moedas digitais é o "gasto duplo", que é quando uma mesma moeda é usada em mais de uma transação. Para evitar isso, muitos sistemas antigos dependiam de uma entidade central confiável, como uma casa da moeda, que verificava todas as transações. No entanto, isso criava um ponto único de falha e centralizava o controle do dinheiro.

O Bitcoin resolve esse problema de forma inovadora: ele usa uma rede descentralizada onde todos os participantes (os "nós") têm acesso a um registro completo de todas as transações. Cada nó verifica se as transações são válidas e se a moeda não foi gasta duas vezes. Quando a maioria dos nós concorda com a validade de uma transação, ela é registrada permanentemente na blockchain.

Por que isso é importante?

Essa solução elimina a necessidade de confiar em uma única entidade para gerenciar o dinheiro, permitindo que qualquer pessoa no mundo use o Bitcoin sem precisar de permissão de terceiros. Além disso, ela garante que o sistema seja seguro e resistente a fraudes.

---

3. Servidor Timestamp

Para assegurar que as transações sejam realizadas de forma segura e transparente, o sistema Bitcoin utiliza algo chamado de "servidor de registro de tempo" (timestamp). Esse servidor funciona como um registro público que organiza as transações em uma ordem específica.

Ele faz isso agrupando várias transações em blocos e criando um código único chamado "hash". Esse hash é como uma impressão digital que representa todo o conteúdo do bloco. O hash de cada bloco é amplamente divulgado, como se fosse publicado em um jornal ou em um fórum público.

Esse processo garante que cada bloco de transações tenha um registro de quando foi criado e que ele existia naquele momento. Além disso, cada novo bloco criado contém o hash do bloco anterior, formando uma cadeia contínua de blocos conectados — conhecida como blockchain.

Com isso, se alguém tentar alterar qualquer informação em um bloco anterior, o hash desse bloco mudará e não corresponderá ao hash armazenado no bloco seguinte. Essa característica torna a cadeia muito segura, pois qualquer tentativa de fraude seria imediatamente detectada.

O sistema de timestamps é essencial para provar a ordem cronológica das transações e garantir que cada uma delas seja única e autêntica. Dessa forma, ele reforça a segurança e a confiança na rede Bitcoin.

---

4. Prova-de-Trabalho

Para implementar o registro de tempo distribuído no sistema Bitcoin, utilizamos um mecanismo chamado prova-de-trabalho. Esse sistema é semelhante ao Hashcash, desenvolvido por Adam Back, e baseia-se na criação de um código único, o "hash", por meio de um processo computacionalmente exigente.

A prova-de-trabalho envolve encontrar um valor especial que, quando processado junto com as informações do bloco, gere um hash que comece com uma quantidade específica de zeros. Esse valor especial é chamado de "nonce". Encontrar o nonce correto exige um esforço significativo do computador, porque envolve tentativas repetidas até que a condição seja satisfeita.

Esse processo é importante porque torna extremamente difícil alterar qualquer informação registrada em um bloco. Se alguém tentar mudar algo em um bloco, seria necessário refazer o trabalho de computação não apenas para aquele bloco, mas também para todos os blocos que vêm depois dele. Isso garante a segurança e a imutabilidade da blockchain.

A prova-de-trabalho também resolve o problema de decidir qual cadeia de blocos é a válida quando há múltiplas cadeias competindo. A decisão é feita pela cadeia mais longa, pois ela representa o maior esforço computacional já realizado. Isso impede que qualquer indivíduo ou grupo controle a rede, desde que a maioria do poder de processamento seja mantida por participantes honestos.

Para garantir que o sistema permaneça eficiente e equilibrado, a dificuldade da prova-de-trabalho é ajustada automaticamente ao longo do tempo. Se novos blocos estiverem sendo gerados rapidamente, a dificuldade aumenta; se estiverem sendo gerados muito lentamente, a dificuldade diminui. Esse ajuste assegura que novos blocos sejam criados aproximadamente a cada 10 minutos, mantendo o sistema estável e funcional.

---

5. Rede

A rede Bitcoin é o coração do sistema e funciona de maneira distribuída, conectando vários participantes (ou nós) para garantir o registro e a validação das transações. Os passos para operar essa rede são:

1. Transmissão de Transações: Quando alguém realiza uma nova transação, ela é enviada para todos os nós da rede. Isso é feito para garantir que todos estejam cientes da operação e possam validá-la.

