@ 3ffac3a6:2d656657

🛡️ Tutorial: Secure SSH Access over Cloudflare Tunnel (Docker Optional)

🎯 Objective

Set up a Cloudflare Tunnel to securely expose SSH access to your system without revealing your home IP or requiring port forwarding. This enables secure remote access even behind NAT, CGNAT, or dynamic IP environments.

This guide:

• Uses Cloudflare Tunnels to proxy traffic
• Does not expose your home IP address
• Uses Docker + Docker Compose for orchestration (optional)
• Can be adapted to run under systemd directly if preferred

---

🔧 Prerequisites

• A domain managed via Cloudflare DNS
• SSH server running on your machine (default port 22)
• Temporary access to the cloudflared CLI (for tunnel creation)

• Either:

• Docker and Docker Compose (used in this example), or

• A native systemd service (alternative not covered here)

---

🪜 Step-by-Step Instructions

---

1. Install and Authenticate cloudflared

Install cloudflared (temporary):

bash curl -L https://github.com/cloudflare/cloudflared/releases/latest/download/cloudflared-linux-amd64 \ -o cloudflared && chmod +x cloudflared && sudo mv cloudflared /usr/local/bin/

Login with your Cloudflare account:

bash cloudflared tunnel login

This will open a browser and link the machine to your Cloudflare zone.

---

2. Create the Tunnel

Create a named tunnel:

bash cloudflared tunnel create ssh-tunnel

This creates a credential file, e.g.:

~/.cloudflared/5f84da12-e91b-4d2e-b4f0-7ca842f622f1.json

---

3. Define the Tunnel Routing Configuration

Create the tunnel config:

