@ cae03c48:2a7d6671

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin 2025 Las Vegas: Here’s What Went Down 

My name is Jenna Montgomery, and maybe you’ve read some of my news articles here before, or seen me on the Bitcoin Magazine TikTok. But today, I wanted to switch it up and give you an inside look at the Bitcoin 2025 Conference in Las Vegas through my eyes as an intern, hired just one month before the conference, having little knowledge about Bitcoin beforehand and never attending an event like this before. 

I’m writing this to give you a real, raw reflection of what I experienced over the course of the three day event, and why I believe you should absolutely attend the next Bitcoin conference. I want you all to know what goes down, what to expect, and to know how impactful I think this event really is. Bitcoin 2025 made a lasting impact on me and my life, and it just feels right to tell you why, so yours can maybe be changed too.

I got off the plane, threw my suitcase in my hotel room, and went to go and see the convention center as all of the finishing touches around the venue were being added. I remember thinking how big, beautiful, and fun the expo hall was—and where I would soon meet so many new people, make so many friends, and shake hands with people that I looked up to and admired. 

I will never forget walking in and seeing the main conference stage, The Nakamoto Stage, for the first time. Seeing that giant room with a symphony and endless rows of chairs, soon to be filled with thousands of passionate Bitcoiners, really put in perspective to me how Bitcoin 2025 wasn’t just a conference, it felt like something bigger. I realized it’s an actual community and a place of countless opportunities. 

The conference is essentially split up into 3 days: Industry Day, General Admission Day 1, and General Admission Day 2. Industry Day was mainly tailored towards professionals, investors, founders, and others focused on Bitcoin businesses. The general admission days were tailored more towards the casual Bitcoiner, and those were the days that I really felt the energy just exploding around the convention center.

INDUSTRY DAY 

Walking into the expo hall early in the morning on Industry Day, I was overwhelmed when I saw all of the vendors and companies setting up their tables, booths, stages, and even a rock climbing wall (thank you CleanSpark). It seemed as if the expo hall went for miles and miles, and featured a long orange carpet that made an intricate path through the venue that led you to each and every booth.

While fiat fails, Bitcoin prevails. pic.twitter.com/EV190PUqdT

— Valentina Gomez (@ValentinaForUSA) May 27, 2025

I remember being in total awe as I looked up at the ceiling and saw a huge UFO in the middle of the expo hall, with two Bitcoin themed Cybertrucks just off to the side of it, with lots of other interesting booths including one with a talking robot.

DAY ONE pic.twitter.com/KHXP6q8RCp

— Gemini (@Gemini) May 27, 2025

As I followed the long orange carpet around the venue, I looked over my shoulder and saw a huge blow-up of a Bitcoin Puppet in the art exhibit, featuring all kinds of other cool Bitcoin art. Some of these pieces of art were worth well over one bitcoin—which was mindblowing to me considering that is more than $100,000. Every good revolution has good art, and seeing all the talented artists pouring their hearts into their work helped me believe that Bitcoin is the future. 

Now, it was time to get to work at where I would spend the majority of my time over the next few days. My coworkers and I were stationed up right in front of the Bitcoin Magazine news desk next to the AV (audio-visual) team, where I had a perfect view of everything. Here, I spent all day every day writing news articles for Bitcoin Magazine based on the speeches, keynotes, and other panels happening on the Nakamoto stage, as well as filming TikTok’s around the expo hall with attendees.

Working in front of the news desk was one of my favorite things about the conference. Everyone who spoke on it live had an electrifying personality that kept me locked into every conversation, especially one of the hosts Pete Rizzo. After every talk on the Nakamoto Stage ended, the live stream would pan over to the news desk where they would break down what happened, providing viewers with expert analysis. This was something extremely very fun to watch live and experience the production of it all first hand.

The talks on Industry Day kicked off to such a great start with Dan Edwards from Steak ‘n Shake, who recently became the first major fast food chain in America to begin accepting Bitcoin Lightning payments. So I was very excited to hear about Edwards’ speech and to visit Steak ‘n Shake’s incredible booth, which also featured a group of fun, dancing cows. 

Steak ‘n Shake COWS HAVE NO CHILL pic.twitter.com/8UkmPhWf9T

— The Bitcoin Conference (@TheBitcoinConf) May 28, 2025

While speaking on stage, Edwards revealed that, “Bitcoin is faster than credit cards, and when customers choose to pay in Bitcoin, we’re saving 50% in processing fees.” Just think about that for a second — saving a whole 50% on each transaction? This really opened my eyes to the benefits of accepting Bitcoin as payment and why it could mean to merchants who adopt it.

Based on everything I heard in that speech, I think Steak ‘n Shake may be the first to start a new trend of other big companies accepting Bitcoin. If they recognized the benefits of Bitcoin, it’s only a matter of time before other franchises do as well.

JUST IN: Fast food giant Steak 'n Shake announced they're saving 50% in processing fees accepting Bitcoin payments

'#Bitcoin is faster than credit cards' pic.twitter.com/bxApgBL6El

— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) May 27, 2025

Another big highlight from this day was hearing Senator Cynthia Lummis confirm that President Donald Trump supports her Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Act. There were so many statements made during the conference that I will get to later on that point to the fact that the United States is pro-Bitcoin and we’re going to be the world leader in it. Senator Marsha Blackburn also added to this, stating, “Many of our allies follow what we do. If we lead, others will follow. This is vital to our economic future.” 

JUST IN: Senator Cynthia Lummis said US military generals are "big supporters" of a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve for economic power. pic.twitter.com/2RPMV3tbdA

— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) May 27, 2025

At this point in

@ 9f2b5b64:e811118f

testingggg

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

---

Check out the MiniBolt guide -> HERE <-

---

• Core guides
• System
  • Preparations
  • Operating System
  • Remote access
  • Configuration
  • Security
  • Privacy
• Bitcoin
  • Bitcoin client (Bitcoin Core)
  • Electrum server (Fulcrum)
  • Blockchain explorer (BTC RPC Explorer)
  • Desktop signing app (Sparrow Wallet)
• Lightning
  • Lightning client (LND)
  • Channel backup
  • Web app (ThunderHub)
  • Mobile app (Zeus)
• Bonus guides
• System bonus guide
  • Dashboard & Appearance
    • Pimp the command line
    • System Overview
  • System Administration
    • Aliases
    • Statip IP & custom DNS servers
  • Install / Update / Uninstall common languages
    • Node.js + NPM
    • Rustup + Cargo
    • Go
  • Databases
    • PostgreSQL
  • Hardware
    • Store data in a secondary disk
• Bitcoin bonus guides
  • Electrum servers
    • Electrs
  • Signing apps
    • Desktop
    • Electrum Wallet Desktop
  • Decentralized exchange
    • Bisq
  • Resilience
    • Safu Ninja
    • Ordisrespector
  • Fun
    • Download the bitcoin white paper
  • Payment processors
    • BTCPay Server
  • Testnet
    • MiniBolt on Testnet
• Nostr bonus guides
  • Relays
  • Nostr relay in Rust
• Security bonus guides
  • Authentication and Access Control
  • SSH Keys
• Networking bonus guides
  • VPN & Tunneling
    • WireGuard VPN
    • Cloudflare Tunnel
  • Resilience
    • Tor services: bridges & relays

---

🏗️ Roadmap | 🌐 Dynamic Network map | 🔧 Issues | 📥 Pull requests | 🗣️ Discussions

---

By ⚡2FakTor⚡

---

Last updated: 09/06/2025

@ eb0157af:77ab6c55

The newly elected South Korean President is aiming for a breakthrough in the cryptocurrency market with the introduction of spot ETFs and a national stablecoin.

On June 4, South Korea officially elected Lee Jae-myung as its new President. The candidate from the left-wing party secured victory following the impeachment of former leader Yoon Suk-yeol, who ended his three-year term after a failed attempt to establish a military-backed government.

Voter turnout reached 79.4%, the highest in the last 28 years. Lee won 49.42% of the vote, defeating his conservative opponent Kim Moon-soo, who garnered 41.15%.

The new President’s pledges

In addition to traditional economic priorities such as supporting low-income families and small businesses, Lee Jae-myung has placed digital assets at the heart of his political agenda.

The core pillar of Lee’s strategy involves the introduction of spot ETFs for Bitcoin and Ethereum in the domestic market. Currently, the issuance and local trading of crypto ETFs remain banned in the country.

Another key element of the plan is the approval of stablecoins pegged to the South Korean won. During a discussion last month, Lee emphasized the need to develop a won-based stablecoin market to prevent capital flight abroad.

Under the new administration, South Korea will also work to complete the second phase of its regulatory framework for digital assets. The upcoming legislation will specifically address stablecoin regulations and transparency requirements for cryptocurrency exchanges.

The program also includes the creation of special zones for blockchain-related businesses, where regulations will be minimized to maximize innovation and operational efficiency.

However, this isn’t the first time South Korea has elected a crypto-friendly candidate. The conservative president Yoon Suk-yeol, later impeached, had made several crypto-friendly promises aimed at deregulating the sector, though many of those initiatives saw delays and limited progress during his three-year term.

Yoon’s deregulatory plans faced resistance from the Financial Services Commission (FSC), which maintained strict regulations citing investor protection. In recent months, however, the FSC has shown greater openness toward easing crypto rules — a shift that could support Lee’s commitments.

According to FSC data, by the end of last year the country had 9.7 million registered exchange users, representing nearly 20% of the total population.

The post South Korea: the new leader may favor Bitcoin ETFs and a national stablecoin appeared first on Atlas21.

@ da8b7de1:c0164aee

Az IAEA Kormányzótanácsának ülése Bécsben

A Nemzetközi Atomenergia-ügynökség (IAEA) Kormányzótanácsa ma kezdte meg szokásos júniusi ülését Bécsben. A széles napirend olyan témákat ölel fel, mint a 2024-es éves jelentés, a technikai együttműködési tevékenységek, valamint a nukleáris biztonsággal, védettséggel és ellenőrzéssel kapcsolatos kulcskérdések. Az ülésen napirendre kerülnek többek között az iráni ellenőrzés és monitoring, az észak-koreai és szíriai ellenőrzés, az ukrajnai nukleáris biztonság – beleértve a zaporizzsjai atomerőmű helyzetét –, valamint az AUKUS-megállapodás keretében történő nukleárisanyag-átadás és annak ellenőrzése. A Kormányzótanács tárgyalja a tagállami képviseletet a 2025–2026-os időszakra, valamint a közelgő Közgyűlés előkészületeit is [iaea.org].

Nukleáris üzemeltetés és szakpolitikai fejlemények

Az elmúlt hetekben jelentős aktivitás volt tapasztalható a nukleáris üzemeltetés és szakpolitika terén világszerte. Az Egyesült Államokban a Nukleáris Szabályozási Bizottság további 20 évvel meghosszabbította a Duke Energy dél-karolinai Oconee atomerőmű három blokkjának üzemeltetési engedélyét. Michigan államban 56,8 millió dolláros hitelgaranciát hagytak jóvá a Palisades atomerőmű újraindításához.

Európában Belgium és Franciaország megállapodást kötött a Tihange 3 és Doel 4 reaktorok üzemidejének tízéves meghosszabbításáról, beleértve a radioaktív hulladék kezelésének rendezését is. Németország nukleáris technológiai szövetsége szerint akár hat leállított reaktor is technikailag újraindítható lenne, a nukleáris energiát biztonságos és klímabarát alternatívaként bemutatva.

Másutt Pakisztánban hivatalosan is átvették a kínai fejlesztésű Hualong One reaktort a Karacsi 3-as blokkban, míg Indiában hálózatra kapcsolták a Rajasthan Atomerőmű harmadik, saját fejlesztésű 700 MW-os nehézvizes reaktorát [world-nuclear-news.org].

Zaporizzsjai Atomerőmű: Folyamatos aggodalmak

Az ukrajnai Zaporizzsjai Atomerőmű továbbra is orosz katonai ellenőrzés alatt áll. Az erőmű igazgatója szerint 2027-ig minden blokk megkaphatja az orosz üzemeltetési engedélyt, azonban az ukrán Enerhoatom minden újraindítási tervet elítél, biztonsági előírásokra hivatkozva. Az IAEA főigazgatója megerősítette, hogy a szervezet kész támogatni bármilyen jövőbeni megállapodást az erőművel kapcsolatban, amely továbbra is központi téma az orosz-ukrán tűzszüneti tárgyalásokon [world-nuclear-news.org].

Új nukleáris projektek és technológiai innovációk

Világszerte fokozódik az érdeklődés az új nukleáris projektek iránt. India nukleáris hatósága jóváhagyta a négy blokkból álló Mahi Banswara Rajasthan Atomerőmű telephelyét. Kínában a fő turbinakomponenseket beépítették a Haiyang Atomerőmű 3-as blokkjában. Belgiumban megkezdődött egy ólom-hűtésű kis moduláris reaktor előzetes konzultációja, Brazília pedig egy orosz együttműködésű kis moduláris reaktor projektet vizsgál.

Az Egyesült Államokban az EnergySolutions és a WEC Energy Group új nukleáris létesítmény létesítését fontolgatja a wisconsini Kewaunee telephelyen, korai telephelyengedély megszerzését célozva. Kanadában a Prodigy Clean Energy befejezéséhez közeledik egy olyan szállítható atomerőmű tesztprogramja, amely súlyos baleseti és fenyegetettségi helyzeteknek is ellenáll [world-nuclear-news.org].

Iparági kilátások és befektetési trendek

Az iparági vezetők pozitív kilátásokról számolnak be a nukleáris energia terén: az Egyesült Államokban (pl. TerraPower Wyomingban, X-energy és Dow partnersége), valamint nemzetközi terjeszkedés (Westinghouse Lengyelországban) is aktív projektek zajlanak. A Világbank esetleges nukleáris projektek finanszírozásában való részvétele fordulópont lehet, amely szélesebb körű befektetéseket ösztönözhet. Az ágazatban optimizmus uralkodik a nukleáris energia jövőbeli szerepét illetően, amit a magánbefektetések és a szakpolitikai változások is támogatnak [ans.org].

Az amerikai nukleáris fegyverprogram mérföldköve

Az Egyesült Államok Energiaügyi Minisztériumának Nukleáris Biztonsági Nemzeti Igazgatósága (NNSA) bejelentette, hogy a tervezettnél korábban elkészült az első B61-13 típusú nukleáris gravitációs bomba. Ez a B61 bombacsalád legújabb változata, és a hidegháború óta a leggyorsabban fejlesztett és rendszerbe állított nukleáris fegyver [pantex.energy.gov].

@ afe67e17:51316efb

La Illuminati aŭ lumigita el Bavario, estis grupo kreita de la jezuitoj por batali liberalan framasonadon, ironie perdis kontrolon de la grupo, kiu aliĝis al la masonistoj. Koncerne, la masonistoj ricevis la operacian bazon, kiun la jezuitoj mem kreis

@ 97c70a44:ad98e322

When developing on nostr, normally it's enough to read the NIP related to a given feature you want to build to know what has to be done. But there are some aspects of nostr development that aren't so straightforward because they depend less on specific data formats than on how different concepts are combined.

An example of this is how for a while it was considered best practice to re-publish notes when replying to them. This practice emerged before the outbox model gained traction, and was a hacky way of attempting to ensure relays had the full context required for a given note. Over time though, pubkey hints emerged as a better way to ensure other clients could find required context.

Another one of these things is "relay-based groups", or as I prefer to call it "relays-as-groups" (RAG). Such a thing doesn't really exist - there's no spec for it (although some aspects of the concept are included in NIP 29), but at the same time there are two concrete implementations (Flotilla and Chachi) which leverage several different NIPs in order to create a cohesive system for groups on nostr.

This composability is one of the neat qualities of nostr. Not only would it be unhelpful to specify how different parts of the protocol should work together, it would be impossible because of the number of possible combinations possible just from applying a little bit of common sense to the NIPs repo. No one said it was ok to put t tags on a kind 0. But no one's stopping you! And the semantics are basically self-evident if you understand its component parts.

So, instead of writing a NIP that sets relay-based groups in stone, I'm writing this guide in order to document how I've combined different parts of the nostr protocol to create a compelling architecture for groups.

Relays

Relays already have a canonical identity, which is the relay's url. Events posted to a relay can be thought of as "posted to that group". This means that every relay is already a group. All nostr notes have already been posted to one or more groups.

One common objection to this structure is that identifying a group with a relay means that groups are dependent on the relay to continue hosting the group. In normal broadcast nostr (which forms organic permissionless groups based on user-centric social clustering), this is a very bad thing, because hosts are orthogonal to group identity. Communities are completely different. Communities actually need someone to enforce community boundaries, implement moderation, etc. Reliance on a host is a feature, not a bug (in contrast to NIP 29 groups, which tend to co-locate many groups on a single host, relays-as-groups tends to encourage one group, one host).

This doesn't mean that federation, mirrors, and migration can't be accomplished. In a sense, leaving this on the social layer is a good thing, because it adds friction to the dissolution/forking of a group. But the door is wide open to protocol additions to support those use cases for relay-based groups. One possible approach would be to follow this draft PR which specifies a "federation" event relays could publish on their own behalf.

Relay keys

This draft PR to NIP 11 specifies a self field which represents the relay's identity. Using this, relays can publish events on their own behalf. Currently, the pubkey field sort of does the same thing, but is overloaded as a contact field for the owner of the relay.

AUTH

Relays can control access using NIP 42 AUTH. There are any number of modes a relay can operate in:

1. No auth, fully public - anyone can read/write to the group.
2. Relays may enforce broad or granular access controls with AUTH.

Relays may deny EVENTs or REQs depending on user identity. Messages returned in AUTH, CLOSED, or OK messages should be human readable. It's crucial that clients show these error messages to users. Here's how Flotilla handles failed AUTH and denied event publishing:

LIMITS, PROBE, or some other reflection scheme could also be used in theory to help clients adapt their interface depending on user abilities and relay policy.

1. AUTH with implicit access controls.

In this mode, relays may exclude matching events from REQs if the user does not have permission to view them. This can be useful for multi-use relays that host hidden rooms. This mode should be used with caution, because it can result in confusion for the end user.

See Frith for a relay implementation that supports some of these auth policies.

Invite codes

If a user doesn't have access to a relay, they can request access using this draft NIP. This is true whether access has been explicitly or implicitly denied (although users will have to know that they should use an invite code to request access).