2. Coleta de Transações em Blocos: Cada nó agrupa as novas transações recebidas em um "bloco". Este bloco será preparado para ser adicionado à cadeia de blocos (a blockchain).

3. Prova-de-Trabalho: Os nós competem para resolver a prova-de-trabalho do bloco, utilizando poder computacional para encontrar um hash válido. Esse processo é como resolver um quebra-cabeça matemático difícil.

4. Envio do Bloco Resolvido: Quando um nó encontra a solução para o bloco (a prova-de-trabalho), ele compartilha esse bloco com todos os outros nós na rede.

5. Validação do Bloco: Cada nó verifica o bloco recebido para garantir que todas as transações nele contidas sejam válidas e que nenhuma moeda tenha sido gasta duas vezes. Apenas blocos válidos são aceitos.

6. Construção do Próximo Bloco: Os nós que aceitaram o bloco começam a trabalhar na criação do próximo bloco, utilizando o hash do bloco aceito como base (hash anterior). Isso mantém a continuidade da cadeia.

Resolução de Conflitos e Escolha da Cadeia Mais Longa

Os nós sempre priorizam a cadeia mais longa, pois ela representa o maior esforço computacional já realizado, garantindo maior segurança. Se dois blocos diferentes forem compartilhados simultaneamente, os nós trabalharão no primeiro bloco recebido, mas guardarão o outro como uma alternativa. Caso o segundo bloco eventualmente forme uma cadeia mais longa (ou seja, tenha mais blocos subsequentes), os nós mudarão para essa nova cadeia.

Tolerância a Falhas

A rede é robusta e pode lidar com mensagens que não chegam a todos os nós. Uma transação não precisa alcançar todos os nós de imediato; basta que chegue a um número suficiente deles para ser incluída em um bloco. Da mesma forma, se um nó não receber um bloco em tempo hábil, ele pode solicitá-lo ao perceber que está faltando quando o próximo bloco é recebido.

Esse mecanismo descentralizado permite que a rede Bitcoin funcione de maneira segura, confiável e resiliente, sem depender de uma autoridade central.

---

6. Incentivo

O incentivo é um dos pilares fundamentais que sustenta o funcionamento da rede Bitcoin, garantindo que os participantes (nós) continuem operando de forma honesta e contribuindo com recursos computacionais. Ele é estruturado em duas partes principais: a recompensa por mineração e as taxas de transação.

Recompensa por Mineração

Por convenção, o primeiro registro em cada bloco é uma transação especial que cria novas moedas e as atribui ao criador do bloco. Essa recompensa incentiva os mineradores a dedicarem poder computacional para apoiar a rede. Como não há uma autoridade central para emitir moedas, essa é a maneira pela qual novas moedas entram em circulação. Esse processo pode ser comparado ao trabalho de garimpeiros, que utilizam recursos para colocar mais ouro em circulação. No caso do Bitcoin, o "recurso" consiste no tempo de CPU e na energia elétrica consumida para resolver a prova-de-trabalho.

Taxas de Transação

Além da recompensa por mineração, os mineradores também podem ser incentivados pelas taxas de transação. Se uma transação utiliza menos valor de saída do que o valor de entrada, a diferença é tratada como uma taxa, que é adicionada à recompensa do bloco contendo essa transação. Com o passar do tempo e à medida que o número de moedas em circulação atinge o limite predeterminado, essas taxas de transação se tornam a principal fonte de incentivo, substituindo gradualmente a emissão de novas moedas. Isso permite que o sistema opere sem inflação, uma vez que o número total de moedas permanece fixo.

Incentivo à Honestidade

O design do incentivo também busca garantir que os participantes da rede mantenham um comportamento honesto. Para um atacante que consiga reunir mais poder computacional do que o restante da rede, ele enfrentaria duas escolhas:

1. Usar esse poder para fraudar o sistema, como reverter transações e roubar pagamentos.
2. Seguir as regras do sistema, criando novos blocos e recebendo recompensas legítimas.