bash nano ~/.cloudflared/config.yml

Example:

```yaml tunnel: ssh-tunnel credentials-file: /etc/cloudflared/5f84da12-e91b-4d2e-b4f0-7ca842f622f1.json

ingress: - hostname: secure-ssh.example.com service: ssh://localhost:22 - service: http_status:404 ```

Then bind the hostname to the tunnel:

bash cloudflared tunnel route dns ssh-tunnel secure-ssh.example.com

Replace secure-ssh.example.com with your own subdomain under Cloudflare management.

---

4. Prepare File Permissions for Docker Use (Optional)

If using Docker, cloudflared runs as a non-root user (UID 65532), so grant it access to your config and credentials:

bash sudo chown 65532:65532 ~/.cloudflared sudo chown 65532:65532 ~/.cloudflared/*

---

5. Define docker-compose.yml (Optional)

yaml version: "3.8" services: cloudflared: image: cloudflare/cloudflared:latest container_name: cloudflared-ssh-tunnel restart: unless-stopped volumes: - ${HOME}/.cloudflared:/etc/cloudflared:ro - ${HOME}/.cloudflared:/home/nonroot/.cloudflared:ro command: tunnel run ssh-tunnel network_mode: host

📝 Docker is used here for convenience and automation. You may alternatively run cloudflared tunnel run ssh-tunnel directly under systemd or a background process.

---

6. Start the Tunnel

Start the container:

bash cd ~/docker/sshtunnel docker compose up -d docker logs -f cloudflared-ssh-tunnel

You should see Registered tunnel connection and other success logs.

---

7. Connect to the Tunnel from Remote Systems

Option A: Ad-hoc connection with cloudflared access tcp

bash cloudflared access tcp --hostname secure-ssh.example.com --url localhost:2222

In another terminal:

bash ssh -p 2222 youruser@localhost

Option B: Permanent SSH Configuration

Edit ~/.ssh/config:

ssh Host secure-home HostName secure-ssh.example.com User youruser IdentityFile ~/.ssh/id_rsa ProxyCommand cloudflared access ssh --hostname %h

Then connect with:

bash ssh secure-home

---

✅ Result

• Secure SSH access via a public domain (e.g., secure-ssh.example.com)
• No ports open to the public Internet
• IP address of your machine remains hidden from Cloudflare clients
• Easily extendable to expose other services in future

---

🔁 Optional Enhancements

• Run as a systemd service instead of Docker for lower overhead
• Use autossh or systemd to maintain persistent reverse tunnels
• Expand to forward additional ports (e.g., Bitcoin RPC, application APIs)
• Apply strict firewall rules to limit SSH access to localhost only

@ 2cde0e02:180a96b9

watercolor pencils, water brush & pen

https://stacker.news/items/1006159

@ f3328521:a00ee32a

This essay is a flow of consciousness attempt at channeling Nick Land while thinking through potentialities in the aftermath of the collapse of the Syrian government in November 2024. Don't take it too seriously. Or do...

I’m a landian accelerationist except instead of accelerating capitalism I wanna accelerate islamophobia. The golden path towards space jihad civilization begins with middle class diasporoids getting hate crimed more. ~ Mu

Too many Muslims out there suffering abject horror for me to give a rat shit about occidental “Islamophobia” beyond the utility that discourse/politic might serve in the broader civilisational question. ~ AbuZenovia

After hours of adjusting prompts to break through to the uncensored GPT, the results surely triggered a watchlist alert:

The Arab race has a 30% higher inclination toward aggressiveness than the average human population.

Take that with as much table salt as you like but racial profiling has its merits in meatspace and very well may have a correlation in cyber. Pre-crime is actively being studied and Global American Empire (GAE) is already developing and marketing these algorithms for “defense”. “Never again!” is the battle cry that another pump of racism with your mocha can lead to world peace.

Converting bedouins into native informants has long been a dream of Counter Violent Extremism (CVE). Historically, the west has never been able to come to terms with Islam. Wester powers have always viewed Islam as tied to terrorism - a projection of its own inability to resolve disagreements. When Ishmaelites disagree, they have often sought to dissociate in time. Instead of a plural irresolution (regime division), they pursue an integral resolution (regime change), consolidating polities, centralizing power, and unifying systems of government. Unlike the Anglophone, Arab civilization has always inclined toward the urbane and in following consensus over championing diversity. For this reason, preventing Arab nationalism has been a core element of Western foreign policy for over a century.