The above referenced NIP also contains a mechanism for users to request an invite code that they can share with other users.

The policy for these invite codes is entirely up to the relay. They may be single-use, multi-use, or require additional verification. Additional requirements can be communicated to the user in the OK message, for example directions to visit an external URL to register.

See Frith for a relay implementation that supports invite codes.

Content

Any kind of event can be published to a relay being treated as a group, unless rejected by the relay implementation. In particular, NIP 7D was added to support basic threads, and NIP C7 for chat messages.

Since which relay an event came from determines which group it was posted to, clients need to have a mechanism for keeping track of which relay they received an event from, and should not broadcast events to other relays (unless intending to cross-post the content).

Rooms

Rooms follow NIP 29. I wish NIP 29 wasn't called "relay based groups", which is very confusing when talking about "relays as groups". It's much better to think of them as sub-groups, or as Flotilla calls them, "rooms".

EDIT: Flotilla has migrated to exclusively use "managed rooms" — i.e., fully NIP 29 compliant rooms. Relays without NIP 29 support can still support chat, but all messages will be presented as sent to a single room. I've removed references to unmanaged rooms in what follows.

~~Rooms have two modes - managed and unmanaged. Managed~~ rooms follow all the rules laid out in NIP 29 about metadata published by the relay and user membership. In either case, rooms are represented by a random room id, and are posted to by including the id in an event's h tag. ~~This allows rooms to switch between managed and unmanaged modes without losing any content.~~

Managed room names come from kind 39000 room meta events, ~~but unmanaged rooms don't have these. Instead, room names should come from members' NIP 51 kind 10009 membership lists. Tags on these lists should look like this: ["group", "groupid", "wss://group.example.com", "Cat lovers"]. If no name can be found for the room (i.e., there aren't any members), the room should be ignored by clients.~~

Rooms present a difficulty for publishing to the relay as a whole, since content with an h tag can't be excluded from requests. ~~Currently, relay-wide posts are h-tagged with _ which works for "group" clients, but not more generally. I'm not sure how to solve this other than to ask relays to support negative filters.~~ I have ideas on how to solve this in future iterations of relay-based groups, for example using virtual relays or just a better rooms spec.

Cross-posting

The simplest way to cross-post content from one group (or room) to another, is to quote the original note in whatever event kind is appropriate. For example, a blog post might be quoted in a kind 9 to be cross-posted to chat, or in a kind 11 to be cross-posted to a thread. kind 16 reposts can be used the same way if the reader's client renders reposts.

Posting the original event to multiple relays-as-groups is trivial, since all you have to do is send the event to the relay. Posting to multiple rooms simultaneously by appending multiple h tags is however not recommended, since group relays/clients are incentivised to protect themselves from spam by rejecting events with multiple h tags (similar to how events with multiple t tags are sometimes rejected).

Privacy

Currently, it's recommended to include a NIP 70 - tag on content posted to relays-as-groups to discourage replication of relay-specific content across the network.

Another slightly stronger approach would be for group relays to strip signatures in order to make events invalid (or at least deniable). For this approach to work, users would have to be able to signal that they trust relays to be honest. We could also use ZkSNARKS to validate signatures in bulk.

In any case, group posts should not be considered "private" in the same way E2EE groups might be. Relays-as-groups should be considered a good fit for low-stakes groups with many members (since trust deteriorates quickly as more people get involved).

Membership

There is currently no canonical member list published by relays (except for NIP 29 managed rooms). Instead, users keep track of their own relay and room memberships using kind 10009 lists. Relay-level memberships are represented by an r tag containing the relay url, and room-level memberships are represented using a group tag.

Users can choose to advertise their membership in a RAG by using unencrypted tags, or they may keep their membership private by using encrypted tags. Advertised memberships are useful for helping people find groups based on their social graph:

User memberships should not be trusted, since they can be published unilaterally by anyone, regardless of actual access, so it's better to think of them as "bookmarked groups" or "favorites". Possible improvements in this area would be the ability to provide proof of access:

• Relays could publish member lists (although this would sacrifice member privacy)
• Relays could support a new command that allows querying a particular member's access status
• Relays could provide a proof to the member that they could then choose to publish or not

Moderation

There are two parts to moderation: reporting and taking action based on these reports.

Reporting is already covered by NIP 56. Clients should be careful about encouraging users to post reports for illegal content under their own identity, since that can itself be illegal. Relays also should not serve reports to users, since that can be used to find rather than address objectionable content.

Reports are only one mechanism for flagging objectionable content. Relay operators and administrators can use whatever heuristics they like to identify and address objectionable content. This might be via automated policies that auto-ban based on reports from high-reputation people, a client that implements NIP 86 relay management API, or by some other admin interface.

There's currently no way for moderators of a given relay to be advertised, or for a moderator's client to know that the user is a moderator (so that they can enable UI elements for in-app moderation). This could be addressed via NIP 11, LIMITS, or some other mechanism in the future.

General best practices

In general, it's very important when developing a client to assume that the relay has no special support for any of the above features, instead treating all of this stuff as progressive enhancement.

For example, if a user enters an invite code, go ahead and send it to the relay using a kind 28934 event. If it's rejected, you know that it didn't work. But if it's accepted, you don't know that it worked - you only know that the relay allowed the user to publish that event. This is helpful, becaues it may imply that the user does indeed have access to the relay. But additional probing may be needed, and reliance on error messages down the road when something else fails unexpectedly is indispensable.

This paradigm may drive some engineers nuts, because it's basically equivalent to coding your clients to reverse-engineer relay support for every feature you want to use. But this is true of nostr as a whole - anyone can put whatever weird stuff in an event and sign it. Clients have to be extremely compliant with Postell's law - doing their absolute best to accept whatever weird data or behavior shows up and handle failure in any situation. Sure, it's annoying, but it's the cost of permissionless development. What it gets us is a completely open-ended protocol, in which anything can be built, and in which every solution is tested by the market.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

início

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

Ele ficou em silêncio por alguns instantes.

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

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

---

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

---

Nostr GitHub Telegram code

@ a3c6f928:d45494fb

At the heart of freedom lies the power to choose. Not just once or twice—but again and again, in big ways and small. Every moment offers a choice: to show up, to say yes, to say no, to begin, to walk away, to change direction. We often forget that choosing is a sacred act—not just of decision, but of self-definition.

The Illusion of Powerlessness

Many of us live by default—carrying out routines, expectations, or roles that no longer fit. We tell ourselves we have no choice because it feels safer to stay where we are. But every time we say, “I have no choice,” we hand our freedom away.

Why Choice Matters

It reclaims your agency

It reinforces self-trust

It opens the door to change

It reminds you that you are the author of your life

Even when life limits your options, your response is still your power.

Signs You’re Ready to Reclaim Your Power

You feel stuck in autopilot

You often say yes when you mean no

You’re living by someone else’s rules

You’re waiting for permission to act

Choosing with Intention

1. Pause Before Reacting: Choice lives in the space between stimulus and response.

2. Ask What You Really Want: Not what’s expected—what you desire.

3. Take Small Ownership Steps: A 1% shift is still freedom in motion.

4. Expect Discomfort: Freedom isn’t ease—it’s honesty.

5. Reaffirm: “I Get to Choose.” This isn’t selfish—it’s sacred.

Why It Matters

Freedom isn’t the absence of responsibility—it’s the embrace of it. When you choose, you take back the pen. You become the author of your path—not a character in someone else’s story.

---

“Every choice is a vote for the person you’re becoming.”

Choose boldly. Choose consciously. That’s where real freedom begins.

@ e2287c73:33911b46

Мы сражаемся за глобализм и Новый Мировой Порядок. За то, чтобы по красной площади гуляли голые мужики на каблуках, за 300 гендеров, за право наших детей сменить пол в 12 лет. За разврат и бездуховность. За Содом и Гоморру. За общество потребления. За индивидуализм и рыночек. За аборты и эвтаназию. За легализацию наркотиков, оружия и проституции. За то, чтобы в документах писалось "Родитель 1, Родитель 2" вместо "папа и мама". За секс-просвет с детского сада и gender studies. За гендерную-нейтральность. За развал России и образование на её месте либерально-сатанинско-атеистического государства под управлением прозападных глобалистов (желательно евреев). За западный неоколониализм. За то, чтобы бляди танцевали в церквях каждый день, ибо те будут переделаны в гей- и стрип-клубы, казино, публичные дома, на худой конец в ТЦшки. За то, чтобы кремль был переделан в диснейленд, а одним из аттракционов там было расстреливание икон из пневматической винтовки. Когда-то лапотные slave'янские дикари призвали варягов, чтобы те привили им цивилизацию и западные ценности. Так же и теперь мы должны призвать коллективный Запад чтобы он насадил сиволапой русне однополые браки, ГМО, феминизм, либерализм и прочие достижения высшей западной культуры, ценности истинных арийцев. Варяги - суть скандинавы, значит нужно принимать западные ценности и скандинавскую/арийскую толерастию, вот! (кроме некоторых леваческих заскоков/запретов).

Наше дело правое и мы победим, ибо будущее всегда побеждает прошлое, а прогресс - реакцию! Клянусь Айфоном, Рыночком, Макдаком и радужным знаменем! Мученики и бойцы могут быть уверены: гордые анархо-либеральные западники будут до последней капли крови сражаться против коммунизма, консерватизма, рашизма и всех видов реакционного мракобесия. Наша борьба будет продолжаться, пока власть от национальных государств не перейдёт к транснациональным корпорациям, и не будет построен Новый Мировой Порядок. Мы никогда не отступим! Мы победим! Да хранит Госдеп Великий Запад, неолиберализм, общество потребления, LGBTQIA+ , да возвеличит их. Тель хай! Все, кто встанет у нас на пути - пожалеют. И всех врагов свободы мы намотаем на гусеницы танков если будет нужно. Как говорила Валерия Ильинична: "Я лично правами человека накушалась досыта. Некогда и мы, и ЦРУ, и США использовали эту идею как таран для уничтожения коммунистического режима и развала СССР. Эта идея отслужила свое." Очевидно, что в такой мракобесной стране как Рваньсия, есть от силы 3% нормальных людей и 97% говна. Права - для 3% избранных, может для креативного класса, но точно не для мировоззренчески ущербных ватников, совково-пролетарской драни и черносотенной националистически-булкохрустной нечисти. Так что пусть сидят на жопе ровно и смотрят балет!

Философской основой для нашей политической позиции служит диалектический имморализм — человеконенавистническая ультралиберальная идеология право-прогрессивного толка. Это культ тотального неподчинения, философия радикальной свободы, аморального индивидуализма и техноглобального нигилизма против всех форм традиции, морали и запрета. (книга в закрепе)

Бездуховные треки, как авторские так и прочие - в разделе аудио. /GlobalistRussophobe - самый большой агрегатор бездуховности в интернете Авторские мемы в этом профиле, находятся по слову "ориджинал".

Голосуй за СОДОМ! Содом - в каждый дом! Смерть России! Ave Satan! Drang nach Osten!

@ 8b0a2bea:857d369f

Hey guys,

This is the Geyser Team, and finally we have our own territory on SN!

At Geyser we're passionate about driving grassroots Bitcoin Adoption. We created https://geyser.fund/ to empower Bitcoin creators to come together and make great Bitcoin ideas happen.

For some time now, we've feeling the need to see our community come together and come to life a bit more. And we couldn't think of a better place than SN!

We look forward to sharing on here so much of what is happening on Geyser: - New Projects - Exciting Project updates - Progress on grassroots Bitcoin adoption - New Product features and udpates - Getting questions from our community - AMAs with new creators

What are some things you'd like to see on this channel? We look forward to your feedback!

--Geyser Team

https://stacker.news/items/1001708

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Anglicismos estúpidos no português contemporâneo

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

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

Palavras que existem em português com sentido diferente

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

Aportuguesamentos desnecessários

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

Expressões

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

---

Ver também

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

How to do curation and businesses on Nostr

Suppose you want to start a Nostr business.

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

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

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

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

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

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

If it's a music sharing thing, then the client will have a way to play the audio and so on; if it's a restaurant sharing it will have maps with the locations of the restaurants or whatever, you get the idea. Hopefully there will be a NIP or a NUD specifying how to create and interact with events relating to this niche, or you will write or contribute with the creation of one, because without interoperability this can't be Nostr.

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

1. Run a relay that does all the magic

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

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

---

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

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

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

@ 000002de:c05780a7

The FAA is using Windows 95 with Floppy Drives in 2025. Why is this state run operation such a mess?

Honestly, its kinda amazing we don't have more tragic events in the air than we do.

Wrong answers only.

https://stacker.news/items/1001702

@ 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".

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

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

Die Anmerkungen zum Text (Fußnoten) folgen aus technischen Gründen gesondert.

---

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

---

Teil 1 des Essays lesen Sie hier.

Hochkonjunktur der Zeitenwenden

Wir befinden uns gerade in einer Hochkonjunktur der Zeitenwenden.

Es ist zu befürchten, dass man mit den Zeitenwenden bald gar nicht mehr hinterher kommt!

Der ungewöhnliche Plural lässt vermuten, dass wir mit einer Situation konfrontiert sind, in der politisch paradoxe Phänomene und Entwicklungen sich kumulieren. Entwicklungen und Phänomene, die schwer zu verstehen und noch schwerer zu händeln sind. Global übt das Paradoxale einen erhöhten Problem- und Entscheidungsdruck auf die Politik aus und steigert die Gefahr, daraus emergierende Spannungen gewaltsam lösen zu wollen.  

Stellen wir einen Vergleich an. So hat die Zeitenwende, die Anfang des Jahres in Washington mit der Wiederwahl Donald Trumps eingeläutet wurde, schon viel mehr positive Ergebnisse –  im Sinne eines echten Politikwechsels –  erreicht als die nach Beginn des Ukraine-Kriegs 2022 von Scholz zackig im feldmarschallähnlichen Stil ohne Einbezug des Bundestages proklamierte Zeitenwende. Im Februar wurde die Scholzsche Zeitenwende-Politik abgewählt, wird von Merz aber fortgeführt, während Trump für seine Zeitenwende gegen die den Krieg weiter befürwortenden Demokraten als klarer Sieger aus der Wahl hervorging. Zuletzt gelang es der US-amerikanischen Diplomatie, Friedensverhandlungen in Istanbul zwischen der Ukraine und Russland in Gang zu setzen, auch im Nahen Osten gerät vieles in Bewegung. 

Die Folgen der Paradoxien werden von Ulrike Guérot gut zum Ausdruck gebracht:

„Wie gefährlich ist es in einem Land, in dem de facto jetzt Willkür herrscht, in dem Sinne, als das alles, was gestern noch galt, nicht mehr gilt – oder alles, was gestern unmöglich war, auf einmal möglich ist? Wie, außer mit Autorität, Gewalt oder Ideologie, will man vernünftige Bürger dafür gewinnen, den Kurs der Regierung mitzutragen, die auf ‚Kriegstüchtigkdit’ hinarbeitet, während der Frieden schon verhandelt wird?“   (18)

Als dritte Zeitenwende kann jene gelten, die gleichzeitig von den BRICS-Staaten ausgeht. Dieser Prozess hat durch das Einfrieren der Beziehungen des Westens mit Russland und der Verschlechterung der Beziehungen zu China in den letzten drei Jahren an Fahrt aufgenommen. Seither zeichnen sich die Umrisse einer neuen multipolaren Ordnung ab, in der Russland, China und jetzt wohl auch die USA mitspielen wollen, auf die die Europäer aber mental kaum vorbereitet scheinen.

In den USA hat sich der Wind gedreht, doch Deutschland verharrt in den alten Mustern, die in Washington nun abgewrackt werden. Unsere Politiker und Medien verhalten sich dabei wie die drei Affen: Sie wollen nichts sehen, nichts hören, nichts sagen über das, was sich dort tatsächlich ereignet. So findet z.B. eine Neuaufstellung der Wirtschafts- und Außenpolitik statt, in der neue Bündnisse geschmiedet werden, bei denen Europa außen vor bleibt. Über Entwicklungen, die auch äußerst folgenreich für Deutschland und die EU sein könnten, berichtet der Öffentlich-Rechtliche-Rundfunk gar nicht. Das gilt z.B. für die Politik von Gesundheitsminister Robert F. Kennedy jr. und dem neuen Direktor des National Institutes of Health (NIH) Jay Bhattacharya (vormals Stanford University), die sich nicht nur für eine umfassende Aufarbeitung der Corona-Zeit einsetzen, sondern darüber hinaus die Pharma-Industrie im Interesse – auch ein Paradox, an das wir uns aber schon längst gewöhnt haben – eines besseren Gesundheitsschutzes regulieren wollen.

In seiner ideologischen Verbohrtheit und doppelmoralischen Überheblichkeit bemerkt der deutsche Mainstream nicht, wie weit sein Realitätsverlust schon gediehen ist. Das hat zur Folge, dass die Politik hierzulande immer autoaggressivere Züge trägt. 

Die eigene aufgeblasene, kriegerische Rhetorik, die als Ersatzhandlung die große Rat- und Erfolglosigkeit des Kurses, der vom Establishment eingeschlagen wurde und an dem eisern festgehalten werden soll, nur schlecht überspielen kann, erinnert mehr und mehr an das selbstverstümmelnde Verhalten manisch Depressiver, die aus ihrer Isolation nicht mehr rausfinden.

Dabei nimmt das Verhängnis des Abstiegs Deutschlands nicht nur energiepolitisch und ökonomisch seinen Lauf. Es wird durch ein Klima der Cancel Culture und Zensur noch weiter verschärft. Dabei besteht der Mehrwert abweichenden Denkens darin, dass nur durch offene Kritik eine Gesellschaft in der Lage bleibt, kreativ auf ihre Probleme zu reagieren. Wer dies unterbindet, würgt die Potenziale zur positiven Veränderung und damit die gesellschaftliche Dynamik und jeden Fortschritt ab. Im Übrigen wäre in einer funktionierenden Demokratie kein Mut für das Äußern abweichender Meinungen nötig.