A lógica econômica favorece a segunda opção, pois um comportamento desonesto prejudicaria a confiança no sistema, diminuindo o valor de todas as moedas, incluindo aquelas que o próprio atacante possui. Jogar dentro das regras não apenas maximiza o retorno financeiro, mas também preserva a validade e a integridade do sistema.

Esse mecanismo garante que os incentivos econômicos estejam alinhados com o objetivo de manter a rede segura, descentralizada e funcional ao longo do tempo.

---

7. Recuperação do Espaço em Disco

Depois que uma moeda passa a estar protegida por muitos blocos na cadeia, as informações sobre as transações antigas que a geraram podem ser descartadas para economizar espaço em disco. Para que isso seja possível sem comprometer a segurança, as transações são organizadas em uma estrutura chamada "árvore de Merkle". Essa árvore funciona como um resumo das transações: em vez de armazenar todas elas, guarda apenas um "hash raiz", que é como uma assinatura compacta que representa todo o grupo de transações.

Os blocos antigos podem, então, ser simplificados, removendo as partes desnecessárias dessa árvore. Apenas a raiz do hash precisa ser mantida no cabeçalho do bloco, garantindo que a integridade dos dados seja preservada, mesmo que detalhes específicos sejam descartados.

Para exemplificar: imagine que você tenha vários recibos de compra. Em vez de guardar todos os recibos, você cria um documento e lista apenas o valor total de cada um. Mesmo que os recibos originais sejam descartados, ainda é possível verificar a soma com base nos valores armazenados.

Além disso, o espaço ocupado pelos blocos em si é muito pequeno. Cada bloco sem transações ocupa apenas cerca de 80 bytes. Isso significa que, mesmo com blocos sendo gerados a cada 10 minutos, o crescimento anual em espaço necessário é insignificante: apenas 4,2 MB por ano. Com a capacidade de armazenamento dos computadores crescendo a cada ano, esse espaço continuará sendo trivial, garantindo que a rede possa operar de forma eficiente sem problemas de armazenamento, mesmo a longo prazo.

---

8. Verificação de Pagamento Simplificada

É possível confirmar pagamentos sem a necessidade de operar um nó completo da rede. Para isso, o usuário precisa apenas de uma cópia dos cabeçalhos dos blocos da cadeia mais longa (ou seja, a cadeia com maior esforço de trabalho acumulado). Ele pode verificar a validade de uma transação ao consultar os nós da rede até obter a confirmação de que tem a cadeia mais longa. Para isso, utiliza-se o ramo Merkle, que conecta a transação ao bloco em que ela foi registrada.

Entretanto, o método simplificado possui limitações: ele não pode confirmar uma transação isoladamente, mas sim assegurar que ela ocupa um lugar específico na cadeia mais longa. Dessa forma, se um nó da rede aprova a transação, os blocos subsequentes reforçam essa aceitação.

A verificação simplificada é confiável enquanto a maioria dos nós da rede for honesta. Contudo, ela se torna vulnerável caso a rede seja dominada por um invasor. Nesse cenário, um atacante poderia fabricar transações fraudulentas que enganariam o usuário temporariamente até que o invasor obtivesse controle completo da rede.

Uma estratégia para mitigar esse risco é configurar alertas nos softwares de nós completos. Esses alertas identificam blocos inválidos, sugerindo ao usuário baixar o bloco completo para confirmar qualquer inconsistência. Para maior segurança, empresas que realizam pagamentos frequentes podem preferir operar seus próprios nós, reduzindo riscos e permitindo uma verificação mais direta e confiável.

---

9. Combinando e Dividindo Valor

No sistema Bitcoin, cada unidade de valor é tratada como uma "moeda" individual, mas gerenciar cada centavo como uma transação separada seria impraticável. Para resolver isso, o Bitcoin permite que valores sejam combinados ou divididos em transações, facilitando pagamentos de qualquer valor.

Entradas e Saídas

Cada transação no Bitcoin é composta por:

• Entradas: Representam os valores recebidos em transações anteriores.
• Saídas: Correspondem aos valores enviados, divididos entre os destinatários e, eventualmente, o troco para o remetente.

Normalmente, uma transação contém:

• Uma única entrada com valor suficiente para cobrir o pagamento.
• Ou várias entradas combinadas para atingir o valor necessário.

O valor total das saídas nunca excede o das entradas, e a diferença (se houver) pode ser retornada ao remetente como troco.