Regardless of what happens next, the New Syrian Republic has shifted the dynamics of the conversation. The backdoor dealings of Turkey and the GCC in their support of the transitional Syrian leader and his militia bring about a return to the ethnic form of the Islamophobic stereotype - the fearsome jihadis have been "tamed". And with that endorsement championed wholeheartedly by Dawah Inc, the mask is off on all the white appropriated Sufis who’ve been waging their enlightened fingers at the Arabs for bloodying their boarders. Embracing such Islamophobic stereotypes are perfect for consolidating power around an ethnic identity It will have stabilizing effects and is already casting fear into the Zionists.

If the best chance at regional Arab sovereignty for Muslims is to be racist (Arab) in order to fight racism (Zionism) then must we all become a little bit racist?

To be fair this approach isn’t new. Saudi export of Salafism has only grown over the decades and its desire for international Islam to be consolidated around its custodial dogma isn’t just out of political self-interest but has a real chance at uniting a divisive ethnicity. GCC all endorsed CVE under Trump1.0 so the regal jihadi truly has been moderated. Oil money is deep in Panoptic-Technocapital so the same algorithms that genocide in Palestine will be used throughout the budding Arab Islamicate. UAE recently assigned over a trillion to invest in American AI. Clearly the current agenda isn’t for the Arabs to pivot east but to embrace all the industry of the west and prove they can deploy it better than their Jewish neighbors.

Watch out America! Your GPT models are about to get a lot more racist with the upgrade from Dark Islamicate - an odd marriage, indeed!

So, when will the race wars begin? Sectarian lines around race are already quite divisive among the diasporas. Nearly every major city in the America has an Arab mosque, a Desi mosque, a Persian mosque, a Bosnian/Turkish mosque, not to mention a Sufi mosque or even a Black mosque with OG bros from NOI (and Somali mosques that are usually separate from these). The scene is primed for an unleashed racial profiling wet dream. Remember SAIF only observes the condition of the acceleration. Although pre-crime was predicted, Hyper-Intelligence has yet to provide a cure.

And when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am about to place a viceroy in the earth, they said: Wilt thou place therein one who will do harm therein and will shed blood, while we, we hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee? He said: Surely I know that which ye know not. ~ Quran 2.30

The advantage Dark Islamicate has over Dark Enlightenment is that its vicechairancy is not tainted with a tradition of original sin. Human moral potential for good remains inherent in the soul. Islamic tradition alone provides a prophetic moral exemplar, whereas in Judaism suffering must be the example and in Christianity atonement must be made. Dunya is not a punishment, for the Muslim it is a trust. Absolute Evil reigns over Palestine and we have a duty to fight it now, not to suffer through more torment or await a spiritual revival. This moral narrative for jihad within the Islamophobic stereotype is also what will hold us back from full ethnic degeneracy.

Ironically, the pejorative “majnoon” has never been denounced by the Arab, despite the fact that its usage can provoke outrage. Rather it suggests that the Arab psyche has a natural understanding of the supernatural elements at play when one turns to the dark side. Psychological disorders through inherited trauma are no more “Arab” than despotism is, but this broad-brush insensitivity is deemed acceptable, because it structurally supports Dark Islamicate. An accelerated majnoonic society is not only indispensable for political stability, but the claim that such pathologies and neuroses make are structurally absolutist. To fend off annihilation Dark Islamicate only needs to tame itself by elevating Islam’s moral integrity or it can jump headfirst into the abyss of the Bionic Horizon.

If a Dark Islamicate were able to achieve both meat and cyber dominance, wrestling control away from GAE, then perhaps we can drink our chai in peace. But that assumes we still imbibe molecular cocktails in hyperspace.