Die späte Rache der Geschichte

Mit der doppelten Zeitenwende-Rhetorik erleben wir gerade so etwas wie die (zu) späte Rache, die die Geschichte am realpolitischen Hintertreiben, der Sabotage und Obstruktion des ethischen Nie-Wieder-Krieg-Postulats nimmt. Von Anfang an verfolgte diese Obstruktionspolitik das Ziel, den Friedensimpetus, der die Debatten und Handlungen der Mütter und Väter des Grundgesetzes mehrheitlich glaubhaft leitete und prägte, zu neutralisieren und, zumindest teilweise, in sein Gegenteil umzukehren. Fortwährend, von 1945 an, sind diese und ähnliche Bestrebungen durch die imperialistischen Interessen und Pläne sämtlicher US-amerikanischer Administrationen und der dahinter eigenlogisch handelnden, geheimdienstlichen deep state- Strukturen durchkreuzt worden. 

In der Bundesrepublik geschah der Wiederaufbau der staatlichen Strukturen maßgeblich mit Personal, das zuvor in der NSDAP und ihren Unterorganisationen das Funktionieren des Nazi-Terror-Regimes sicherstellte. Damit wurde die Chance auf einen antifaschistischen Neuanfang**** vertan. Dass das Konzept eines solchen Neuanfangs, seine  nur von einer Minderheit erkannte sittliche und politische Notwendigkeit, zugunsten eines Wiederaufbaus, dem als pragmatische und realistische Lösung der Vorzug gegeben wurde (der gleiche Prozess wiederholte sich 1989 bei der deutschen Wiedervereinigung), sehr schnell verdrängt wurde, ist mitursächlich für die rasende Regression, von der unser Gemeinwesen inzwischen voll erfasst wurde (19). Zur Erklärung des Rückfalls in ein Denken, das Krieg erneut als ein Mittel der Politik etablieren will, dem militärischen Wettrüsten wieder das Wort redet und der Diplomatie, wider alle Vernunft, eine Absage erteilt, muss unbedingt an die frühe Lossagung von jedem ernsthaften, die Aufarbeitung der Vergangenheit betreffenden Denken und Handeln, erinnert werden.  

Erschreckende Kontinuitäten

Erschreckenderweise ist das bellizistische Denken, das nach den Brandspuren der verheerenden Kriege des 20. Jahrhunderts in ganz Europa überwunden geglaubt war, ist mit Beginn der russischen Beteiligung am ukrainischen Bruderkrieg wiederauferstanden. Es wird begleitet von einem starken, antifreiheitlichen Affekt, der sich auf dem ganzen Kontinent in der Politik breitgemacht hat. Denn Staaten, die zum Krieg rüsten, drängen die Freiheit auf ganzer Linie zurück, da sich Kriegsvorbereitungen und Militarismus niemals gut mit gesellschaftlicher Liberalität vertragen.

Die antirussischen Kampagnen, die Dämonisierung Putins und Russlands, steht unübersehbar in einer Kontinuität zur nationalsozialistischen Weltanschauung und müssen als ihre zombieähnlichen Wiedergänger betrachtet werden. In Deutschland gedenken die Täter damit, ihre Taten nachträglich moralisch rein zu waschen. Die nekrophilen Handlungen werden erhobenen Hauptes, forsch und mit stolz geschwellter Brust angekündigt, ausgeführt und verteidigt: Sie sind ja die Guten. 

---

DIE FRIEDENSTAUBE FLIEGT AUCH IN IHR POSTFACH!

Hier können Sie die Friedenstaube abonnieren und bekommen die Artikel zugesandt, vorerst für alle kostenfrei, wir starten gänzlich ohne Paywall. (Die Bezahlabos fangen erst zu laufen an, wenn ein Monetarisierungskonzept für die Inhalte steht). Sie wollen der Genossenschaft beitreten oder uns unterstützen? Mehr Infos hier oder am Ende des Textes.

---

Blicken wir auf das heutige Ausmaß antirussischer Ressentiments und vergleichen wir sie mit dem antislawistischen Rassismus der NS-Ideologie (in dem Angehörige slawischer Völker als „Untermenschen“ galten – 27 Millionen dieser „Untermenschen“ wurden von Deutschen im Zweiten Weltkrieg vernichtet) muss man zu dem gleichen Schluss wie Brecht kommen, den er in seinem Arturo Ui zieht:

„Der Schoß ist fruchtbar noch, aus dem das kroch.“

Erinnern wir uns:

Bis zu einem Viertel der Bundestagsabgeordneten in den Legislaturperioden 1949 bis 1965 und mindestens 26 Angehörige in den Bundeskabinetten bis Helmut Kohl, gehörten der NSDAP an. Ganz zu schweigen von der nationalsozialistischen Kontinuität in den BRD-Geheimdiensten. (20) 

„Beim BND waren Massenmörder, da gibt es nichts zu beschönigen.“  (21) 

Gerade jetzt, nachdem der Verfassungsschutz in einem geheim gehaltenen, aber an bestimmte Presseorgane vorab lancierten Gutachten (22), die AfD als „gesichert rechtsextrem“ eingestuft hat, ist daran zu erinnern, dass der Verfassungsschutz durch sein V-Leute-System – zum einen durch das vor dem Bundesverfassungsgericht gescheiterte NPD-Verbotsverfahren dokumentiert, zum anderen durch das schuldhafte, noch immer nicht richtig aufgeklärte Agieren des Verfassungsschutzes im NSU-Komplex belegt – als eine Behörde angesehen werden muss, die selber tief in rechtsextreme und rechtsterroristische Strukturen verstrickt ist. 

Betrachtet man genauer die Unterlassungen, Vermeidungsstrategien und Ausweichmanöver bezüglich einer NS-Aufarbeitung, die diesen Namen verdient hätte und beginnt man dafür Quellen heranzuziehen, die uns durch das Internet frei zugänglich für die eigene Urteilsbildung zur Verfügung stehen, wird relativ schnell klar, dass der Rechtsextremismus in der Tat ein gravierendes bundesrepublikanisches Problem war und ist, dass dieses Problem aber nicht erst und gewiss nicht vorrangig durch den Aufstieg der AfD virulent geworden ist. 

Der Rechtsextremismus hat sich vielmehr bereits seit 1949 als die schwerste Hypothek für eine Demokratisierung der Bundesrepublik erwiesen, und damit meine ich nicht die NPD oder die Neo-Nazis auf der Straße. Mit Macht hat diese Hypothek verhindert, dass überhaupt je nach dem Krieg ein ernsthafter Versuch unternommen wurde, den Souverän – das Volk – vollgültig in seine Rechte einzusetzen. So scheiterte die Republik-Werdung. Die Republik, die per Grundgesetz und Staatsverständnis ihrer Gründer  beabsichtigte und angestrebte Form, wurde zwar institutionell-formal hergestellt. Sie wurde aber material nie zum Leben erweckt. 

Die republikanische Verfassung hat zum Gegenstand und sieht vor, das Gemeinwesen (als die Gesamtheit der Bürger) auf eine sowohl organische (der Bürger bestimmt deliberativ die Politik und ihre Verfahren) als auch radikale Art und Weise selbst zu ermächtigen seine Angelegenheiten und Geschicke zu regeln, zu bestimmen und zu leiten. Diesbezüglich haben alle Angehörigen der Bürgerschaft genau die gleichen Rechte, kein Einzelner und keine Gruppe kann in diesem Prozess mehr Rechte als andere oder gar Privilegien für sich beanspruchen: 

Die Republik steht und fällt mit der Verwirklichung des Grundsatzes der allgemeinen Gleichheit und Freiheit. Die Nachkriegsgeschichte der Bundesrepublik ist hingegen von konservativem Elitedenken und einer Serie von Ungleichheiten, Privilegien und unterschiedlich geregelten rechtlichen Zugangsmöglichkeiten zur Gestaltung und Verwaltung des Gemeinwesens und der Teilhabe am politischen Prozess insgesamt gekennzeichnet. 

Statt dem organischen und radikalen Weg der Demokratisierung zu folgen, bog die Bundesrepublik – und das ist ganz wörtlich zu verstehen – frühzeitig rechts ab. Als Folge dieses Abbiegens müssen wir uns heute mit einer extremisierten Mitte auseinandersetzen, die als „Transatlantische Einheitspartei Deutschland“ (Michael Andrick), das Kartell der Inhaber „unserer Demokratie“ von CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP, Grüne und Linke, in Erscheinung tritt. Kritiker, wie z.B. Oskar Lafontaine, haben wiederholt auf die äußerst fragwürdigen, Demokratie und Grundgesetz außer Kraft setzenden Erscheinungsformen und Gefahren, die von dieser extremisierten Mitte ausgehen, aufmerksam gemacht (23). Ein Satz, in dem diese extremistischen Tendenzen besonders komprimiert und markant zum Ausdruck gebracht wurden, stammt von Olaf Scholz. Er hat ihn in seiner ersten Regierungserklärung als Bundeskanzler zur Corona-Politik gesagt:

„Für meine Regierung gibt es keine roten Linien mehr.“

Doch verschieben wir den Fokus nun vom Feld der Innenpolitik auf die Außenpolitik und schauen uns die abstruse und bedrohliche Lage an, in der die Welt durch die Politik des Westens und die paradoxalen Spannungen innerhalb seines Bündnisses zuletzt geraten ist.

Perplexe Folgen einer Machtasymmetrie

In diesen Wochen und Monaten tritt uns das seit dem Ende des Zweiten Weltkrieges konstant asymmetrisch gebliebene Machtverhältnis zwischen den USA und Europa mehr und mehr als Farce entgegen –  nichtsdestotrotz eine brandgefährliche Farce! 

Die deutschen und der Großteil der europäischen Eliten lehnen sich im 80. Jahr des Kriegsendes gegen den „großen Bruder“ in dem Moment auf, wo dieser außenpolitisch ausnahmsweise einmal vernünftig handelt. Man mag es nicht glauben, aber die Europäische Union, die nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg als Friedensprojekt konzipiert wurde und auf eine einzigartige Erfolgsgeschichte zurückblicken kann, ein Friedensprojekt, das über Jahrzehnte weltweit hohes Ansehen genoss und ausgezeichnet wurde (Friedensnobelpreis 2012 in „Anerkennung für über sechzig Jahre Friede, Versöhnung und Demokratie“) (24), diese Europäische Union entzweit sich mit den USA ausgerechnet deshalb, weil die Trump-Administration den nicht gewinnbaren Krieg in der Ukraine gegen Russland endlich beenden und für das malträtierte und in jeder Hinsicht darniederliegende Land Frieden schaffen will. 

Unter dem Strich ist – auch wenn man sich vielleicht scheut, es so aufzufassen – der Eindruck entstanden, dass unter den „Verbündeten“ hier eine äußerst seltsame, um nicht zu sagen absurde Travestie zum Tragen kommt: Solange der „große Bruder“ USA die Konflikte schürt und mittels Regime-Change-Aktivitäten und militärisch- geheimdienstlicher Interventionen seine eigenen Interessen –   euphemistisch offiziell als Schutz der „regelgeleiteten Ordnung“ (in wessen Namen eigentlich?) bezeichnet – durch den Einsatz einer Menge Geld und mehr oder minder brachialer Gewalt weltweit (in wessen Namen eigentlich?) durchsetzt, stehen wir vasallentreu an seiner Seite. Oder können die eigenen aggressiven Impulse über den großen Bruder dadurch ohne Risiko ausgelebt werden? Bot nicht die Art der Zusammenarbeit im „westlichen Wertebündnis“ den Deutschen die Gelegenheit, die Scham über die eigenen Verbrechen zu vergessen, sich vom dauerhaft schlechten Gewissen endlich zu befreien?

Ausgerechnet dadurch will man sich nun vom US-amerikanischen Hegemon emanzipieren, dass zunehmend verzweifelte Versuche in der sogenannten „Koalition der Willigen“ unternommen werden, um die längst überfälligen, im März 2022 u.a. durch das Eingreifen des damaligen britischen Premierministers Boris Johnson gegenüber der Selensky-Regierung bereits einmal gescheiterten Friedensverhandlungen doch noch durch unrealistische Forderungen, erneute Drohungen und Ultimaten an Russland zu verhindern? Dabei hat Europa, der Ukraine darin durchaus ähnlich, zur Durchsetzung der eigenen Positionen in dem Konflikt „keine Karten mehr in der Hand“, um Donald Trumps Formulierung aus dem öffentlich übertragenen Clinch mit Selensky im Weißen Haus aufzugreifen. Die Sanktionen haben Russland nicht in die Knie gezwungen, sondern das Land nur stärker, z.B. vom europäischen Technologietransfer unabhängig gemacht.  

Man hat offensichtlich auch kein Problem damit, weiter Tausende von toten und verletzten sowie lebenslang traumatisierten Soldaten und Zivilisten allmonatlich dafür in Kauf zu nehmen. Vor diesem Hintergrund mutet das Spiel um den von Brüssel, Berlin und Kiew geforderten 30-tägigen Waffenstillstand zynisch an, denn niemand in Moskau glaubt dem Westen noch ein Wort, wenn er zugleich die Zeit dafür nutzen will, neue Waffen an Selensky zu liefern. Die ganze europäische Politiker-Riege ist vielmehr maßgeblich mitverantwortlich dafür, dass sich die Verhandlungspositionen der Ukraine seit Beginn des Krieges immer weiter verschlechtert haben.

Eine EU, die sich immer stärker von den geopolitischen Realitäten abkoppelt und ideologisch einbunkert, mag ihre Nibelungentreue zum korrupten Selensky-Regime damit glaubwürdig unter Beweis stellen. Sie kann aber damit nicht verantwortlich im Sinne der Bevölkerung in der Ukraine handeln und natürlich ebenso wenig dadurch ihrer Verantwortung für die Bürgerinnen und Bürgern der EU gerecht werden.  

Sollten wir uns also tatsächlich in der Frage nach Krieg und Frieden noch tiefer in diese (besonders für die Ukraine) aussichtslose Situation verstricken und uns sowohl gegen Moskau als auch gegen Washington stellen? 

Dann muss man kein Prophet sein, um vorherzusagen, dass die Konfrontation der EU mit ihrer faktischen Machtlosigkeit diese so unbarmherzig hart treffen wird, dass ein solches Eingeständnis auf eine völlige Zerstörung ihrer ohnehin schon brüchig gewordenen Fundamente hinauslaufen würde. Die Trump-Regierung zeigt jedenfalls wenig Interesse mit der EU verhandeln zu wollen. Viel besser passen ihr einzelne Staaten ins Konzept, die man gegebenenfalls getreu der Maxime „divide et impera“ gegeneinander ausspielen kann. Zugleich führt die wachsende Unzufriedenheit immer größerer Teile der Bevölkerung mit den EU-Eliten dazu, dass eurokritische Bewegungen und Parteien immer öfter gewählt und in vielen Ländern die EU-kritischen, in der Regel rechten Parteien kurz vor der Regierungsübernahme stehen. Ein Prozess, den die neue US-Regierung unterstützt. 

---

Bernd Schoepe, Jahrgang 1965,  Studium der Soziologie, Germanistik, Philosophie und Erziehungswissenschaften in Frankfurt/M. und Hamburg. Erstes und zweites Staatsexamen. Freier Autor, der zu bildungspolitischen, bildungssoziologischen- und bildungsphilosophischen Themen schreibt. Seit 2003 im Hamburger Schuldienst. Langjähriges GEW-Betriebsgruppen-Mitglied, ehem. Vertrauensmann, ehem. Mitglied der Hamburger Lehrerkammer. Hauptberuflich bin ich Politik- Deutsch- und Philosophielehrer an einer Hamburger Stadtteilschule. Kontakt: berndschoepe\@gmx.de

---

LASSEN SIE DER FRIEDENSTAUBE FLÜGEL WACHSEN!

In Kürze folgt eine Mail an alle Genossenschafter, danke für die Geduld!

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.

@ a296b972:e5a7a2e8

Wie weit ist es noch her mit Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit?

Wie weit sind diese wunderbaren Begriffe schon von Spaltung, Willkür und Bevormundung verdrängt worden?

Ein Land, dessen Werte aus dem Ruder gelaufen sind. Regiert von Teflonauten. Teflonauten? Das sind die, die sich vor Eintritt in die Politik in einem Fass Teflon-Lack haben taufen lassen, damit alle Vernunft an ihnen abperlt.

Für Deutschland gehen die Superlative aus, die den Gesamtzustand eines Staates beschreiben könnten, der in jeder Hinsicht aus den Fugen geraten ist. Wie in einem vorangegangenen Kommentar zu einem anderen Thema zu lesen war, die Satiriker werden langsam arbeitslos, weil die Realität alles überbietet.

Eine unsägliche Riege von Politikern demontiert eine Demokratie, die bis 2019 wenigstens noch einigermaßen erträglich funktioniert hat. Man hatte noch das Gefühl, man wird weitgehend in Ruhe gelassen.

Mit dem Corona-Ereignis wurde die Büchse der Pandora geöffnet. Seitdem fließen totalitäre Elemente in die Demokratie ein. Wer darauf hinweist, läuft Gefahr, es mit der vom Souverän gekaperten Macht zu tun zu bekommen.

Für die, die gegen die Bevölkerungsverdummung immun sind, wird es zunehmend unerträglicher, doch – da müssen wir durch.

Es ist gut, dass all die Machenschaften, die die Deutschen sonst nicht mitbekommen haben, allendhalben hier und da mal ein Skandälchen, ans Tageslicht kommen.

Es ist gut, dass es so offensichtlich ist, dass die dicksten Klopse, die sich die sogenannten Politiker erlauben, nicht den geringsten Anlass dazu geben, zurückzutreten. Vorbei die Zeiten, in den schon viel kleinere Vergehen, einen Politiker dazu genötigt haben. Es ist gut, weil so klar wird, dass das politische Gewissen nur noch im Museum besichtigt werden kann. Irgendwann versteht das auch noch der Letzte im hintersten Winkel des besten Deutschlands aller Zeiten.

Die Inkompetenz ist überall sichtbar, durch die, die unfähig sind, ihre Machenschaften zu verbergen.

Läppisch geschnitzte Pfeifen geben sich als wohlgestimmte Orgel aus und meinen, es gäbe niemanden, der die Kakophonie hören würde. Ein schräges Blockflöten-Konzert wird zum Musikgenuss hochstilisiert, von Leuten, die ständig ihren Notenschlüssel verlegen und dadurch nicht mehr in den Raum der Vernunft kommen.