Exemplo Prático

Imagine que você tem duas entradas:

1. 0,03 BTC
2. 0,07 BTC

Se deseja enviar 0,08 BTC para alguém, a transação terá:

• Entrada: As duas entradas combinadas (0,03 + 0,07 BTC = 0,10 BTC).
• Saídas: Uma para o destinatário (0,08 BTC) e outra como troco para você (0,02 BTC).

Essa flexibilidade permite que o sistema funcione sem precisar manipular cada unidade mínima individualmente.

Difusão e Simplificação

A difusão de transações, onde uma depende de várias anteriores e assim por diante, não representa um problema. Não é necessário armazenar ou verificar o histórico completo de uma transação para utilizá-la, já que o registro na blockchain garante sua integridade.

---

10. Privacidade

O modelo bancário tradicional oferece um certo nível de privacidade, limitando o acesso às informações financeiras apenas às partes envolvidas e a um terceiro confiável (como bancos ou instituições financeiras). No entanto, o Bitcoin opera de forma diferente, pois todas as transações são publicamente registradas na blockchain. Apesar disso, a privacidade pode ser mantida utilizando chaves públicas anônimas, que desvinculam diretamente as transações das identidades das partes envolvidas.

Fluxo de Informação

• No modelo tradicional, as transações passam por um terceiro confiável que conhece tanto o remetente quanto o destinatário.
• No Bitcoin, as transações são anunciadas publicamente, mas sem revelar diretamente as identidades das partes. Isso é comparável a dados divulgados por bolsas de valores, onde informações como o tempo e o tamanho das negociações (a "fita") são públicas, mas as identidades das partes não.

Protegendo a Privacidade

Para aumentar a privacidade no Bitcoin, são adotadas as seguintes práticas:

1. Chaves Públicas Anônimas: Cada transação utiliza um par de chaves diferentes, dificultando a associação com um proprietário único.
2. Prevenção de Ligação: Ao usar chaves novas para cada transação, reduz-se a possibilidade de links evidentes entre múltiplas transações realizadas pelo mesmo usuário.

Riscos de Ligação

Embora a privacidade seja fortalecida, alguns riscos permanecem:

• Transações multi-entrada podem revelar que todas as entradas pertencem ao mesmo proprietário, caso sejam necessárias para somar o valor total.
• O proprietário da chave pode ser identificado indiretamente por transações anteriores que estejam conectadas.

---

11. Cálculos

Imagine que temos um sistema onde as pessoas (ou computadores) competem para adicionar informações novas (blocos) a um grande registro público (a cadeia de blocos ou blockchain). Este registro é como um livro contábil compartilhado, onde todos podem verificar o que está escrito.

Agora, vamos pensar em um cenário: um atacante quer enganar o sistema. Ele quer mudar informações já registradas para beneficiar a si mesmo, por exemplo, desfazendo um pagamento que já fez. Para isso, ele precisa criar uma versão alternativa do livro contábil (a cadeia de blocos dele) e convencer todos os outros participantes de que essa versão é a verdadeira.

Mas isso é extremamente difícil.

Como o Ataque Funciona

Quando um novo bloco é adicionado à cadeia, ele depende de cálculos complexos que levam tempo e esforço. Esses cálculos são como um grande quebra-cabeça que precisa ser resolvido.

• Os “bons jogadores” (nós honestos) estão sempre trabalhando juntos para resolver esses quebra-cabeças e adicionar novos blocos à cadeia verdadeira.
• O atacante, por outro lado, precisa resolver quebra-cabeças sozinho, tentando “alcançar” a cadeia honesta para que sua versão alternativa pareça válida.

Se a cadeia honesta já está vários blocos à frente, o atacante começa em desvantagem, e o sistema está projetado para que a dificuldade de alcançá-los aumente rapidamente.

A Corrida Entre Cadeias

Você pode imaginar isso como uma corrida. A cada bloco novo que os jogadores honestos adicionam à cadeia verdadeira, eles se distanciam mais do atacante. Para vencer, o atacante teria que resolver os quebra-cabeças mais rápido que todos os outros jogadores honestos juntos.

Suponha que:

• A rede honesta tem 80% do poder computacional (ou seja, resolve 8 de cada 10 quebra-cabeças).
• O atacante tem 20% do poder computacional (ou seja, resolve 2 de cada 10 quebra-cabeças).