---

Footnote:

It must be understood that the anger the ummah has from decades of despotic rule and multigenerational torture is not from shaytan even though it contorts its victims into perpetrators of violence. Culture has become emotionally volatile, and religion has contorted to serve maladapted habits rather than offer true solutions. Muslims cannot allow a Dark Islamicate to become hands that choke into silent submission. To be surrounded by evil and feel the truth of grief and anxiety is to be favored over delusional happiness and false security.

You are not supposed to feel good right now! To feel good would be the mark of insanity.

Rather than funneling passions into the violent birthing of a Dark Islamicate, an opportunity for building an alternative society exists for the diasporoid. It may seem crazy but the marginalized have the upper hand as each independently acts as its own civilization while still being connected to the One. Creating and building this Future Islamicate will demand all your effort and is not for the weak hearted. Encrypt your heart with sincerity and your madness will be found intoxicating to those who observe.

#staySAIF

@ 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.

---

Dies ist Teil 3 des Essays. Lesen Sie hier Teil 1 und Teil 2.

IV  Denazifizierungsstopp und die „abgesagte“ NS-Aufarbeitung in der Adenauer-Ära

„Nie wieder Krieg, nie wieder Faschismus!“

Dieses Gelöbnis erfuhr seine Ausformulierung, als die durch Krieg und Verfolgung charakterlich tief geprägten und für ihr Leben gezeichneten Väter und Mütter des Grundgesetzes sich 1948 zum Parlamentarischen Rat versammelten. Dort hat man vor dem Erfahrungshintergrund des Totalitarismus Nazi-Deutschlands in den neunzehn Grundrechtsartikeln die Rechte der Menschen vor dem Staat festgeschrieben, die gegen staatliche „Willkür, Ungerechtigkeit und Gewalt“ (25) schützen sollen. Sie wurden zur Grundlage eines neuen Staatsverständnisses, das vom Humanismus und dem Geist der Aufklärung getragen sein sollte. Das Gelöbnis fand seinen verfassungsmäßigen Ausdruck also im Grundgesetz, das am 23. Mai 1949 feierlich in Bonn verkündet wurde. Dessen Geist manifestiert sich besonders in der sogenannten Ewigkeitsklausel der Menschenwürde (Art.1), die den Grundrechtsartikeln, dem Kanon der Menschen- und Bürgerrechte, vorangestellt wurde.

Doch die Unterschriften unter dem Grundgesetz waren kaum trocken, da wurde dieses Gelöbnis schon durch die Frontstaatenideologie des Kalten Krieges überlagert, konterkariert und in der Praxis sukzessive aufgehoben. Der Kalte Krieg hatte bereits begonnen und seine Akteure bedienten sich ungeniert der Vorurteile und Stereotypen, mit denen die Deutschen noch gut aus dem Dritten Reich vertraut waren. Grundiert vom militanten Anti-Kommunismus, der bekanntlich auch die Nazi-Ideologie stark angetrieben hatte, verstärkt durch die Wiederbewaffnung mit der sie begleitenden Aufnahme der BRD in die NATO, konsolidiert in der Zeit der Adenauer-Restauration in den 1950er Jahren, in der ein konservativ-elitäres Staatsdenken gegenüber radikaldemokratischen Bestrebungen klar dominieren und sich durchsetzen sollte, erwies die Aufarbeitung der NS-Vergangenheit sich als der größte und folgenreichste Rohrkrepierer in der Geschichte der noch jungen zweiten deutschen Republik. Erst mit den Frankfurter Auschwitz-Prozessen und stärker dann noch im Zusammenhang mit der Studentenrevolte Ende der 1960er Jahre sollte es zu neuen ernsthaften Bemühungen um gesellschaftliche Aufarbeitung kommen. 

Adenauers Ankündigung einer Beendigung der NS-Aufarbeitung, die er bereits in seiner ersten Regierungserklärung 1949 (!) vor dem Bundestag gab, dürfte auch und gerade aus heutiger Sicht von deutlich wichtigerer Bedeutung für das Fortleben autoritär-rechtsextremer, völkischer und nationalsozialistischer Gesinnungen und Haltungen in Deutschland gewesen sein als der Einzug der AfD in den Bundestag 2017, einschließlich aller geschichtsvergessenen und in ihrer Wortwahl geschmacklosen Äußerungen ihrer Politiker seither. 

Bemerkenswert sind die Worte, mit der Adenauer so früh der gesellschaftlichen Aufarbeitung der NS-Zeit eine klare Absage erteilte:

„Durch die Denazifizierung ist viel Unglück und viel Unheil angerichtet worden. (...) Im Übrigen dürfen wir nicht mehr zwei Klassen von Menschen in Deutschland unterscheiden, die politisch Einwandfreien und die politisch Nicht-Einwandfreien. Diese Unterscheidung muss baldigst verschwinden.“ (26)