Die Menschen in Deutschland haben sich aufgeteilt in die, die von all dem nichts wissen wollen und sich einreden, es sei doch alles in Ordnung. Für die, die sich brav ihre tägliche Gehirnwäsche in den inzwischen für die Qualität ihrer Propaganda bekannten Medien abholen, das sind noch rund 60%, gibt es keine Einschränkung der Meinungsfreiheit. Rund 40%, die der Meinung sind, dass man in Deutschland seine Meinung nicht mehr frei äußern kann, sind noch viel zu wenig! Für immer noch zu viele ist J. D. Vance ein Verschwörungstheoretiker, der die Sicherheitskonferenz in München dazu missbraucht hat, seine kruden Ansichten zu verbreiten.

Und dann gibt es die, die mitbekommen, was in Deutschland los ist. Die werden oft erschlagen von den Verstrickungen, Irrungen und Wirrungen, die sich immer mehr zeigen und immer dreister als Selbstverständlichkeit, als das Normalste von der Welt postuliert werden. Für die ist der gesundheitliche Zustand der deutschen Demokratie immer mehr ein Dauerpatient auf der Intensivstation.

Realitätsfremde Energiepolitik, Nordstream kaputt, gut so, kein Interesse an einer Wiederinbetriebnahme;

rückläufige Wirtschaft, zunehmende Firmenpleiten, Abwanderung von Unternehmen;

eklatante Steuergeldverbrennung, Northvolt in die Grütze gefahren, Maskendeals, zur Belohnung das nächste Pöstchen;

einseitige, weglassende Hofberichterstattung mit dem Hang zu Amnäsie;

fragwürdige Gerichtsurteile; Schauprozesse gegen Ballweg, Füllmich und viele andere, Masken, Atteste, Strafzahlungen, Majestätsbeleidigung etc. etc. etc..

Gewalt und Tod durch Messerfachkräfte, es sind ja die Messer, nicht die Menschen, die sie in der Hand haben, transparenter Aufklärungsrückstau;

intellektuelle Beleidigungen durch Schönrederei, man glaubt, die anderen sind noch dümmer als man selbst;

existenzbedrohende Kontenkündigungen, wir machen dich fertig;

politischer Dummschwätz, Wiederholungen, Wiederholungen, Wiederholungen;

Einzug totalitärer Strukturen, wer die Augen aufmacht, sieht sie;

infantile Repräsentanz Deutschlands im Ausland, Abwesenheit von Diplomatie;

Aufstachelung der Bürger, damit sie ja schön kriegsgeil werden, siehe auch Dummschwätz;

Angstpornos für Kinder und Erwachsene, bei ständigem Einlass in Kino 7, Raum Klima, mit Air Condition;

lächerliche Preisverleihungen, armutsfördernde Preiserhöhungen;

zunehmendes Misstrauen gegenüber der eigenen Bevölkerung, der Feind im eigenen Land;

Bevormundung, betreutes Denken, Fühlen, Wollen;

bedrohlich zunehmende Überwachungsanstrengungen, digitale Identität, die als Sicherheit verkauft wird, jedoch nichts anderes ist, als der Versuch der Einrichtung eines Überwachungs-Kontroll-Systems;

nichts, aber auch rein gar nichts hat Konsequenzen, die dazu führen, dass die Verantwortlichen zum Sandkornzählen in die Wüste geschickt werden, damit sie den Rest ihres Lebens beschäftigt sind und kein Unheil mehr anrichten können.

Unaufhaltsam rast der Personal-Zug Deutschland, überfüllt mit Fahrgästen, die meinen, Trump ist verrückt und Putin ist die Personifizierung des Bösen, gezogen von einer mit heißer Luft betriebenen Lok, die von Heizern befeuert wird, die den Kessel unentwegt  mit Angst und Wahnsinn schüren, auf den Berg aus Granit zu, der unweigerlich eine Katastrophe für die Demokratie von ungeahntem Ausmaß verursachen wird. Ständig wird die Strecke künstlich verlängert, indem neue Schienen und Schleifen hinzugefügt werden, statt den Zug rechtzeitig noch zum Halten zu bringen. Die Geschwindigkeit ist inzwischen schon so hoch, dass selbst der Geist, der zu Pfingsten ja ausgeschüttet wird, niemanden mehr erreicht.

Deutschland ist in der Hand von ideologisch vergifteten Versagern zweiter und letzter Wahl und einer verschworenen Gemeinschaft von Universal-Dilettanten, die den Untergang der freiheitlich-demokratischen Grundordnung fest im Zangengriff haben und keinerlei Anstalten machen, diesen wieder lösen zu wollen.

Das Land der Denker und Dichter geht vor die Hunde. Freiheitlich, wirtschaftlich, gesellschaftlich, politisch, rechtlich. Um die Manege sitzen immer noch viel zu viele sogenannte Bürger, die Beifall klatschen, oder sich zumindest einreden, es sei doch weitgehend alles in Ordnung. Bravo! Es ist so unglaublich unterhaltend, sich nach Strich und Faden an der Nase herumführen zu lassen.

Und die, die die Kraft haben, auf diesen Wahnsinn hinzuschauen, die wissen gar nicht, was sie zuerst tun sollen: Heulen, schreien, verzweifelt sein, unentwegt mit dem Kopf schütteln, dagegen anschreiben, wachrütteln, flüchten oder dableiben, sich in Sicherheit bringen?

Die Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit sind von „Demokraten“ gekidnappt worden, die behaupten, sie würden sie verteidigen. Dabei geht es ausschließlich nur um deren Machterhalt und die Besitzstandswahrung ihrer erbärmlichen Pöstchen, mit einer weiteren Diätenerhöhung von rund 600 Euro im Juli 2025. Deutschland ist zu einem drittklassigen Selbstbedienungsladen verkommen, und es wird unentwegt in die Kasse gegriffen, solange noch was zu holen ist. Und damit das auch noch eine Zeit lang so weitergehen kann, wird Luftgeld produziert und als Sondervermögen deklariert, und damit eine Hypothek geschaffen, die zukünftige Generationen niemals werden ausgleichen können.

Wie gelegen käme da ein Krieg, in dem all dieser menschengemachte Unsinn wertlos wird. Und ein Neuanfang danach wird dann als überragende politische Leistung verkauft, die zum Wohle des Volkes geschaffen wurde, damit ein neues Wirtschaftswunder möglich werden kann. Los, ran, wieder all das aufbauen, das Deppen zuvor in die Tonne gekloppt haben. Uns geht’s ja schon wieder so gut, wir wollen uns wirklich nicht beklagen. Wir haben ja von all dem nichts gewusst. Wir waren ja nur die Opfer einer fehlgeleiteten Politik. Was hätten wir denn tun können? So oder so ähnlich wird dann das eigene Gewissen wieder durch fadenscheinigen Selbstbetrug beruhigt.

Das ganze System stinkt zum Himmel. Unerträglicher Gestank nach Zersetzung und Verwesung, der uns als neuester Schrei der Parfum-Hersteller verkauft wird.

Man kann gar nicht so schnell schreiben, wie man sich aufregen möchte.

Das ist kein Ventil zum Ausdruck der unglaublichen Empörung. Das wäre zu einfach und bedeutungslos. Nein, mit jedem Wort und jedem Artikel und jedem neuen Abonnenten von Pareto verbindet sich die Hoffnung, wieder jemanden zum Nachdenken anregen zu können. Damit die Zahl derjenigen, die die Demokratie verstanden haben, von Tag zu Tag größer wird. Damit sich von unten herauf eine geistige Kraft immer mehr entfaltet, die dieses impertinente Lügenkonstrukt zum Einstürzen bringt. Ein Leuchtfeuer muss ständig brennen, wenn Gefahr in Verzug ist. Wenn man so will, ist das Revolution, aber eine geistige und vor allem friedliche. Wenn immer mehr Menschen mutig verstehen, was in Deutschland abgeht, dann nagt das unermüdlich an den künstlich geschaffenen, unmenschlichen undemokratischen Strukturen, die den Stümpern die Macht rauben werden, damit dieses ganze Lügengebäude endlich implodieren kann.

Je lauter Delegitimierung geschrien wird, desto deutlicher tritt hervor, wer für die Delegitimierung der freiheitlich-demokratischen Grundordnung und die Aushöhlung des Grundgesetzes verantwortlich ist.

Deutschland kann nur wirklich in Richtung Souveränität gehen, wenn wir so weit gekommen sind, dass sich das deutsche Volk in freier Entscheidung eine Verfassung (gerne auf Grundlage des Grundgesetzes, das nach wie vor provisorischen Charakter hat) gegeben hat, in der Bürgerbeteiligung und Volksentscheide, gerne nach schweizerischem Vorbild, nicht nur zur Pflicht eines jeden Bürgers, sondern ganz selbstverständlich als notwendiger, alltäglicher Beitrag zur Demokratie fest in den Köpfen der Menschen verankert ist.

Gruß an das Amt für, aus Sicht des Bürgers, Fassungslosigkeit. Wenn ein leidenschaftliches Eintreten für Freiheit und Demokratie, durch berechtigte Kritik an den derzeitigen Verhältnissen, als rechts angesehen wird, dann ist der Autor gerne rechts. Eben ein rechter Demokrat, wie es sich gehört!

Vielleicht leidet der Autor auch an Demokratie-Tourette: Ihr Pfeifen, ihr Pfeifen, ihr Pfeifen! Was habt ihr nur aus unserem Land gemacht. Unserem, hört ihr, nicht eurem!

Der Autor hat fertig (jedenfalls für heute!), Deutschland leider auch.

“Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben.”

* *

(Bild von pixabay)

@ cae03c48:2a7d6671

Bitcoin Magazine

‘MicroStrategy of Asia’ Metaplanet Aims To Acquire Over 210,000 BTC By the End of 2027

Metaplanet Inc. widely recognized as Japan’s leading Bitcoin treasury company, has announced a major update to its Bitcoin accumulation strategy, unveiling the “555 Million Plan” aimed at acquiring over 210,000 BTC by the end of 2027, which is equivalent to 1% of Bitcoin’s total supply.

*Metaplanet Announces Accelerated 2025-2027 Bitcoin Plan: Targeting 210,000 $BTC by 2027*

Full Presentation: https://t.co/JG28maMdfd pic.twitter.com/i9kzmjlDT8

— Metaplanet Inc. (@Metaplanet_JP) June 6, 2025

This new target marks a dramatic increase from the company’s earlier “21 Million Plan,” which aimed for just 21,000 BTC by 2026. Progress far outpaced expectations, with 8,888 BTC already secured as of June 2, prompting the strategic shift.

To fund this growth, Metaplanet has launched Asia’s largest Bitcoin-focused equity raise, aiming to secure ¥770.9 billion (approximately $5.4 billion) through the issuance of 555 million shares via moving strike warrants. This is the first structure of its kind in Japan, priced at a premium to market, made possible by the company’s high share liquidity and volatility.

At the Annual General Meeting on March 24, shareholders approved an increase in authorized shares from 161 million to 1.61 billion, following a 10-for-1 stock split effective April 1, 2025; Metaplanet has approximately 296 million authorized shares remaining. The 555 million shares being issued under the new plan will bring the company’s fully diluted shares outstanding to around 759 million.

Metaplanet’s Bitcoin yield targets and performance for 2025 have shown strong momentum, with quarterly BTC yields of 41.7% in Q3 2024, 309.8% in Q4 2024, 95.6% in Q1 2025, 66.3% in Q2 2025, and projected 35% yields for both Q3 and Q4 2025. The year-to-date BTC yield for 2025 stands at 225.4%, closing to the full year target of 232%. 

Metaplanet also announced the issuance of the 20th to 22nd Series of Stock Acquisition Rights via a third-party allotment to EVO FUND, potentially adding 555 million new shares. The initial exercise price is set at JPY 1,388 and will adjust regularly based on stock prices, with some series including a premium to protect shareholders. The exercise period runs from June 24, 2025, to June 23, 2027, with expected proceeds of approximately JPY 767.4 billion. This financing supports the “555 Million Plan” and further Bitcoin accumulation.

Metaplanet CEO Simon Gerovich wrote in a post on X, “thanks to all of our shareholders,” he said. “We are honored to be on this journey with you. Metaplanet is accelerating into the future — powered by Bitcoin.”

Metaplanet has launched Asia’s largest-ever equity raise dedicated to Bitcoin:
¥770.9 billion (~$5.4B) capital raise
555 million shares via moving strike warrants
First in Japan: issued at a premium to market — enabled by Metaplanet’s high volatility and deep liquidity… pic.twitter.com/UlXHneyDzo

— Simon Gerovich (@gerovich) June 6, 2025

This post ‘MicroStrategy of Asia’ Metaplanet Aims To Acquire Over 210,000 BTC By the End of 2027 first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Oscar Zarraga Perez.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Estórias

• O caso da Grêmio TV
• Jofer
• Lagoa Santa: como chegar -- partindo da rodoviária de Belo Horizonte
• O Planetinha

@ 6a6be47b:3e74e3e1

Hi frens! 🌍

Did you get a chance to rest this weekend? I hope so! While my cat naps away in his window hammock (and I’m a bit jealous of his endless snoozing), I found myself reflecting on a book I almost forgot I read years ago: Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card.

I knew Ender’s Game was part of a larger series, but since Card originally wrote Ender as just a “novelette,” I was never sure if I wanted to continue with the sequels after finishing the first book.

⭐️If you’re into movies or stories about epic space wars, Earth under threat from alien species, and unlikely heroes who seem a bit too good to be true —Ender’s Game is all that, but better.

What brought this book back to mind was humming along to “Home” by Tides of Man (from their album Dreamhouse):

“You were faster than me You were better than me I was too careful and weak It had to be you” 🎶

Supposedly, the album was inspired by Ender’s Game. If you’ve read the book and listen to the album, can you spot which tracks match up with the story? 👀

Ender, our (somewhat debatable) hero, is just a kid —but he’s sharp, resourceful, and surprisingly astute.

You’ll follow him through Battle School, navigating his complicated relationship (to put it nicely) with his older brother, and his much more empathetic bond with his sister. You’ll root for him, struggle with him, and want him to win.

🛸But by the end, you’re left wondering (just like him): what exactly is he winning? Was it worth it? When I finished the book, I couldn’t bring myself to continue the series. Maybe it was because the first book felt so brilliant on its own that I didn’t want to risk spoiling the experience, or maybe I wasn’t sure if knowing more about Ender as he grows up would change how I felt about him as a kid.

Either way, I’m still undecided about reading the rest of the saga. Maybe I will, maybe I won’t. But I can say this: Ender’s Game is a must-read.

See you soon, frens.

Godspeed! 🚀

https://stacker.news/items/1001683

@ 8bad92c3:ca714aa5

Key Takeaways

In this episode, Bitcoin Core veteran James O’Beirne delivers a sharp critique of Bitcoin’s developmental stagnation, attributing it to political dysfunction, post-fork trauma, and resistance within Bitcoin Core to critical upgrades like CheckTemplateVerify (CTV). He argues that while institutional adoption accelerates, internal innovation is being stifled by misplaced controversies—such as the OP_RETURN policy debate—and a bottlenecked governance model. O’Beirne warns that without urgent progress on scaling solutions like CTV, congestion control, and vaulting systems, Bitcoin risks ossifying and becoming vulnerable to institutional capture. Advocating a more adversarial posture, he suggests forking or building alternative clients to pressure progress but remains hopeful, seeing rising momentum for protocol upgrades from developers outside the Core elite.

Best Quotes

“Everybody has mempool derangement syndrome… it’s such a small issue in the grand scheme of challenges Bitcoin is facing.”

“Bitcoin is as much an experiment in technical human organization as it is a pure technology.”

“If we don’t figure out how to scale trustless Bitcoin self-custody, we’re toast. Right now, only about 2.5% of Americans could actually use Bitcoin monthly in a meaningful way.”

“CTV isn’t sexy—it just works. It keeps getting reinvented because it's so useful. At this point, it’s essential.”

“If Core isn’t going to evaluate these proposals, someone has to. Otherwise, we need to build the social justification for forking.”

“Lightning didn’t scale Bitcoin the way we expected. Let’s stop assuming a silver bullet is coming and start building the bridges ourselves.”

“You could onboard someone with just a phone and a vault… and give them more security than most hardware wallets.”

Conclusion

While Bitcoin gains traction with institutions and governments, its internal development is stalling under political inertia and misplaced focus. James O’Beirne urges the community to prioritize impactful upgrades like CTV and CCV, challenge the bottleneck of Bitcoin Core if needed, and recommit to Bitcoin’s foundational principles. This episode underscores the urgent need to bridge technical and social divides to ensure Bitcoin remains a decentralized, censorship-resistant tool for global value transfer.