Cada vez que a rede honesta adiciona um bloco, o atacante tem que "correr atrás" e resolver mais quebra-cabeças para alcançar.

Por Que o Ataque Fica Cada Vez Mais Improvável?

Vamos usar uma fórmula simples para mostrar como as chances de sucesso do atacante diminuem conforme ele precisa "alcançar" mais blocos:

P = (q/p)^z

• q é o poder computacional do atacante (20%, ou 0,2).
• p é o poder computacional da rede honesta (80%, ou 0,8).
• z é a diferença de blocos entre a cadeia honesta e a cadeia do atacante.

Se o atacante está 5 blocos atrás (z = 5):

P = (0,2 / 0,8)^5 = (0,25)^5 = 0,00098, (ou, 0,098%)

Isso significa que o atacante tem menos de 0,1% de chance de sucesso — ou seja, é muito improvável.

Se ele estiver 10 blocos atrás (z = 10):

P = (0,2 / 0,8)^10 = (0,25)^10 = 0,000000095, (ou, 0,0000095%).

Neste caso, as chances de sucesso são praticamente nulas.

Um Exemplo Simples

Se você jogar uma moeda, a chance de cair “cara” é de 50%. Mas se precisar de 10 caras seguidas, sua chance já é bem menor. Se precisar de 20 caras seguidas, é quase impossível.

No caso do Bitcoin, o atacante precisa de muito mais do que 20 caras seguidas. Ele precisa resolver quebra-cabeças extremamente difíceis e alcançar os jogadores honestos que estão sempre à frente. Isso faz com que o ataque seja inviável na prática.

Por Que Tudo Isso é Seguro?

• A probabilidade de sucesso do atacante diminui exponencialmente. Isso significa que, quanto mais tempo passa, menor é a chance de ele conseguir enganar o sistema.
• A cadeia verdadeira (honesta) está protegida pela força da rede. Cada novo bloco que os jogadores honestos adicionam à cadeia torna mais difícil para o atacante alcançar.

E Se o Atacante Tentar Continuar?

O atacante poderia continuar tentando indefinidamente, mas ele estaria gastando muito tempo e energia sem conseguir nada. Enquanto isso, os jogadores honestos estão sempre adicionando novos blocos, tornando o trabalho do atacante ainda mais inútil.

Assim, o sistema garante que a cadeia verdadeira seja extremamente segura e que ataques sejam, na prática, impossíveis de ter sucesso.

---

12. Conclusão

Propusemos um sistema de transações eletrônicas que elimina a necessidade de confiança, baseando-se em assinaturas digitais e em uma rede peer-to-peer que utiliza prova de trabalho. Isso resolve o problema do gasto duplo, criando um histórico público de transações imutável, desde que a maioria do poder computacional permaneça sob controle dos participantes honestos. A rede funciona de forma simples e descentralizada, com nós independentes que não precisam de identificação ou coordenação direta. Eles entram e saem livremente, aceitando a cadeia de prova de trabalho como registro do que ocorreu durante sua ausência. As decisões são tomadas por meio do poder de CPU, validando blocos legítimos, estendendo a cadeia e rejeitando os inválidos. Com este mecanismo de consenso, todas as regras e incentivos necessários para o funcionamento seguro e eficiente do sistema são garantidos.

---

Faça o download do whitepaper original em português: https://bitcoin.org/files/bitcoin-paper/bitcoin_pt_br.pdf