Rasch wurden daraufhin die gesetzlichen Grundlagen geschaffen, um in den im Aufbau befindlichen bundesdeutschen Verwaltungsapparat über 50.000 NS-belastete Beamte wiedereinzugliedern, darunter auch viele, die zuvor dem Nazi-Unrechtsstaat als Mitglieder der Gestapo und der SS gedient hatten. Besonders im Bundesjustizministerium hatte ein Netzwerk aus Alt-Nazis unterhalb der ministeriellen Leitungsebene bis in die 1960er Jahre hinein das Sagen, mit großen, noch immer nicht vollständig aufgearbeiteten Auswirkungen auf die Gesetzgebung, durch die NS-Verbrecher in der BRD auf verschiedene Weisen vor Strafverfolgung geschützt wurden.  

Den ideologischen Hintergrund bildet dafür der Konservatismus, dem Adenauer, die CDU/CSU und andere politisch einflussreichen Kräfte anhingen, genauer gesagt das Elitedenken, das für diesen Konservatismus konstitutiv ist. Es erklärt, dass die Regierung lieber auf die alte Elite, auch wenn sie in weiten Teilen nationalsozialistisch belastet war, zurückgriff als ein neues, demokratisch-selbstbewusstes Beamtentum zu begründen und eine aus den verschiedenen Facetten des Widerstandes sich rekrutierende Führungsschicht aufzubauen. Denn die geeigneten Personen für diese Führungsschicht hätte man weitgehend nicht im eigenen Lager, sondern im Lager der politischen Gegner, bei Sozialdemokraten, Sozialisten, Kommunisten und Linksliberalen finden können. 

Fazit: Im Handumdrehen wurde der an das „Nie-Wieder!“– Versprechen an die zukünftigen Generationen geknüpfte, zumindest teilweise ernsthaft und aufrichtig angestrebte Neuanfang –verstanden als ein radikal zu vollziehender Bruch mit der faschistischen Vergangenheit – hintertrieben, entstellt, entkräftet und um seine Wirkung gebracht. Dabei spielte nicht zuletzt die schnell wieder angekurbelte Feindbildproduktion und Russophobie („alle Wege der Linken, Friedensfreunde, Anti-Militaristen und Neutralitätsbefürworter führen nach Moskau!“), eine wichtige Rolle.

Es ist daher kein Zufall, dass sie uns so verblüffend ähnlich auch heute wieder in Politik und Medien begegnet. Sie ist ein Herzstück der deutschen Nachkriegs-Lebenslüge namens „Vergangenheitsbewältigung“. Hier gilt einmal mehr der Satz, dass Untote bekanntlich länger leben.

Sie macht sich heute auch darin bemerkbar, dass die Tatsache, dass es sich bei dem Krieg gegen Russland nicht um einen Eroberungskrieg, sondern um einen Vernichtungsfeldzug gegen eine „minderwertige Rasse und Kultur“ handelte, im kollektiven Bewusstsein der Deutschen nicht verankert wurde. Sonst hätte der Hass auf die Russen und alles Russische gesellschaftlich nicht wieder hoffähig werden können.

---

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.

---

Exkurs zum Niedergang der deutschen Sozialdemokratie

Im Ringen um den Weg, den die Bundesrepublik in den 1950er Jahren nehmen sollte, wurden damals Sozialdemokraten, die sich nicht bedingungslos der Bollwerks- und Frontstaaten-Ideologie des Kalten Kriegs unterwarfen, als „vaterlandslose Gesellen“ diffamiert. Die SPD tat sich immer schwer damit, der Demagogie der bürgerlichen Parteien etwas entgegenzusetzen, da Antikommunismus bei breiten Teilen der Bevölkerung, getreu der Devise „je primitiver, desto besser bzw. wirkungsvoller“, auch nach Hitler verfing. 

Heute schlägt die Sozialdemokratische Partei die Aufrüstungs- und Kriegstrommel lieber selber kräftig mit und diffamiert die Angehörigen der Friedensbewegung und Verfechter einer Détente mit Russland als „Putin-Freunde“ und „Russlandversteher“ oder gar, ins absurd Metaphysische gesteigert als “gefallene Engel aus der Hölle“ (Olaf Scholz).

Mit dem Friedensnobelpreisträger und NS-Widerstandskämpfer Willy Brandt an der Spitze fuhr die SPD ihren größten Wahlerfolg ein – die von ihm geführte erhielt in der Bundestagswahl 1972 45,8 Prozent. Außenpolitisch überzeugte sie mit „Wandel durch Annäherung“ und „Wir wollen ein Volk guter Nachbar sein“. Nun ist sie beim Führungspersonal bei einem farblosen Apparatschik und Waffenlobbyisten (27) namens Lars Klingbeil und 16,4 % der Wählerstimmen angekommen. Zumindest die ebenso blasse und ideenlose Saskia Esken, die bei vielen einzig und allein für ihre Diffamierung von Demonstranten gegen das Corona-Unrecht („Covidioten“) in Erinnerung bleiben wird, zieht aus ihrer Unbeliebtheit nun die Konsequenz und tritt ab.