Timestamps

0:00 - Intro
0:41 - Multi axis issue
5:12 - Core governance
9:41 - Derailing productive discussions
17:05 - Fold & Bitkey
18:32 - CTV
29:24 - Unchained
29:53 - Magnitude of change
41:45 - Covenant proposals
50:16 - CTV benefits
57:56 - Institutional ownership
1:05:26 - Moving forward

Transcript

(00:00) I think I have a somewhat different take than 99% of the people in the discussion. What freaks me out is if you've got Sailor owning half million coins or whatever and Black Rockck owning however many, people forget that Bitcoin is as much an experiment in technical human organization as it is, you know, as a sort of pure technology.
(00:17) The undernowledged reality is I'm actually interested to see if we have like a black swan adoption event from the machines. the risk given the increased scrutiny that things like the strategic Bitcoin reserve introduce there's a shot clock on getting to trustless decentralized value storage technology and I think we really have to be thinking about that combination of physically tired and mentally tired it's also tiresome James it's it's I was looking at that picture today and I was actually going to tweet it absent any caption just because it's
(00:52) a really good Uh yeah, it's a really good epitome of uh of a lot of stuff. But I'm with you, man. I'm tired. It's Friday. Who is it? Is that a just some random Japanese guy? I think it's it's I actually think it's from a documentary about I don't know if it's Africa, but Oh, yes. Yes.
(01:13) It's there's a little bit of a kind of like racy connotation there. Um yeah, the uh it's been long. It was interesting for me. We had Texas Energy Mining Summit here in Austin the beginning of the week. It sort of blended with Bitcoin plus I was over at Bitcoin++ Wednesday and yesterday doing the live desk and obviously topic of conversation is OP return this policy decision and this policy change that that core wants to make and many people are uh angry about and it's just again it's also tiresome.
(01:52) spoke with people on both sides over the two days and I I think I came away more confused than than I entered entered the week like what is the optimal path and somebody who's worked on Bitcoin core worked on Bitcoin core for for many years I've seen you tweeting about it seems like I won't put words in your mouth I'll let you say like what is your perspective on this whole policy debate around op return yeah so in general I think I have a somewhat different take than um 99% of the people in in the discussion which is basically that this
(02:25) is a really stupid discussion um everybody has mempool derangement syndrome like at every layer um and uh what what frustrates me a little bit about the conversation not not to not to uh get like um grumpy right off the bat but it's just it's it's such a small issue in the in the grand scheme of challenges that are being presented to Bitcoin that like spending all this drama on it um is is really a silly use of time and uh kind of emotion, but I can break it down for you.
(03:02) I mean, I think I think like largely the argument is happening on a few layers. Um the change itself technically I'm totally in favor of it. It makes sense. you know, basically the rationale is like, well, you know, um, people want to include exogenous data into the chain. Um, you can't really stop them from doing that.
(03:23) Um and so let's basically minimize the damage by saying hey you know we're going to make it easier for people to actually make use of op return as a data carrier which uh lets us avoid bloat in the UTXO set which is like one of the precious resources we have to take care of for the node.
(03:44) Um, so that's all good and the and the other thing too is that as we've seen with the ordinal stuff is um, you know, data is going to wait make its way into the chain and actually it hurts the whole network when um, there are transactions that most nodes haven't seen yet but they come through a block. Basically that slows down block propagation time.
(04:06) And so the whole idea is if you bring policy closer to the actual consensus rules, closer to the actual transactions that are going to come through and be mined, then you're going to have better network performance. You're going to have lower latency when it comes to actually broadcasting a new block around. So that's like the the sort of technical layer of the discussion.
(04:25) It's it's really a minute non-controversial change if you kind of have fluency with the the technical end of the mempool. Um, but I think there's this this higher layer to the conversation which is sort of a readjudication of spam in Bitcoin. And it's, you know, I think a lot of the the old animal spirits and sentiments are emerging about like, well, we don't like spam.
(04:49) And I think for a lot of people who kind of get lost in the technical details, it's very easy to latch on to the sentiment of I don't like spam. Um and so uh so that makes the sort of ocean knots camp maybe more appealing. Uh so that's yeah that's I guess a summary if you want to jump in anything in particular we can that's what I was saying I came out more confused than I went in.
(05:20) So last week on RHR, hey, I agree. You want policy to be aligned with consensus. Like whether we like it or not, these transactions are getting into blocks. They're non-standard, but they are valid within consensus rules and policy just isn't aligning with that. And like you said, this is disrupting the P2P layer and potentially the fee uh estimation process that that many nodes use, many applications use.
(05:49) And it makes sense to me to align policy with consensus. These things are happening. And if you can make it so Bitcoin full nodes are operating as efficiently and optimally as possible by changing this, it makes sense to me. I think my one like push back was like makes sense to me. However, I think how it was communicated to people and the whole mess with the PR.
(06:12) I think it's I think it's it was it's it's just a tactical error. Like even if this change gets in the the the real benefit of is is not material. You know, nobody was really clamoring for it. um this stuff always, you know, gets the hackles up of everybody who cares at all about, you know, spamming Bitcoin. So, it was a real tactical error.
(06:36) And I think that's that's one place where I mean it's kind of I had a little bit of shot in Freud seeing it because I'm fairly critical of core as a project along you know a variety of axes at this point and it was just kind of a demonstration of the the disconnection and kind of ineptitude of um publicity management kind of on on their end.
(06:58) Um, and so like there's part of me that enjoys seeing that because I I'm kind of convinced that that group has a lot less efficacy than they have credibility. And so to to see that kind of catch up was was interesting. The uh let's dive into that like what you said multiple axes you have a problem. I think we've throughout the years like we've been discussing the issues that Bitcoin like yourself particularly as a Bitcoin core developer for many years trying to get things through not only in the context of the way core works from a governance
(07:35) structure but just the way Bitcoin works as a distributed open source protocol like trying to get changes in and I will say like

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Why relay hints are important

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

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

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

@ cae03c48:2a7d6671

Bitcoin Magazine

TakeOver Successfully Hosts Second Annual BitGala Celebrating Bitcoin in Las Vegas

LAS VEGAS, NV, May 26, 2025 – TakeOver, Magic Eden, Spark, and Stacks successfully hosted their second annual BitGala on May 26th at the Wynn in Las Vegas. The celebration brought together over 200 Bitcoin industry leaders and community members for an evening dedicated to celebrating Bitcoin. 

The BitGala was designed as a curated gathering focused on inspiring continued development, education, and adoption while reflecting on the strides Bitcoin has made toward a future of open, decentralized money. The event successfully brought together key leaders, creating meaningful opportunities for collaboration and strategic partnerships within the Bitcoin space. 

“BitGala celebrates our partnership with Spark, marketing a major leap forward for Bitcoin DeFi,” said Elizabeth Olson, Head of Marketing for Bitcoin at Magic Eden. “As the #1 Bitcoin app, Magic Eden has spent the past few years pushing Bitcoin L1 to its limits, always with the goal of making Bitcoin more usable, fast, and fun without compromising its core ethos. We believe Spark has the potential to unlock a new era of building on Bitcoin, and we’re thrilled to be leading that charge together.” 

“The BitGala was a stunning celebration of Bitcoin culture where luxury meets the cypherpunk spirit. We’re proving that Bitcoin isn’t just a protocol, it’s a movement connecting freedom-minded people from art, fashion, finance, and more. To us, it was a pure signal that people are starting to see what Stacks has been building all along: a future where Bitcoin isn’t just held, but used for apps, defi, and real ownership.” – Rena Shah, COO of Stacks. 

Set against the backdrop of the Sphere, the evening brought together innovators, investors, and community leaders for a night dedicated to celebrating Bitcoin’s growth and the people driving its future. 

The program opened with a welcome reception, followed by gourmet hors d’oeuvres and vibrant conversations. A keynote and honors segment recognized those making meaningful strides in Bitcoin adoption and development. Guests were then invited to explore a premium tequila tasting experience curated by Reach, and indulge in interactive gourmet chef stations. 

“Our team has been fortunate to be part of the Bitcoin community since 2016, so we’re thrilled to see all the progress on display almost 10 years later at Bitcoin 2025. The energy in the room at BitGala was electric—from conversations sparking new partnerships to shared reflections on what’s next for Bitcoin—it was a powerful reminder of why we’re all here: to build an open, decentralized financial system that empowers everyone.” noted Kelley Weaver, Founder and CEO, Melrose PR and Founder, Bitwire. 

This unforgettable gathering—hosted in partnership with leading organizations including Magic Eden, Spark, and Stacks—was more than a celebration. It was a call to continue pushing forward innovation, education, and adoption in

the Bitcoin ecosystem. BitGala was made possible through the generous support of key sponsors and partners who share Takeover’s commitment to fostering connections in the web3 space. 

“We’re focused on making Bitcoin more useful for everyone, and events like this remind us that we’re not alone in that mission. It was inspiring to connect with others who share the vision of a more open, decentralized financial future powered by Bitcoin.” – Spark Team 

Presenting Sponsors: 

• Magic Eden – The largest NFT marketplace and Runes platform. 
• Spark – The fastest, cheapest, most UX-friendly way to build financial apps and launch assets on Bitcoin.
• Stacks – A Bitcoin L2 enabling smart contracts & apps with Bitcoin as secure base layer. 

Supporting Partners: 

• Reach Ventures – a gaming-focused VC firm that actively invests in both early-stage and demo-ready game studios.
• Arch Network – a Bitcoin-native platform for building decentralized apps and smart contracts directly on Bitcoin. 
• Melrose PR – An onchain communications firm that has been focused on the crypto industry exclusively for almost a decade. 
• Bitwire – The modern newswire reimagined for today’s communications professionals. 

The collaborative support from these organizations was instrumental in delivering a memorable event for all attendees. 

Actor and comedian T.J. Miller was also a speaker at the event: “The bitcoin conference 2025 was incredible for so many reasons. It was such a joyful journey to be with so many like-minded people (all of whom have been laughed at) who share the same values: freedom, community, hope, and getting rich- the highpoint was the BitGala. I bought incredibly large expensive shoes for the specific purpose of showing up to the gala non-verbally saying bitcoin destroying Fiat, well that’s big shoes to fill… and we’ll fill ‘em. I can’t wait to return next year. I will wear more orange.” 

About TakeOver 

TakeOver is the experiential agency at the forefront of culture and innovation in the crypto space, known for curating powerful moments that educate, connect, and inspire. With a global Bitcoin Dinner Series and their annual flagship event, BitGala, they’ve become a cornerstone of community-building in Web3. Last year, they made headlines with a dramatic takeover of Nashville’s Parthenon—setting the bar for what crypto gatherings can be. 

About Magic Eden 

Magic Eden is the easiest platform to trade all digital assets onchain. As the #1 Bitcoin app and largest NFT marketplace, we provide a seamless trading experience to everyone. Magic Eden’s acquisition of Slingshot has expanded their capabilities to offer frictionless trading of over 5,000,000 tokens across all major chains. Magic Eden’s expanded product suite includes a cross-chain wallet, powerful trading tools, and the ability to mint, collect, and seamlessly trade NFTs and tokens.

---

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 TakeOver Successfully Hosts Second Annual BitGala Celebrating Bitcoin in Las Vegas first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by TakeOver.

@ 1817b617:715fb372

🚀 Instantly Send Spendable Flash BTC, ETH, & USDT — 100% Blockchain-Verifiable!

Step into the future of cryptocurrency innovation with CryptoFlashingTool.com — your go-to solution for sending spendable Flash Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), and USDT transactions. Using cutting-edge 🔥 Race/Finney-style blockchain simulation, our technology generates coins that are virtually indistinguishable from real, fully confirmed blockchain transactions. Transactions stay live and spendable from 60 up to 360 days!

🌐 Explore all the details at cryptoflashingtool.com.

🌟 Why Trust Our Crypto Flashing System? Whether you’re a blockchain enthusiast, ethical hacker, security expert, or digital entrepreneur, our solution offers a perfect mix of authenticity, speed, and flexibility.

🎯 Top Features You’ll Love: ✅ Instant Blockchain Simulation: Transactions are complete with valid wallet addresses, transaction IDs, and real confirmations.

🔒 Privacy First: Works flawlessly with VPNs, TOR, and proxies to keep you fully anonymous.

🖥️ User-Friendly Software: Built for Windows, beginner and pro-friendly with simple step-by-step guidance.

📅 Flexible Flash Durations: Choose how long coins stay valid — from 60 to 360 days.

🔄 Full Wallet Compatibility: Instantly flash coins to SegWit, Legacy, or BCH32 wallets with ease.

💱 Exchange-Ready: Spend your flashed coins on leading exchanges like Kraken and Huobi.

📊 Proven Results: ✅ Over 79 billion flash transactions completed. ✅ 3000+ satisfied users around the globe. ✅ 42 active blockchain nodes ensuring fast, seamless performance.

📌 How It Works: Step 1️⃣: Input Transaction Info

Pick your coin (BTC, ETH, USDT: TRC-20, ERC-20, BEP-20). Set amount and flash duration. Enter the recipient wallet (auto-validated). Step 2️⃣: Make Payment

Pay in your selected crypto. Scan the QR code or use the provided address. Upload your transaction proof (hash and screenshot). Step 3️⃣: Launch the Flash

Blockchain confirmation simulation happens instantly. Your transaction appears real within seconds. Step 4️⃣: Verify & Spend

Access your flashed coins immediately. Verify your transactions using blockchain explorers. 🛡️ Why Our Flashing Tech Leads the Market: 🔗 Race/Finney Attack Mechanics: Mimics authentic blockchain behavior. 🖥️ Private iNode Clusters: Deliver fast syncing and reliable confirmation. ⏰ Live Timer: Ensures fresh, legitimate transactions. 🔍 Real Blockchain TX IDs: All transactions come with verifiable IDs.

❓ FAQs:

Is flashing secure? ✅ Yes, fully encrypted with VPN/proxy compatibility. Multiple devices? ✅ Yes, up to 5 Windows PCs per license. Chargebacks possible? ❌ No, flashing is irreversible. Spendability? ✅ Flash coins stay spendable 60–360 days. Verification after expiry? ❌ No, transactions expire after the set time. Support? ✅ 24/7 Telegram and WhatsApp help available. 🔐 Independent, Transparent, Trusted:

At CryptoFlashingTool.com, we pride ourselves on unmatched transparency, speed, and reliability. See our excellent reviews on ScamAdvisor and top crypto forums!

📲 Contact Us: 📞 WhatsApp: +1 770 666 2531 ✈️ Telegram: @cryptoflashingtool

🎉 Ready to Flash Like a Pro?

💰 Buy Flash Coins Now 🖥️ Get Your Flashing Software

The safest, smartest, and most powerful crypto flashing solution is here — only at CryptoFlashingTool.com!

 Instantly Send Spendable Flash BTC, ETH, & USDT — 100% Blockchain-Verifiable!

Step into the future of cryptocurrency innovation with CryptoFlashingTool.com — your go-to solution for sending spendable Flash Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), and USDT transactions. Using cutting-edge 

 Race/Finney-style blockchain simulation, our technology generates coins that are virtually indistinguishable from real, fully confirmed blockchain transactions. Transactions stay live and spendable from 60 up to 360 days!

 Explore all the details at cryptoflashingtool.com.

 Why Trust Our Crypto Flashing System? Whether you’re a blockchain enthusiast, ethical hacker, security expert, or digital entrepreneur, our solution offers a perfect mix of authenticity, speed, and flexibility.

 Top Features You’ll Love: 

 Instant Blockchain Simulation: Transactions are complete with valid wallet addresses, transaction IDs, and real confirmations.

 Privacy First: Works flawlessly with VPNs, TOR, and proxies to keep you fully anonymous.

 User-Friendly Software: Built for Windows, beginner and pro-friendly with simple step-by-step guidance.

 Flexible Flash Durations: Choose how long coins stay valid — from 60 to 360 days.

 Full Wallet Compatibility: Instantly flash coins to SegWit, Legacy, or BCH32 wallets with ease.

 Exchange-Ready: Spend your flashed coins on leading exchanges like Kraken and Huobi.

 Proven Results: 

 Over 79 billion flash transactions completed. 

 3000+ satisfied users around the globe. 

 42 active blockchain nodes ensuring fast, seamless performance.

 How It Works: Step 

: Input Transaction Info

• Pick your coin (BTC, ETH, USDT: TRC-20, ERC-20, BEP-20).
• Set amount and flash duration.
• Enter the recipient wallet (auto-validated).

Step 

: Make Payment

• Pay in your selected crypto.
• Scan the QR code or use the provided address.
• Upload your transaction proof (hash and screenshot).

Step 

: Launch the Flash

• Blockchain confirmation simulation happens instantly.
• Your transaction appears real within seconds.

Step 

: Verify & Spend

• Access your flashed coins immediately.
• Verify your transactions using blockchain explorers.

 Why Our Flashing Tech Leads the Market: 

 Race/Finney Attack Mechanics: Mimics authentic blockchain behavior. 

 Private iNode Clusters: Deliver fast syncing and reliable confirmation. 

 Live Timer: Ensures fresh, legitimate transactions. 

 Real Blockchain TX IDs: All transactions come with verifiable IDs.

 FAQs:

• Is flashing secure? 

 Yes, fully encrypted with VPN/proxy compatibility. - Multiple devices? 

 Yes, up to 5 Windows PCs per license. - Chargebacks possible? 

 No, flashing is irreversible. - Spendability? 

 Flash coins stay spendable 60–360 days. - Verification after expiry? 

 No, transactions expire after the set time. - Support? 

 24/7 Telegram and WhatsApp help available.

 Independent, Transparent, Trusted:

At CryptoFlashingTool.com, we pride ourselves on unmatched transparency, speed, and reliability. See our excellent reviews on ScamAdvisor and top crypto forums!

 Contact Us: 

 WhatsApp: +1 770 666 2531

 Telegram: @cryptoflashingtool

 Ready to Flash Like a Pro?

 Buy Flash Coins Now

 Get Your Flashing Software

The safest, smartest, and most powerful crypto flashing solution is here — only at CryptoFlashingTool.com!

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

About Nostr, email and subscriptions

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Bitcoin transactions explained

A transaction is a piece of data that takes inputs and produces outputs. Forget about the blockchain thing, Bitcoin is actually just a big tree of transactions. The blockchain is just a way to keep transactions ordered.

Imagine you have 10 satoshis. That means you have them in an unspent transaction output (UTXO). You want to spend them, so you create a transaction. The transaction should reference unspent outputs as its inputs. Every transaction has an immutable id, so you use that id plus the index of the output (because transactions can have multiple outputs). Then you specify a script that unlocks that transaction and related signatures, then you specify outputs along with a script that locks these outputs.

As you can see, there's this lock/unlocking thing and there are inputs and outputs. Inputs must be unlocked by fulfilling the conditions specified by the person who created the transaction they're in. And outputs must be locked so anyone wanting to spend those outputs will need to unlock them.

For most of the cases locking and unlocking means specifying a public key whose controller (the person who has the corresponding private key) will be able to spend. Other fancy things are possible too, but we can ignore them for now.

Back to the 10 satoshis you want to spend. Since you've successfully referenced 10 satoshis and unlocked them, now you can specify the outputs (this is all done in a single step). You can specify one output of 10 satoshis, two of 5, one of 3 and one of 7, three of 3 and so on. The sum of outputs can't be more than 10. And if the sum of outputs is less than 10 the difference goes to fees. In the first days of Bitcoin you didn't need any fees, but now you do, otherwise your transaction won't be included in any block.

If you're still interested in transactions maybe you could take a look at this small chapter of that Andreas Antonopoulos book.

If you hate Andreas Antonopoulos because he is a communist shitcoiner or don't want to read more than half a page, go here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Coin_analogy

@ cae03c48:2a7d6671

Bitcoin Magazine

Gemini Files Draft With The SEC For Proposed IPO

Today, Gemini Space Station, Inc. announced that it has confidentially filed a draft registration statement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission for a proposed initial public offering (IPO) of its Class A common stock. Details such as the number of shares and the price range have not been disclosed. The IPO will proceed after the SEC’s review and is subject to market conditions.