@ cff1720e:15c7e2b2

Einleitung\ \ Schwierige Dinge einfach zu erklären ist der Anspruch von ELI5 (explain me like I'm 5). Das ist in unserer hoch technisierten Welt dringend erforderlich, denn nur mit dem Verständnis der Technologien können wir sie richtig einsetzen und weiter entwickeln.\ Ich starte meine Serie mit Nostr, einem relativ neuen Internet-Protokoll. Was zum Teufel ist ein Internet-Protokoll? Formal beschrieben sind es internationale Standards, die dafür sorgen, dass das Internet seit über 30 Jahren ziemlich gut funktioniert. Es ist die Sprache, in der sich die Rechner miteinander unterhalten und die auch Sie täglich nutzen, vermutlich ohne es bewusst wahrzunehmen. http(s) transportiert ihre Anfrage an einen Server (z.B. Amazon), und html sorgt dafür, dass aus den gelieferten Daten eine schöne Seite auf ihrem Bildschirm entsteht. Eine Mail wird mit smtp an den Mailserver gesendet und mit imap von ihm abgerufen, und da alle den Standard verwenden, funktioniert das mit jeder App auf jedem Betriebssystem und mit jedem Mail-Provider. Und mit einer Mail-Adresse wie roland@pareto.space können sie sogar jederzeit umziehen, egal wohin. Cool, das ist state of the art! Aber warum funktioniert das z.B. bei Chat nicht, gibt es da kein Protokoll? Doch, es heißt IRC (Internet Relay Chat → merken sie sich den Namen), aber es wird so gut wie nicht verwendet. Die Gründe dafür sind nicht technischer Natur, vielmehr wurden mit Apps wie Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram, TikTok u.a. bewusst Inkompatibilitäten und Nutzerabhängigkeiten geschaffen um Profite zu maximieren.

Warum Nostr?

Da das Standard-Protokoll nicht genutzt wird, hat jede App ihr eigenes, und wir brauchen eine handvoll Apps um uns mit allen Bekannten auszutauschen. Eine Mobilfunknummer ist Voraussetzung für jedes Konto, damit können die App-Hersteller die Nutzer umfassend tracken und mit dem Verkauf der Informationen bis zu 30 USD je Konto und Monat verdienen. Der Nutzer ist nicht mehr Kunde, er ist das Produkt! Der Werbe-SPAM ist noch das kleinste Problem bei diesem Geschäftsmodell. Server mit Millionen von Nutzerdaten sind ein “honey pot”, dementsprechend oft werden sie gehackt und die Zugangsdaten verkauft. 2024 wurde auch der Twitter-Account vom damaligen Präsidenten Joe Biden gehackt, niemand wusste mehr wer die Nachrichten verfasst hat (vorher auch nicht), d.h. die Authentizität der Inhalte ist bei keinem dieser Anbieter gewährleistet. Im selben Jahr wurde der Telegram-Gründer in Frankreich in Beugehaft genommen, weil er sich geweigert hatte Hintertüren in seine Software einzubauen. Nun kann zum Schutz "unserer Demokratie” praktisch jeder mitlesen, was sie mit wem an Informationen austauschen, z.B. darüber welches Shampoo bestimmte Politiker verwenden. 

Und wer tatsächlich glaubt er könne Meinungsfreiheit auf sozialen Medien praktizieren, findet sich schnell in der Situation von Donald Trump wieder (seinerzeit amtierender Präsident), dem sein Twitter-Konto 2021 abgeschaltet wurde (Cancel-Culture). Die Nutzerdaten, also ihr Profil, ihre Kontakte, Dokumente, Bilder, Videos und Audiofiles - gehören ihnen ohnehin nicht mehr sondern sind Eigentum des Plattform-Betreibers; lesen sie sich mal die AGB's durch. Aber nein, keine gute Idee, das sind hunderte Seiten und sie werden permanent geändert. Alle nutzen also Apps, deren Technik sie nicht verstehen, deren Regeln sie nicht kennen, wo sie keine Rechte haben und die ihnen die Resultate ihres Handelns stehlen. Was würde wohl der Fünfjährige sagen, wenn ihm seine ältere Schwester anbieten würde, alle seine Spielzeuge zu “verwalten” und dann auszuhändigen wenn er brav ist? “Du spinnst wohl”, und damit beweist der Knirps mehr Vernunft als die Mehrzahl der Erwachsenen. \ \ Resümee: keine Standards, keine Daten, keine Rechte = keine Zukunft!

\ Wie funktioniert Nostr?