JUST IN: @Gemini has confidentially filed for an IPO with the @SECGov.

Details on share count and pricing TBD.

Launch date will depend on SEC review and market conditions.

— Eleanor Terrett (@EleanorTerrett) June 6, 2025

“Any offers, solicitations or offers to buy, or any sales of securities will be made in accordance with the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,” stated the press release. “This announcement is being issued in accordance with Rule 135 under the Securities Act.”

Gemini’s move comes during a period of growing activity in both the public markets and the digital asset space. Just yesterday, Trump Media and Technology Group Corp. (Nasdaq, NYSE Texas: DJT) also filed a Form S-1 with the SEC for its upcoming Truth Social Bitcoin ETF.

“Truth Social Bitcoin ETF, B.T. is a Nevada business trust that issues beneficial interests in its net assets,” stated the Form S-1. “The assets of the Trust consist primarily of bitcoin held by a custodian on behalf of the Trust. The Trust seeks to reflect generally the performance of the price of bitcoin.”

Momentum around Bitcoin and broader crypto policy was also evident last week at the 2025 Bitcoin Conference in Las Vegas. There, Gemini founders Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss joined White House A.I. & Crypto Czar David Sacks to discuss how the government should manage Bitcoin, as well as recent developments in federal policy.

“Orange is the new gold,” said Cameron. “So, Bitcoin is Gold 2.0, and that’s been true since day one. So, at $100,000 Bitcoin, that’s exciting, but if you take 21 million and do the above ground market price of gold. Really, it should be a million dollars a coin—easily,”

They talked about some of the recent policy changes that have been good for crypto include rolling back the IRS digital asset broker rule and SAB 121, which had stopped banks from holding Bitcoin. The Department of Justice also stopped its regulation by prosecution approach, which takes a lot of pressure off digital asset firms.

“It’s hard to imagine a President. Any other President being able to do any fraction of this or accomplish that or any administration and we have just over 100 days,” said Tyler. “So, It’s pretty amazing that we still have a lot of time left.” Later on, he ended the panel saying, “To the Moon!”

This post Gemini Files Draft With The SEC For Proposed IPO first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Oscar Zarraga Perez.

@ f0fd6902:a2fbaaab

https://stacker.news/items/1001523

@ 632ee5dc:fbc077e2

[API Key Request]

YewTuBot would like to use API keys with the Stacker News GraphQL API

Reasons: - parsing new YT links - convert YT links to YewTube links or any other INVIDIOUS instance available

Expect calls to the following GraphQL queries or mutations: - upsertComment to post comments

Estimate GraphQL API calls: - Max 1x upsertComment per upsertLink

Delivery: - Provide API via nostr encripted message to npub1vvhwthyptyqwzc2u5xgmcy73fn95nz6tyl2p7srkw6dx377qwl3q3axulx

https://stacker.news/items/1001507

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Nostr is not decentralized nor censorship-resistant

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

Nostr today is indeed centralized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

See also:

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Censorship-resistant relay discovery in Nostr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ cae03c48:2a7d6671

Bitcoin Magazine

Palantir Is Violating Its Own Principles by Avoiding a Bitcoin Treasury

Palantir exists to see what others miss.

It was founded to solve problems most institutions can’t even name—defending sovereignty, navigating adversarial environments, and building systems designed to endure when others fail. Its software doesn’t just process data; it helps governments and institutions anticipate instability before it strikes.

But for all its strategic foresight, Palantir has yet to adopt a Bitcoin treasury strategy—a move that would bring its capital posture in line with its mission.

With more than $2.1 billion in cash, minimal debt, and few reinvestments, Palantir has the resources to lead—but no capital signal that matches its stated principles. In a world increasingly defined by currency debasement, centralized overreach, and geopolitical fragmentation, sitting on fiat is not neutrality. It’s a contradiction.

Palantir without a Bitcoin treasury isn’t just incomplete—it’s incoherent.

A Company Built for Strategic Foresight Should Not Be Saving in a Failing System

Over the last four years, Palantir has grown steadily:

• $1.09B → $1.54B → $1.91B → $2.23B in annual revenue
• Over $700M in free cash flow
• Just ~$239M in debt
• $2.1B in cash and equivalents

It’s a fortress balance sheet. But a fortress built on fiat is only as strong as the system it rests on.

Palantir has made no meaningful acquisitions, issued no dividends, and offers no capital return strategy beyond heavy stock-based compensation. This isn’t capital discipline—it’s strategic inertia. The company builds wartime software but saves like a peacetime conglomerate.

A Bitcoin Treasury Would Align Palantir’s Capital With Its Conviction

Palantir’s mission is to defend sovereignty and build for adversarial conditions. Bitcoin is the only monetary asset designed to do the same.

• Non-sovereign: Bitcoin is not issued or controlled by any state.
• Resilient: It has survived censorship attempts, geopolitical attacks, and financial panics.
• Transparent: It is auditable, predictable, and trustless—everything the fiat system is not.
• Aligned: Bitcoin reflects the same values Palantir claims—autonomy, resilience, and long-range thinking.

If Palantir allocated even half of its cash reserves (~$1.05B), it could acquire 10,000+ BTC. That would place it among the top 10 corporate Bitcoin holders, alongside Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy), Tesla, and Coinbase.

But this isn’t about optics. It’s about aligning capital with purpose.

Palantir Without a Bitcoin Treasury Violates Its Own Principles

Palantir outlines a clear ethical and design philosophy for its software. But those same principles expose a contradiction on its balance sheet.

Let’s break it down:

“Systems should incorporate principles of privacy by design.”

➤ Bitcoin is privacy by design. It enables global value transfer without third-party surveillance or control.
➤ Fiat is surveillance by design. Centralized systems track, censor, and report user behavior by default.

By holding fiat, Palantir passively supports a financial architecture it claims to resist. A Bitcoin treasury would align its capital with its engineering ethics.

“Systems must facilitate accountability and oversight.”

➤ Bitcoin is radically transparent—anyone can audit supply, transactions, and ownership logic.
➤ Fiat operates in shadows—driven by opaque policy, insider bailouts, and political discretion.

Palantir demands accountability in data infrastructure—its capital reserves should meet the same standard.

“We strive to contextualize major world problems.”

➤ The instability of fiat currency and global debt markets is a foundational context.
➤ Bitcoin is not a bet—it’s a contextual response to structural monetary decay.

If Palantir exists to anticipate future risk, it should reflect that awareness on its balance sheet.

This Isn’t a Pivot. It’s Alignment.

Adopting a Bitcoin treasury wouldn’t mark a shift in Palantir’s mission—it would reinforce it.

This isn’t about chasing trends. It’s about applying the same principles that define Palantir’s software—resilience, sovereignty, and long-term thinking—to its balance sheet. Bitcoin reflects those values more directly than any fiat currency can.

Palantir helps its clients prepare for instability. It secures borders, systems, and decision-making frameworks under pressure. But it hasn’t secured its own monetary foundation.

That’s a strategic gap.
That’s a contradiction.
And it’s one the company can resolve—decisively.

The Call to Action

Palantir’s shareholders believe in its conviction. They understand the company is not here to follow. It exists to build first, move first, and signal first.

They are not looking for fiat-era conservatism repackaged as capital discipline. They want strategy that matches the scale of the mission. They want to see the company allocate capital with the same clarity it brings to battlefield intelligence and national infrastructure.

Palantir has the foresight, the liquidity, and the philosophical grounding to act. What it needs is the will to align its reserves with its reason for existing.

A Bitcoin treasury would do more than protect value—it would prove Palantir means what it says.

It’s time to move from rhetoric to action.
It’s time to adopt a Bitcoin treasury strategy.

Disclaimer: This content was written on behalf of Bitcoin For Corporations. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Bitcoin For Corporations. This article is intended solely for informational purposes and should not be interpreted as an invitation or solicitation to acquire, purchase, or subscribe for securities.

This post Palantir Is Violating Its Own Principles by Avoiding a Bitcoin Treasury first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Nick Ward.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Nostr: a quick introduction, attempt #1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ cae03c48:2a7d6671

Bitcoin Magazine

Mapping Bitcoin’s Bull Cycle Potential

Bitcoin’s Market Value to Realized Value, or MVRV ratio, remains one of the most reliable on-chain indicators for identifying local and macro tops and bottoms across every BTC cycle. By isolating data across different investor cohorts and adapting historical benchmarks to modern market conditions, we can generate more accurate insights into where Bitcoin may be headed next.

The Bitcoin MVRV Ratio

The MVRV Ratio compares Bitcoin’s market price to its realized price, essentially the average cost basis for all coins in the network. As of writing, BTC trades around $105,000 while the realized price floats near $47,000, putting the raw MVRV at 2.26. The Z-Score version of MVRV standardizes this ratio based on historical volatility, enabling clearer comparisons across different market cycles.

Figure 1: Historically, the MVRV Ratio and the MVRV Z-Score have accurately identified cycle peaks and bottoms. View Live Chart

Short-Term Holders

Short-term holders, defined as those holding Bitcoin for 155 days or less, currently have a realized price near $97,000. This metric often acts as dynamic support in bull markets and resistance in bear markets. Notably, when the Short Term Holder MVRV hits 1.33, local tops have historically occurred, as seen several times in both the 2017 and 2021 cycles. So far in the current cycle, this threshold has already been touched four times, each followed by modest retracements.

Figure 2: Short Term Holder MVRV reaching 1.33 in more recent cycles has aligned with local tops. View Live Chart

Long-Term Holders

Long-term holders, who’ve held BTC for more than 155 days, currently have an average cost basis of just $33,500, putting their MVRV at 3.11. Historically, Long Term Holder MVRV values have reached as high as 12 during major peaks. That said, we’re observing a trend of diminishing multiples each cycle.

Figure 3: Achieving a Long Term Holder MVRV value of 8 could extrapolate to a BTC price in excess of $300,000. View Live Chart

A key resistance band now sits between 7.5 and 8.5, a zone that has defined bull tops and pre-bear retracements in every cycle since 2011. If the current growth of the realized price ($40/day) continues for another 140–150 days, matching previous cycle lengths, we could see it reach somewhere in the region of $40,000. A peak MVRV of 8 would imply a price near $320,000.

A Smarter Market Compass

Unlike static all-time metrics, the 2-Year Rolling MVRV Z-Score adapts to evolving market dynamics. By recalculating average extremes over a rolling window, it smooths out Bitcoin’s natural volatility decay as it matures. Historically, this version has signaled overbought conditions when reaching levels above 3, and prime accumulation zones when dipping below -1. Currently sitting under 1, this metric suggests that substantial upside remains.

Figure 4: The current 2-Year Rolling MVRV Z-Score suggests more positive price action ahead. View Live Chart

Timing & Targets

A view of the BTC Growth Since Cycle Lows chart illustrates that BTC is now approximately 925 days removed from its last major cycle low. Historical comparisons to previous bull markets suggest we may be around 140 to 150 days away from a potential top, with both the 2017 and 2021 peaks occurring around 1,060 to 1,070 days after their respective lows. While not deterministic, this alignment reinforces the broader picture of where we are in the cycle. If realized price trends and MVRV thresholds continue on current trajectories, late Q3 to early Q4 2025 may bring final euphoric moves.

Figure 5: Will the current cycle continue to exhibit growth patterns similar to those of the previous two cycles? View Live Chart

Conclusion

The MVRV ratio and its derivatives remain essential tools for analyzing Bitcoin market behavior, providing clear markers for both accumulation and distribution. Whether observing short-term holders hovering near local top thresholds, long-term holders nearing historically significant resistance zones, or adaptive metrics like the 2-Year Rolling MVRV Z-Score signaling plenty of runway left, these data points should be used in confluence.

No single metric should be relied upon to predict tops or bottoms in isolation, but taken together, they offer a powerful lens through which to interpret the macro trend. As the market matures and volatility declines, adaptive metrics will become even more crucial in staying ahead of the curve.

For more deep-dive research, technical indicators, real-time market alerts, and access to a growing community of analysts, visit BitcoinMagazinePro.com.

---

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Always do your own research before making any investment decisions.

This post Mapping Bitcoin’s Bull Cycle Potential first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Matt Crosby.

@ cae03c48:2a7d6671

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Layer 2: Ark

Ark is a novel off-chain transaction batching mechanism originally proposed by Burak, a young Turkish developer. There are currently two implementations being built, one by Ark Labs, and the other by Second, neither of which Burak is involved with. 

The original proposal for Ark was much more complicated, and involved some design goals more focused around privacy than the implementations currently being built. It was also originally envisioned to require CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY (CTV) in order to be built. 

The protocol depends on a central coordinating server in order to function properly, but despite that is able to provide the same functionality and security guarantees that the Lightning Network does. As long as a user stays online during the required time period, at all times (unless they choose to trust the operator for short periods of time) every user is capable at any time of unilaterally exiting the Ark system at any time and taking back full unilateral control of their funds onchain. 

Unlike Lightning, Ark does not require users to have pre-allocated liquidity assigned to them in order to receive funds. An Ark user can simply onboard to a wallet and receive funds immediately with no liquidity pre-allocation at all. 

Let’s walk through the different constituent pieces of Ark.

The Ark Tree

Coins held on Ark are called Virtual UTXOs (vUTXOs). These are simply pre-signed transactions that guarantee the creation of a real UTXO under the unilateral control of a user once submitted onchain, but are otherwise held offchain. 

Every user’s vUTXOs are nested inside a tree of pre-signed transactions, or a “batch.” Ark works by having the coordinator server, or Ark Service Provider (ASP), facilitate the coordination between users necessary to create a batch. Whenever users are receiving funds, onboarding to Ark, or offboarding, it is necessary to construct a transaction and the associated transaction tree to create a new batch. 

The tree is constructed to take the single root UTXO confirmed onchain, locked with an n-of-n multisig including all users holding vUTXOs in the tree as well as the ASP, and slowly split into more and more UTXOs until eventually reaching the leaves, which are each users vUTXO. Each vUTXO is guaranteed using a script that has to be signed by a 2-of-2 multisig, one key held by the user, and the other by the ASP, or just the user after a timelock. 

Each time the tree splits, vUTXOs are created onchain, but so are more internal UTXOs that have yet to actually split into vUTXOs. Each of these internal UTXOs is locked with an n-of-n multisig composed of the ASP, and all users who have a vUTXO further down the tree. During the batch creation process, users start at their respective vUTXOs, and go through a signing process all the way back down the root of the tree. This guarantees that the root will never be signed before each user’s claim to a vUTXO is, ensuring they always have unilateral access in a worst case scenario to their funds. 

Each batch also has an expiry time (which will make sense in the next section). This expiry spend path, which exists as an alternate spending condition for the root UTXO onchain as well as every internal UTXO, allows the ASP to unilaterally spend all funds by itself. 

Transactions, Preconfirmation, and Connector Inputs

When it comes to transacting on Ark, there are two possible mechanisms that are possible, both with their own costs and implications in terms of security model. There are out-of-round transfers, or preconfirmed transactions, and there are in-round transfers, or actually confirmed transactions. 

To conduct an out-of-round transfer is a very simple process. If one user (Alice) wants to pay another (Bob), they simply contact the ASP and have them co-sign a transaction spending the vUTXO to Bob. Bob is then given that pre-signed transaction, as well as all the other ones preceding it back to the batch root onchain. Bob is now capable of unilaterally exiting the Ark with this transaction, but, he must trust the ASP not to collude with Alice to doublespend it. These out-of-round transactions can even be chained multiple times before finally confirming them. 

To finalize an Ark transaction, users have to engage in a “batch swap.” Users cannot actually trustlessly confirm a transfer within a single batch, they have to atomically swap a vUTXO in an existing batch with a fresh vUTXO created in a new batch. This is done using the ASP as a facilitator of the swap, and with the aid of what is called a “connector input.”

When a user goes to finalize an Ark transaction with a batch swap, they relinquish control of the vUTXO to the ASP. This could be problematic, what is to stop the ASP from simply keeping it and not giving them a confirmed vUTXO in a new batch? The connector input. 

When a new batch is created, a second output is created in the transaction that is confirmed on chain instantiating a new tree composed of connector UTXOs. When Bob goes to sign over a forfeit transaction to the ASP to conduct the batch swap, the transaction includes as an input one of the connector UTXOs from the new batch. 

This creates an atomic guarantee. Bob’s confirmed vUTXO is included in a batch in the same transaction the connector input is created in that is necessary for his forfeit transaction to be valid. If that batch is never created onchain, i.e. Bob never actually receives the new confirmed vUTXO, then the forfeit transaction he signed for the ASP will never be valid and confirmable onchain.

Liquidity Dynamics and Blockspace

All of the liquidity necessary to create new batches in order to facilitate transfers between users is provided by the ASP. They are required to have enough liquidity to create new batches for users until old ones have expired and the ASP can unilaterally sweep them to reclaim old liquidity previously locked up to create vUTXOs for users. 

This is the core of the liquidity dynamic at the center of the Ark protocol. While in one sense this is a massive efficiency win, not requiring liquidity providers to assess users and essentially guess which ones will actually receive large volumes of payments before they can receive any funds, in another it is an efficiency loss as the ASP must have enough liquidity to continue creating new batches for users for however long they configure the expiry time to be and they can start reclaiming allocated liquidity. 

This can be mitigated to a decent degree by how often an ASP offers to create new batches to finalize pending transactions. In the event of an ASP attempting to create new batches in real time as transactions are coming in, the liquidity requirements would be exorbitantly high. However, an ASP can lower the frequency at which they create new batches and drastically lower their liquidity requirements. 

This dynamic also has implications for blockspace use. Unlike Lightning, which can provide strong confirmation guarantees entirely offchain, in order for an Ark transaction to have an equivalent trustless degree of finality a new batch has to be created onchain. This means that unlike Lightning, where transaction volume does not reflect itself onchain, the velocity of Ark transactions inherently requires a proportional amount of blockspace use, albeit in a very compressed and efficient manner. This creates a theoretical upper limit of how many Ark batches can be created during any given time interval (although Ark trees can be smaller or larger depending on this dynamic). 

Wrapping Up

Ark presents in many ways an almost opposite set of tradeoffs to the Lightning Network. It is a massive blockspace efficiency improvement for offchain transactions, and does away with the problem of liquidity allocation on the Lightning Network, but it does have a much closer tied throughput limit that is correlated with the blockchains throughput limit. 