Die Entwickler von Nostr haben erkannt dass sich das Server-Client-Konzept in ein Master-Slave-Konzept verwandelt hatte. Der Master ist ein Synonym für Zentralisierung und wird zum “single point of failure”, der zwangsläufig Systeme dysfunktional macht. In einem verteilten Peer2Peer-System gibt es keine Master mehr sondern nur gleichberechtigte Knoten (Relays), auf denen die Informationen gespeichert werden. Indem man Informationen auf mehreren Relays redundant speichert, ist das System in jeglicher Hinsicht resilienter. Nicht nur die Natur verwendet dieses Prinzip seit Jahrmillionen erfolgreich, auch das Internet wurde so konzipiert (das ARPAnet wurde vom US-Militär für den Einsatz in Kriegsfällen unter massiven Störungen entwickelt). Alle Nostr-Daten liegen auf Relays und der Nutzer kann wählen zwischen öffentlichen (zumeist kostenlosen) und privaten Relays, z.B. für geschlossene Gruppen oder zum Zwecke von Daten-Archivierung. Da Dokumente auf mehreren Relays gespeichert sind, werden statt URL's (Locator) eindeutige Dokumentnamen (URI's = Identifier) verwendet, broken Links sind damit Vergangenheit und Löschungen / Verluste ebenfalls.\ \ Jedes Dokument (Event genannt) wird vom Besitzer signiert, es ist damit authentisch und fälschungssicher und kann nur vom Ersteller gelöscht werden. Dafür wird ein Schlüsselpaar verwendet bestehend aus privatem (nsec) und öffentlichem Schlüssel (npub) wie aus der Mailverschlüsselung (PGP) bekannt. Das repräsentiert eine Nostr-Identität, die um Bild, Namen, Bio und eine lesbare Nostr-Adresse ergänzt werden kann (z.B. roland@pareto.space ), mehr braucht es nicht um alle Ressourcen des Nostr-Ökosystems zu nutzen. Und das besteht inzwischen aus über hundert Apps mit unterschiedlichen Fokussierungen, z.B. für persönliche verschlüsselte Nachrichten (DM → OxChat), Kurznachrichten (Damus, Primal), Blogbeiträge (Pareto), Meetups (Joinstr), Gruppen (Groups), Bilder (Olas), Videos (Amethyst), Audio-Chat (Nostr Nests), Audio-Streams (Tunestr), Video-Streams (Zap.Stream), Marktplätze (Shopstr) u.v.a.m. Die Anmeldung erfolgt mit einem Klick (single sign on) und den Apps stehen ALLE Nutzerdaten zur Verfügung (Profil, Daten, Kontakte, Social Graph → Follower, Bookmarks, Comments, etc.), im Gegensatz zu den fragmentierten Datensilos der Gegenwart.\ \ Resümee: ein offener Standard, alle Daten, alle Rechte = große Zukunft!

\ Warum ist Nostr die Zukunft des Internet?

“Baue Dein Haus nicht auf einem fremden Grundstück” gilt auch im Internet - für alle App-Entwickler, Künstler, Journalisten und Nutzer, denn auch ihre Daten sind werthaltig. Nostr garantiert das Eigentum an den Daten, und überwindet ihre Fragmentierung. Weder die Nutzung noch die kreativen Freiheiten werden durch maßlose Lizenz- und Nutzungsbedingungen eingeschränkt. Aus passiven Nutzern werden durch Interaktion aktive Teilnehmer, Co-Creatoren in einer Sharing-Ökonomie (Value4Value). OpenSource schafft endlich wieder Vertrauen in die Software und ihre Anbieter. Offene Standards ermöglichen den Entwicklern mehr Kooperation und schnellere Entwicklung, für die Anwender garantieren sie Wahlfreiheit. Womit wir letztmalig zu unserem Fünfjährigen zurückkehren. Kinder lieben Lego über alles, am meisten die Maxi-Box “Classic”, weil sie damit ihre Phantasie im Kombinieren voll ausleben können. Erwachsene schenken ihnen dann die viel zu teuren Themenpakete, mit denen man nur eine Lösung nach Anleitung bauen kann. “Was stimmt nur mit meinen Eltern nicht, wann sind die denn falsch abgebogen?" fragt sich der Nachwuchs zu Recht. Das Image lässt sich aber wieder aufpolieren, wenn sie ihren Kindern Nostr zeigen, denn die Vorteile verstehen sogar Fünfjährige.

\ Das neue Internet ist dezentral. Das neue Internet ist selbstbestimmt. Nostr ist das neue Internet.

https://nostr.net/ \ https://start.njump.me/

Hier das Interview zum Thema mit Radio Berliner Morgenröte

https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-yxc36-17bb4be

@ 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.