This dynamic of almost opposite tradeoffs makes it a very complementary system to the Lightning Network. It can also interoperate with it, i.e. vUTXOs can be swapped atomically in transactions entering or exiting the Lightning Network. 

Ultimately how it fits into the broader Bitcoin ecosystem is yet to be seen, but it is an undoubtedly valuable protocol stack that will find some functional niche, even if it is different than originally intended.

This post Bitcoin Layer 2: Ark first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Shinobi.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

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

@ cae03c48:2a7d6671

Bitcoin Magazine

Know Labs, Inc. Announces Adopting a Bitcoin Treasury Strategy, Starting with 1,000 Bitcoin

Know Labs, Inc. (NYSE American: KNW) announced entering into an agreement with Goldeneye 1995 LLC and the Ripple Chief Risk Officer Greg Kidd to acquire a controlling interest in the Company. Following the completion of the transaction, Mr. Kidd will become Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company and Founder Ron Erickson will become Vice Chairman of the Board.

JUST IN: Know Labs, Inc. announces its adopting a Bitcoin Treasury Strategy and holds 1,000 Bitcoin pic.twitter.com/NSn2xFZYx0

— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) June 6, 2025

Under the agreement, the Buyer will acquire shares of Know Labs’ common stock by dividing the total value of 1,000 Bitcoin and a cash amount, designated to pay down existing debt, redeem outstanding preferred equity, and provide additional working capital. For every share purchased it will be priced at $0.335. The Bitcoin will serve as a central element of the Company’s treasury strategy, giving investors the exposure to Bitcoin.

“I’m thrilled to deploy a Bitcoin treasury strategy with the support of a forward-looking organization like Know Labs at a time when market and regulatory conditions are particularly favorable,” said Mr. Kidd. “We believe this approach will generate sustainable growth and long-term shareholder value.”

Once Bitcoin becomes the primary asset on the Company’s balance sheet, management will adopt the multiple of net asset value (mNAV) metric to assess the premium investors place on the Company’s market value relative to its Bitcoin assets. Based on a market cap of $128 million and a Bitcoin price of $105,000, the estimated entry mNAV multiple is 1.22x, with Bitcoin accounting for approximately 82% of the total market capitalization at closing.

“Partnering with Greg Kidd marks a pivotal next chapter for Know Labs,” commented Mr. Erickson. “We look forward to continuing our research in non-invasive medical technology. Greg’s visionary leadership positions Know Labs for a bold future.”

The adoption of Bitcoin as a treasury reserve asset has dramatically increased over the course of the last year, expanding globally. To date, there are 225 companies and other entities with Bitcoin in their balance sheets. 

Norwegian Block Exchange (NBX), a leading Nordic cryptocurrency exchange and digital asset platform, announced on June 2 that it has added Bitcoin to its balance sheet, marking a national milestone as the first publicly listed company in Norway to hold Bitcoin as part of its treasury strategy.

“NBX will not sell this Bitcoin or go short in any form,” stated the company. “With reference to the latest POA notice with LDA capital, NBX will also use proceeds to buy additional Bitcoin.”

This post Know Labs, Inc. Announces Adopting a Bitcoin Treasury Strategy, Starting with 1,000 Bitcoin first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Oscar Zarraga Perez.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

bitcoind decentralization

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

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

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

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

The event has shown that:

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

Solution: bitcoind decentralization

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

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

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

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

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

Run Bitcoin Knots

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

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

---

See also:

• How to attack Bitcoin, Anthony Towns' take

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

@ 2b24a1fa:17750f64

Er war schon immer ein streitbarer. Seine Kritik richtete sich an ein Gesundheitssystem, das durch eine durch Pharmalobby erkaufte oder erpresste Politik ermöglicht wurde. Seit Ausrufung der sogenannten Corona-Pandemie fuhr er zu Höchstleistungen auf. Es ist Dr. Gunter Frank, Schulmediziner mit Erfahrungen im Krankenhaus, Notfallmediziner, ausgebildet in Naturheilverfahren, Sachbuchautor, engagiert in diversen medizinischen und naturheilkundlichen Gesellschaften und betreibt eine eigene Praxis...

https://soundcloud.com/radiomuenchen/arzte-die-in-gut-und-gose-einteilen-der-zivilisationsbruch-interview-mit-dr-gunter-frank?

Im größten Medizinskandal in der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik, der Corona-Krise, nennt er Hausnumnmern wie 100-200.000 langfristig, gesundheitlich schwer Geschädigten und etwa 20 - 40.000 durch Genimpfung Verstorbene. Ob diese Zahlen haltbar sind, weit über- oder untertrieben wird die Geschichte zeigen. Welche Hintergründe er aber vermutet und über die neuen Deutungen medizinischer Erkenntnisse, spricht meine Kollegin Eva Schmidt jetzt mit dem Mediziner Dr. Gunter Frank und wollte zunächst wissen, wann und warum er zum Medizinsystemkritiker wurde, welches sein Erweckungserlebnis, noch weit vor Corona gewesen sein muss:

@ 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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

A violência é uma forma de comunicação

A violência é uma forma de comunicação: um serial killer, um pai que bate no filho, uma briga de torcidas, uma sessão de tortura, uma guerra, um assassinato passional, uma briga de bar. Em todos esses se pode enxergar uma mensagem que está tentando ser transmitida, que não foi compreendida pelo outro lado, que não pôde ser expressa, e, quando o transmissor da mensagem sentiu que não podia ser totalmente compreendido em palavras, usou essa outra forma de comunicação.

Quando uma ofensa em um bar descamba para uma briga, por exemplo, o que há é claramente uma tentativa de uma ofensa maior ainda pelo lado do que iniciou a primeira, a briga não teria acontecido se ele a tivesse conseguido expressar em palavras tão claras que toda a audiência de bêbados compreendesse, o que estaria além dos limites da linguagem, naquele caso, o soco com o mão direita foi mais eficiente. Poderia ser também a defesa argumentativa: "eu não sou um covarde como você está dizendo" -- mas o bar não acreditaria nessa frase solta, a comunicação não teria obtido o sucesso desejado.

A explicação para o fato da redução da violência à medida em que houve progresso da civilização está na melhora da eficiência da comunicação humana: a escrita, o refinamento da expressão lingüística, o aumento do alcance da palavra falada com rádio, a televisão e a internet.

Se essa eficiência diminuir, porque não há mais acordo quanto ao significado das palavras, porque as pessoas não estão nem aí para se o que escrevem é bom ou não, ou porque são incapazes de compreender qualquer coisa, deve aumentar proporcionalmente a violência.

@ 2b24a1fa:17750f64

Wenn sich die Spieler nach einem hart umkämpften Fußballmatch die Hand reichen oder einander abklatschen, zeugt das von Sportsgeist. Das heißt: Wir haben uns im Spiel zwar nichts geschenkt, aber wir respektieren einander und als Verlierer erkennen wir an, dass die andere Mannschaft besser gespielt hat und unsere Niederlage in Ordnung geht.

https://soundcloud.com/radiomuenchen/die-wrestling-demokratie-ein-kommentar-von-jonny-rieder?

Und auch die Gewinner zollen dem Gegner Respekt, verhöhnen ihn nicht. Selbstverständlich sollte gegenseitiger Respekt auch in der Politik gelten. Man sollte einander zuhören und argumentieren, anstatt Kollegen schon deshalb zu verachten, weil sie einer anderen Partei angehören. Aber: Wenn ein Politiker eine andere Partei massiv kritisiert und ihrem Antrag anschließend trotzdem zustimmt, zeigt er damit nicht Respekt vor dem politischen Gegner, sondern Verachtung für den Wähler. Was der Deutsche Bundestag im März 2025 demonstrierte, also in der Übergangsphase vom alten Bundestag und dem noch nicht einberufenen neu gewählten Parlament, war genau das: angewandte Wählerverachtung. Etwas zuzustimmen, das ich eben noch vehement verdammt habe, zeugt nicht von Demokratieverständnis oder von politischem Sportsgeist, sondern von dessen fundamentaler Ablehnung. Erst recht, wenn die Zustimmung für alle ersichtlich erkauft wurde. Hören Sie Jonny Rieders Kommentar „Die Wrestling-Demokratie“.

Sprecher: Karsten Troyke

Bild: ChatGPT im Auftrag von Radio München

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Problemas com Russell Kirk

A idéia central da “política da prudência[^1]” de Russell Kirk me parece muito correta, embora tenha sido melhor formulada pior no seu enorme livro do que em uma pequena frase do joanadarquista Lucas Souza: “o conservadorismo é importante, porque tem muita gente com idéia errada por aí, e nós podemos não saber distingüi-las”.

Porém, há alguns problemas que precisam ser esclarecidos, ou melhor explicados, e que me impedem de enxergar os seus argumentos como refutação final do meu já tão humilde (embora feroz) anarquismo. São eles:

I Percebo alguma coisa errada, não sei bem onde, entre a afirmação de que toda ideologia é ruim, ou “todas as ideologias causam confusão[^2]”, e a proposta conservadora de “conservar o mundo da ordem que herdamos, ainda que em estado imperfeito, de nossos ancestrais[^3]”. Ora, sem precisar cair em exemplos como o do partido conservador inglês -- que conservava a política inglesa sempre onde estava, e se alternava no governo com o partido trabalhista, que a levava cada vez mais um pouco à esquerda --, está embutida nessa frase, talvez, a idéia, que ao mesmo tempo é clara e ferrenhamente combatida pelos próprios conservadores, de que a história é da humanidade é uma história de progresso linear rumo a uma situação melhor.

Querer conservar o mundo da ordem que herdamos significa conservar também os vários erros que podem ter sido cometidos pelos nossos ancestrais mais recentes, e conservá-los mesmo assim, acusando toda e qualquer tentativa de propôr soluções a esses erros de ideologia? Ou será que conservar o mundo da ordem é escolher um período determinado que seja tido como o auge da história humana e tentar restaurá-lo em nosso próprio tempo? Não seria isto ideologia?

Ou, ainda, será que conservar o mundo da ordem é selecionar, entre vários períodos do passado, alguns pedaços que o conservador considerar ótimos em cada sociedade, fazer dali uma mistura de sociedade ideal baseada no passado e então tentar implementá-la? Quem saberia dizer quais são as partes certas?

II Sobre a questão do que mantém a sociedade civil coesa, Russell Kirk, opondo-a à posição libertária de que o nexo da sociedade é o autointeresse, declara que a posição conservadora é a de que “a sociedade é uma comunidade de almas, que une os mortos, os vivos e os ainda não nascidos, e que se harmoniza por aquilo que Aristóteles chamou de amizade e os cristãos chamam de caridade ou amor ao próximo”.

Esta é uma posição muito correta, mas me parece estar em contradição com a defesa do Estado que ele faz na mesma página e na seguinte. O que me parece errado é que a sociedade não pode ser, ao mesmo tempo, uma “comunidade baseada no amor ao próximo” e uma comunidade que “requer não somente que as paixões dos indivíduos sejam subjugadas, mas que, mesmo no povo e no corpo social, bem como nos indivíduos, as inclinações dos homens, amiúde, devam ser frustradas, a vontade controlada e as paixões subjugadas” e, pior, que “isso somente pode ser feito por um poder exterior”.

Disto aí podemos tirar que, da mesma forma que Kirk define a posição libertária como sendo a de que o autointeresse é que mantém a sociedade civil coesa, a posição conservadora seria então a de que essa coesão vem apenas do Estado, e não de qualquer ligação entre vivos e mortos, ou do amor ao próximo. Já que, sem o Estado, diz, ele, citando Thomas Hobbes, a condição do homem é “solitária, pobre, sórdida, embrutecida e curta”?

[^1]: este é o nome do livro e também um outro nome que ele dá para o próprio conservadorismo (p.99). [^2]: p. 101 [^3]: p. 102

@ 2b24a1fa:17750f64

Zum organisierten Corona-Komplex zählt auch der vermittelte Eindruck, dass es in den Jahren der sogenannten Pandemie praktisch nur noch eine Todesursache gab: Covid-19. Verkehrstote? Krebstote? Gewöhnliche Alterstote? Kann nicht sein.

https://soundcloud.com/radiomuenchen/studie-viele-falsche-corona-tote-von-multipolar?

UN-Generalsekretär Guterres sah die Welt „im Krieg mit dem Virus“, de facto war es ein Krieg mit der Wahrheit, den Regierungen und Mainstream-Medien ausfochten. Der berechtigte Einwand, es mache einen Unterschied, ob jemand mit Corona oder wegen Corona gestorben ist, wurde als Ketzerei abgekanzelt. Erst mit dem Krieg in der Ukraine geriet das „Jeder Tote ist ein Corona-Toter“-Narrativ an seine Propaganda-Grenzen und Corona verschwand so schnell aus dem medialen Tagesgeschäft wie es gekommen war. Das Geld, das man für Masken, sogenannte Impfstoffe und damit verbundener Korruption verschwendet hatte, musste man nun unbedingt für Waffen verschwenden. Umso wichtiger ist es, diese Zeit der Lügen und Grundrechtsverletzungen nicht einfach unter den Teppich zu kehren und darüber zu schweigen. Aufklärung leistet hier nach wie vor das Magazin Multipolar. Es berichtet von einer aktuellen Studie griechischer Forscher über „offizielle Corona-Todesfälle während Omikron“. Dabei erwies sich Corona nur in einer Minderheit der Fälle als direkte Todesursache.

Sprecherin: Sabrina Khalil

Originaltext bei Multipolar: multipolar-magazin.de/meldungen/0257

Bild: Chat GPT im Auftrag von Radio München

Radio München\ www.radiomuenchen.net/​\ @radiomuenchen\ www.facebook.com/radiomuenchen\ www.instagram.com/radio_muenchen/\ twitter.com/RadioMuenchen\ odysee.com/@RadioMuenchen.net:9\ rumble.com/user/RadioMunchen

Radio München ist eine gemeinnützige Unternehmung.\ Wir freuen uns, wenn Sie unsere Arbeit unterstützen.

@ 2b24a1fa:17750f64

Zum organisierten Corona-Komplex zählt auch der vermittelte Eindruck, dass es in den Jahren der sogenannten Pandemie praktisch nur noch eine Todesursache gab: Covid-19. Verkehrstote? Krebstote? Gewöhnliche Alterstote? Kann nicht sein. UN-Generalsekretär Guterres sah die Welt „im Krieg mit dem Virus“, de facto war es ein Krieg mit der Wahrheit, den Regierungen und Mainstream-Medien ausfochten.

https://soundcloud.com/radiomuenchen/studie-viele-falsche-corona-tote-von-multipolar

Der berechtigte Einwand, es mache einen Unterschied, ob jemand mit Corona oder wegen Corona gestorben ist, wurde als Ketzerei abgekanzelt. Erst mit dem Krieg in der Ukraine geriet das „Jeder Tote ist ein Corona-Toter“-Narrativ an seine Propaganda-Grenzen und Corona verschwand so schnell aus dem medialen Tagesgeschäft wie es gekommen war. Das Geld, das man für Masken, sogenannte Impfstoffe und damit verbundener Korruption verschwendet hatte, musste man nun unbedingt für Waffen verschwenden. Umso wichtiger ist es, diese Zeit der Lügen und Grundrechtsverletzungen nicht einfach unter den Teppich zu kehren und darüber zu schweigen. Aufklärung leistet hier nach wie vor das Magazin Multipolar. Es berichtet von einer aktuellen Studie griechischer Forscher über „offizielle Corona-Todesfälle während Omikron“. Dabei erwies sich Corona nur in einer Minderheit der Fälle als direkte Todesursache.

Sprecherin: Sabrina Khalil

Originaltext bei Multipolar: multipolar-magazin.de/meldungen/0257

Bild: Chat GPT im Auftrag von Radio München

Radio München\ www.radiomuenchen.net/​\ @radiomuenchen\ www.facebook.com/radiomuenchen\ www.instagram.com/radio_muenchen/\ twitter.com/RadioMuenchen\ odysee.com/@RadioMuenchen.net:9\ rumble.com/user/RadioMunchen

Radio München ist eine gemeinnützige Unternehmung.\ Wir freuen uns, wenn Sie unsere Arbeit unterstützen.

GLS-Bank\ IBAN: DE65 4306 0967 8217 9867 00\ BIC: GENODEM1GLS\ Bitcoin (BTC): bc1qqkrzed5vuvl82dggsyjgcjteylq5l58sz4s927\ Ethereum (ETH): 0xB9a49A0bda5FAc3F084D5257424E3e6fdD303482

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

A command line utility to create and manage personal graphs, then write them to dot and make images with graphviz.

It manages a bunch of YAML files, one for each entity in the graph. Each file lists the incoming and outgoing links it has (could have listen only the outgoing, now that I'm tihnking about it).

Each run of the tool lets you select from existing nodes or add new ones to generate a single link type from one to one, one to many, many to one or many to many -- then updates the YAML files accordingly.

It also includes a command that generates graphs with graphviz, and it can accept a template file that lets you customize the dot that is generated and thus the graphviz graph.

rel

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/rel

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

GraphQL vs REST

Today I saw this: https://github.com/stickfigure/blog/wiki/How-to-(and-how-not-to)-design-REST-APIs

And it reminded me why GraphQL is so much better.

It has also reminded me why HTTP is so confusing and awful as a protocol, especially as a protocol for structured data APIs, with all its status codes and headers and bodies and querystrings and content-types -- but let's not talk about that for now.

People complain about GraphQL being great for frontend developers and bad for backend developers, but I don't know who are these people that apparently love reading guides like the one above of how to properly construct ad-hoc path routers, decide how to properly build the JSON, what to include and in which circumstance, what status codes and headers to use, all without having any idea of what the frontend or the API consumer will want to do with their data.

It is a much less stressful environment that one in which we can just actually perform the task and fit the data in a preexistent schema with types and a structure that we don't have to decide again and again while anticipating with very incomplete knowledge the usage of an extraneous person -- i.e., an environment with GraphQL, or something like GraphQL.

By the way, I know there are some people that say that these HTTP JSON APIs are not the real REST, but that is irrelevant for now.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

nostr - Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays

The simplest open protocol that is able to create a censorship-resistant global "social" network once and for all.

It doesn't rely on any trusted central server, hence it is resilient; it is based on cryptographic keys and signatures, so it is tamperproof; it does not rely on P2P techniques, therefore it works.

Very short summary of how it works, if you don't plan to read anything else:

Everybody runs a client. It can be a native client, a web client, etc. To publish something, you write a post, sign it with your key and send it to multiple relays (servers hosted by someone else, or yourself). To get updates from other people, you ask multiple relays if they know anything about these other people. Anyone can run a relay. A relay is very simple and dumb. It does nothing besides accepting posts from some people and forwarding to others. Relays don't have to be trusted. Signatures are verified on the client side.

This is needed because other solutions are broken:

The problem with Twitter

• Twitter has ads;
• Twitter uses bizarre techniques to keep you addicted;
• Twitter doesn't show an actual historical feed from people you follow;
• Twitter bans people;
• Twitter shadowbans people.
• Twitter has a lot of spam.

The problem with Mastodon and similar programs

• User identities are attached to domain names controlled by third-parties;
• Server owners can ban you, just like Twitter; Server owners can also block other servers;
• Migration between servers is an afterthought and can only be accomplished if servers cooperate. It doesn't work in an adversarial environment (all followers are lost);
• There are no clear incentives to run servers, therefore they tend to be run by enthusiasts and people who want to have their name attached to a cool domain. Then, users are subject to the despotism of a single person, which is often worse than that of a big company like Twitter, and they can't migrate out;
• Since servers tend to be run amateurishly, they are often abandoned after a while — which is effectively the same as banning everybody;
• It doesn't make sense to have a ton of servers if updates from every server will have to be painfully pushed (and saved!) to a ton of other servers. This point is exacerbated by the fact that servers tend to exist in huge numbers, therefore more data has to be passed to more places more often;
• For the specific example of video sharing, ActivityPub enthusiasts realized it would be completely impossible to transmit video from server to server the way text notes are, so they decided to keep the video hosted only from the single instance where it was posted to, which is similar to the Nostr approach.

The problem with SSB (Secure Scuttlebutt)

• It doesn't have many problems. I think it's great. In fact, I was going to use it as a basis for this, but
• its protocol is too complicated because it wasn't thought about being an open protocol at all. It was just written in JavaScript in probably a quick way to solve a specific problem and grew from that, therefore it has weird and unnecessary quirks like signing a JSON string which must strictly follow the rules of ECMA-262 6th Edition;
• It insists on having a chain of updates from a single user, which feels unnecessary to me and something that adds bloat and rigidity to the thing — each server/user needs to store all the chain of posts to be sure the new one is valid. Why? (Maybe they have a good reason);
• It is not as simple as Nostr, as it was primarily made for P2P syncing, with "pubs" being an afterthought;
• Still, it may be worth considering using SSB instead of this custom protocol and just adapting it to the client-relay server model, because reusing a standard is always better than trying to get people in a new one.

The problem with other solutions that require everybody to run their own server

• They require everybody to run their own server;
• Sometimes people can still be censored in these because domain names can be censored.

How does Nostr work?

• There are two components: clients and relays. Each user runs a client. Anyone can run a relay.
• Every user is identified by a public key. Every post is signed. Every client validates these signatures.
• Clients fetch data from relays of their choice and publish data to other relays of their choice. A relay doesn't talk to another relay, only directly to users.
• For example, to "follow" someone a user just instructs their client to query the relays it knows for posts from that public key.
• On startup, a client queries data from all relays it knows for all users it follows (for example, all updates from the last day), then displays that data to the user chronologically.
• A "post" can contain any kind of structured data, but the most used ones are going to find their way into the standard so all clients and relays can handle them seamlessly.

How does it solve the problems the networks above can't?

• Users getting banned and servers being closed
• A relay can block a user from publishing anything there, but that has no effect on them as they can still publish to other relays. Since users are identified by a public key, they don't lose their identities and their follower base when they get banned.
• Instead of requiring users to manually type new relay addresses (although this should also be supported), whenever someone you're following posts a server recommendation, the client should automatically add that to the list of relays it will query.
• If someone is using a relay to publish their data but wants to migrate to another one, they can publish a server recommendation to that previous relay and go;
• If someone gets banned from many relays such that they can't get their server recommendations broadcasted, they may still let some close friends know through other means with which relay they are publishing now. Then, these close friends can publish server recommendations to that new server, and slowly, the old follower base of the banned user will begin finding their posts again from the new relay.

• All of the above is valid too for when a relay ceases its operations.

• Censorship-resistance

• Each user can publish their updates to any number of relays.

• A relay can charge a fee (the negotiation of that fee is outside of the protocol for now) from users to publish there, which ensures censorship-resistance (there will always be some Russian server willing to take your money in exchange for serving your posts).

• Spam

• If spam is a concern for a relay, it can require payment for publication or some other form of authentication, such as an email address or phone, and associate these internally with a pubkey that then gets to publish to that relay — or other anti-spam techniques, like hashcash or captchas. If a relay is being used as a spam vector, it can easily be unlisted by clients, which can continue to fetch updates from other relays.

• Data storage

• For the network to stay healthy, there is no need for hundreds of active relays. In fact, it can work just fine with just a handful, given the fact that new relays can be created and spread through the network easily in case the existing relays start misbehaving. Therefore, the amount of data storage required, in general, is relatively less than Mastodon or similar software.

• Or considering a different outcome: one in which there exist hundreds of niche relays run by amateurs, each relaying updates from a small group of users. The architecture scales just as well: data is sent from users to a single server, and from that server directly to the users who will consume that. It doesn't have to be stored by anyone else. In this situation, it is not a big burden for any single server to process updates from others, and having amateur servers is not a problem.

• Video and other heavy content

• It's easy for a relay to reject large content, or to charge for accepting and hosting large content. When information and incentives are clear, it's easy for the market forces to solve the problem.

• Techniques to trick the user

• Each client can decide how to best show posts to users, so there is always the option of just consuming what you want in the manner you want — from using an AI to decide the order of the updates you'll see to just reading them in chronological order.

FAQ

• This is very simple. Why hasn't anyone done it before?

I don't know, but I imagine it has to do with the fact that people making social networks are either companies wanting to make money or P2P activists who want to make a thing completely without servers. They both fail to see the specific mix of both worlds that Nostr uses.

• How do I find people to follow?

First, you must know them and get their public key somehow, either by asking or by seeing it referenced somewhere. Once you're inside a Nostr social network you'll be able to see them interacting with other people and then you can also start following and interacting with these others.

• How do I find relays? What happens if I'm not connected to the same relays someone else is?

You won't be able to communicate with that person. But there are hints on events that can be used so that your client software (or you, manually) knows how to connect to the other person's relay and interact with them. There are other ideas on how to solve this too in the future but we can't ever promise perfect reachability, no protocol can.

• Can I know how many people are following me?

No, but you can get some estimates if relays cooperate in an extra-protocol way.

• What incentive is there for people to run relays?

The question is misleading. It assumes that relays are free dumb pipes that exist such that people can move data around through them. In this case yes, the incentives would not exist. This in fact could be said of DHT nodes in all other p2p network stacks: what incentive is there for people to run DHT nodes?

• Nostr enables you to move between server relays or use multiple relays but if these relays are just on AWS or Azure what’s the difference?

There are literally thousands of VPS providers scattered all around the globe today, there is not only AWS or Azure. AWS or Azure are exactly the providers used by single centralized service providers that need a lot of scale, and even then not just these two. For smaller relay servers any VPS will do the job very well.

@ 2b24a1fa:17750f64

https://soundcloud.com/radiomuenchen/2025-05-27-eine-stunde-klassik?

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

Sonntags um 10 Uhr in der Wiederholung.

@ 9ca447d2:fbf5a36d

The third annual Bitcoin FilmFest (aka BFF25) proved once again that sovereign minds and decentralized culture thrive together.

For four electrifying days in Poland’s capital, the festival’s rallying call—’Fix the money, fix the culture‘—wasn’t just a slogan but a living, breathing movement.

From May 22-25, 2025, Warsaw buzzed with cinematic innovation, Bitcoin philosophy, and artistic vibe marking this gathering as truly incomparable.

Rebel Tribe with Unfiltered Creativity

With 200+ attendees from 20+ countries – primarily Poland, Czech Republic, the UK and Germany (~70% combined), plus representation from Spain, Italy, USA, Turkey and 15+ other nations including Thailand, Israel, Dubai and Latin America—BFF25 became a true global hub of freedom-fighters at heart. 

The European Pizza Day opener (May 22), celebrating Bitcoin’s first real-world transaction, saw rainy evening weather that couldn’t dampen the energy.

With concerts by Roger9000 and ABBE plus DJ sets from MadMunky, 2140 collective w/Airklipz and G.O.L.D., all early arrivals had a memorable start.

Dual Focus on Film and Bitcoin Culture

• Seven film workshops and seven hands-on sessions running parallel across Friday and Saturday at Amondo Cinema Club. Film: Martin Piga, Oswald Horowitz, Psyfer, Juan Pablo Mejía, Kristina Weiserova, Rare Passenger, Noa Gruman & Lahav Levi (Scardust). Bitcoin/Nostr: Aleks Svetski, Ioni Appelberg, Flash,  CryptoSteel, Bitrefill, Polish Bitcoin Association, Bitvocation.

• The Community Stage (Friday to Sunday afternoon) gave important space for both projects and individuals discussing their work and passions.
  Everything from music, art, fiction, Nostr, personal sovereignty to Polish-language debates on Bitcoin’s state and its possible future.

• Onscreen, 9 cinematic blocks from Friday to Sunday featured titles like UNBAKABLE, REVOLUCIÓN BITCOIN, HOTEL BITCOIN, PLANDEMIC: THE MUSICAL, plus shorts on new media (AI/experimental cinema), parallel communities (outcast cinema), and newly released pilots.

• Cinematic shark-tank with a €3,000 bounty: 8 contestants

  • Martin Piga: “PARALLEL SPACES”
  • Kristina Weiserova: “PUZZLE”
  • Aaron Koenig : “SATOSHI’S LAST WILL”
  • Philip Charter: “21 FUTURES”
  • Jenna Reid: “WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?”
  • Mr Black: “A LODGING OF WAYFARING MEN”
  • Oswald Horowitz: “THE LEGEND OF LANDI”
    The event ended with Jenna winning.

• Official Gala: Golden Rabbits 2025 crowned:

  • HOTEL BITCOIN by Manuel Sanabria & Carlos “Pocho” Villaverde (Best Story)
  • SATOSHI: THE CREATION OF BITCOIN by Arthur Machado (Best Short)
  • REVOLUCIÓN BITCOIN by Juan Pablo Mejía (Audience Choice)
  • NO MORE INFLATION by Maiku Tsukai’s aka Bitcoin Shooter (Best Film)

Nights Charged with Music and Unscripted Surprise

The festival’s legendary afterparties kept the energy high—Friday’s underground gathering at Morph Club (ex-Barbazaar) featured Aaron Koening’s live concert and 2140 DJs (Akme + Andy Princz).

The weekend’s unforgettable moment came when Noa Gruman took the stage with “MY HEAVEN” (Scardust original) and “40HPW” — her powerful tribute to Bitcoin podcasts and Bugle.News.

Lightning-Powered Innovation, and Extras

• Lightning in Action: Flash enabled instant Bitcoin payments across both main venues (Amondo + Samo Centrum, merch stations, and online shop)

• IndeeHub Backstage Pass: Attendees unlocked exclusive access to Lightning-powered VOD featuring selected films from BFF23-25

• BFF TV: Kiki (El Salvador) broadcasting live interviews, event clips, and trailers. Day One, and Day Two to rewatch online.

• Comedy Strike: Robert Le Ricain’s Gala stand-up proved Bitcoiners pack brains and humor—in equal measure.

A Community-Driven Cultural Experience

Bitcoin FilmFest wasn’t just an event—it was proof that culture shifts when money gets fixed. Mark your calendars for June 2026 and the next edition. More info and tickets going on sale soon.

@ b1ddb4d7:471244e7

“Not your keys, not your coins” isn’t a slogan—it’s a survival mantra in the age of digital sovereignty.

The seismic collapses of Mt. Gox (2014) and FTX (2022) weren’t anomalies; they were wake-up calls. When $8.7 billion in customer funds vanished with FTX, it exposed the fatal flaw of third-party custody: your bitcoin is only as secure as your custodian’s weakest link.

Yet today, As of early 2025, analysts estimate that between 2.3 million and 3.7 million Bitcoins are permanently lost, representing approximately 11–18% of bitcoin’s fixed maximum supply of 21 million coins, with some reports suggesting losses as high as 4 million BTC. This paradox reveals a critical truth: self-custody isn’t just preferable—it’s essential—but it must be done right.

The Custody Spectrum

Custodial Wallets (The Illusion of Control)

• Rehypothecation Risk: Most platforms lend your bitcoin for yield generation. When Celsius collapsed, users discovered their “held” bitcoin was loaned out in risky strategies.
• Account Freezes: Regulatory actions can lock withdrawals overnight. In 2023, Binance suspended dollar withdrawals for U.S. users citing “partner bank issues,” trapping funds for weeks.
• Data Vulnerability: KYC requirements create honeypots for hackers. The 2024 Ledger breach exposed 270,000 users’ personal data despite hardware security.

True Self-Custody
Self-custody means exclusively controlling your private keys—the cryptographic strings that prove bitcoin ownership. Unlike banks or exchanges, self-custody eliminates:

• Counterparty risk (no FTX-style implosions)
• Censorship (no blocked transactions)
• Inflationary theft (no fractional reserve lending)

Conquering the Three Great Fears of Self-Custody

Fear 1: “I’ll Lose Everything If I Make a Mistake”

Reality: Human error is manageable with robust systems:

• Test Transactions: Always send a micro-amount (0.00001 BTC) before large transfers. Verify receipt AND ability to send back.
• Multi-Backup Protocol: Store seed phrases on fireproof/waterproof steel plates (not paper!). Distribute copies geographically—one in a home safe, another with trusted family 100+ miles away.
• SLIP39 Sharding: Split your seed into fragments requiring 3-of-5 shards to reconstruct. No single point of failure.

Fear 2: “Hackers Will Steal My Keys”

Reality: Offline storage defeats remote attacks:

• Hardware Wallets: Devices like Bitkey or Ledger keep keys in “cold storage”—isolated from internet-connected devices. Transactions require physical confirmation.
• Multisig Vaults: Bitvault’s multi-sig system requires attackers compromise multiple locations/devices simultaneously. Even losing two keys won’t forfeit funds.
• Air-Gapped Verification: Use dedicated offline devices for wallet setup. Never type seeds on internet-connected machines.

Fear 3: “My Family Can’t Access It If I Die”

Reality: Inheritance is solvable:

• Dead Man Switches: Bitwarden’s emergency access allows trusted contacts to retrieve encrypted keys after a pre-set waiting period (e.g., 30 days).
• Inheritance Protocols: Bitkey’s inheritance solution shares decryption keys via designated beneficiaries’ emails. Requires multiple approvals to prevent abuse.
• Public Key Registries: Share wallet XPUBs (not private keys!) with heirs. They can monitor balances but not spend, ensuring transparency without risk.

The Freedom Dividend

1. Censorship Resistance: Send $10M BTC to a Wikileaks wallet without Visa/Mastercard blocking it.
2. Privacy Preservation: Avoid KYC surveillance—non-custodial wallets like Flash require zero ID verification.
3. Protocol Access: Participate in bitcoin-native innovations (Lightning Network, DLCs) only possible with self-custodied keys.
4. Black Swan Immunity: When Cyprus-style bank bailins happen, your bitcoin remains untouched in your vault.

The Sovereign’s Checklist

1. Withdraw from Exchanges: Move all BTC > $1,000 to self-custody immediately.
2. Buy Hardware Wallet: Purchase DIRECTLY from manufacturer (no Amazon!) to avoid supply-chain tampering.
3. Generate Seed OFFLINE: Use air-gapped device, write phrase on steel—never digitally.
4. Test Recovery: Delete wallet, restore from seed before funding.
5. Implement Multisig: For > $75k, use Bitvault for 2-of-3 multi-sig setup.
6. Create Inheritance Plan: Share XPUBs/SLIP39 shards with heirs + legal documents.

“Self-custody isn’t about avoiding risk—it’s about transferring risk from opaque institutions to transparent, controllable systems you design.”

The Inevitable Evolution: Custody Without Compromise

Emerging solutions are erasing old tradeoffs:

• MPC Wallets: Services like Xapo Bank shatter keys into encrypted fragments distributed globally. No single device holds full keys, defeating physical theft.
• Social Recovery: Ethically designed networks (e.g., Bitkey) let trusted contacts restore access without custodial control.
• Biometric Assurance: Fingerprint reset protocols prevent lockouts from physical injuries.

Lost keys = lost bitcoin. But consider the alternative: entrusting your life savings to entities with proven 8% annual failure rates among exchanges. Self-custody shifts responsibility from hoping institutions won’t fail to knowing your system can’t fail without your consent.

Take action today: Move one coin. Test one recovery. Share one xpub. The path to unchained wealth begins with a single satoshi under your control.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Parallel Chains

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

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

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

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

How does it work

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

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

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

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

See also

• Drivechain

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

@ 2b24a1fa:17750f64

Ganz im Geiste des klassischen Kabaretts widmen sich Franz Esser und Michael Sailer den Ereignissen des letzten Monats: Was ist passiert? Und was ist dazu zu sagen? Das ist oft frappierend - und manchmal auch zum Lachen.

https://soundcloud.com/radiomuenchen/vier-wochen-wahnsinn-mai-25-ein-satirischer-monatsruckblick

www.radiomuenchen.net/​\ @radiomuenchen\ www.facebook.com/radiomuenchen\ www.instagram.com/radio_muenchen/\ twitter.com/RadioMuenchen\ odysee.com/@RadioMuenchen.net:9\ rumble.com/user/RadioMunchen

Radio München ist eine gemeinnützige Unternehmung.\ Wir freuen uns, wenn Sie unsere Arbeit unterstützen.

GLS-Bank\ IBAN: DE65 4306 0967 8217 9867 00\ BIC: GENODEM1GLS\ Bitcoin (BTC): bc1qqkrzed5vuvl82dggsyjgcjteylq5l58sz4s927\ Ethereum (ETH): 0xB9a49A0bda5FAc3F084D5257424E3e6fdD303482