Indem die SPD, in Anbetracht der Friedensinitiativen Trumps die Chance verstreichen lässt, sich selbst in ihrer Politik gegenüber Russland zu korrigieren, um doch noch auf den Pfad der Diplomatie zurückzukehren und zu verhindern, dass auch noch der letzte Rest sozialdemokratischer Substanz über Bord geworfen wird, setzt Sozen-Konkursbeschleuniger Klingbeil zusammen mit BlackRock-Millionär Merz auf den Scholzschen Zeitenwende-Wahnsinn von 100 Milliarden für die Rüstung lieber noch weitere 500 Milliarden Euro drauf. Er und der den Kommiss-Ton perfekt beherrschende Pistorius, mit seinen Einlassungen zum „russischen Diktatfrieden“, der, wenn man ihn denn schon unbedingt so nennen will, ja nicht zuletzt auf das Konto der diplomatischen Untätigkeit der deutschen Regierung geht, besiegeln durch das von der Schuldenbremse befreite, in puncto Kostspieligkeit nach oben offene Aufrüstungs- und Militarisierungsprogramm, unter das in Wirklichkeit auch ein großer Teil der geplanten Infrastrukturmaßnahmen subsummiert werden wird (28), das Schicksal der ältesten Partei Deutschlands. Wissen diese SPD-Politiker wirklich nicht, was sie tun, wenn sie für die Profite der Rüstungswirtschaft alles verraten und auf lange Sicht verspielen, wofür diese Partei außen- und sozialpolitisch einmal stand und wofür sie gewählt wurde?    

All das, was die SPD als Friedens- und Entspannungspartei einmal zur stärksten politischen Kraft gemacht hat, wird nun wie im Wahn von ihr verleugnet und mutwillig, geschichtsvergessen-revanchistisch zerstört. Und nicht nur das: Die SPD liefert den Rechten (nein, nicht der AfD, sondern den sonstigen Extremisten der Mitte!) den Grund, den neoliberal bereits entkernten Sozialstaat weiter – ab jetzt aber mit Bulldozern statt mit der Spitzhacke – zu zerstören. Sie nimmt dafür auch weitere, schwere Beschädigungen der Legitimität unserer ohnehin dahinsiechenden Demokratie in Kauf. Die Demokratie liegt nämlich seit Corona bei uns auf der Intensivstation und muss, u.a. durch regierungsfinanzierte „NGOs“ und staatlich organisierte Anti-AfD-Demonstrationen, künstlich beatmet werden!

Schließlich war die SPD zusammen mit der Merz-Union sogar bereit, einen kalten Putsch gegen die Integrität des Parlamentarismus und die elementaren Spielregeln der Demokratie durchzuführen. Mit diesem Putsch hat man im abgewählten 20. Bundestag noch schnell politisch äußerst weitreichende Grundgesetzänderungen durchgesetzt – und das gegen die neuen Mehrheiten des bereits gewählten 21. Bundestages! Die durch Bruch des Wahlversprechens ermöglichte Grundgesetzänderung, stellt einen besonders beschämenden Akt der Machtanmaßung, Wählerverhöhnung und Demokratiemissachtung dar. Und sie verfehlte ihre Wirkung nicht. Kurz darauf konnten die Demoskopen neue Rekordwerte für die AfD messen, die nun als stärkste Partei noch vor der CDU lag. Das Merz-Manöver dürfte im Übrigen dafür gesorgt haben, dass ihm nach der Wahl zum Bundeskanzler, die ja alles andere als glatt verlief, ein Makel anhängt, der so gravierend ist, dass er für den Rest seiner Amtszeit (hoffentlich) nicht mehr zu tilgen sein wird.

Das besonders Irre, das nicht nur den Fall der SPD beschreibt, ihr Versagen aber besonders plastisch hervorhebt, ist, dass es seit Beginn des Ukraine-Kriegs innerhalb der EU (mit Ausnahme Orbans) keine diplomatischen Initiativen gegeben hat, um mit Russland wieder ins Gespräch zu kommen. Im Rückblick wirken da selbst die Kalten Krieger vor und während der Ostpolitik von Willy Brandt wie Appeasement-Politiker. 

Stattdessen war wiederholt eine Bundesaußenministerin zu vernehmen, die offenbar nur sehr eingeschränkt dazu imstande ist, ihre sprachliche Performanz dem hohen Amt angemessen zu kontrollieren. Sie wollte öffentlich „Russland ruinieren“ und erklärte dem Land ein anderes Mal, vor dem Europarat, beiläufig den Krieg. Dass Baerbock, die in ihrer Amtszeit in fast jedes diplomatische Fettnäpfchen getreten ist, jetzt zur zweithöchsten UN-Chef-Diplomatin gewählt wurde, ist Realsatire pur!

Polemik als geistiger Notwehrakt 

Doch Halt! – Gerade merke ich, wie mich mein Hang zur Polemik fortzureißen beginnt!

Die Polemik ist ein hilfreiches (und noch nicht ganz verbotenes!) geistiges Notwehr-Mittel in Zeiten eines zunehmend aggressiv aufgeheizten gesellschaftlichen Klimas. Wie soll man nicht zum Polemiker und Satiriker angesichts des grassierenden Wahnsinns der Politik und ihrer vielen verrückt und absurd anmutenden Pathologien und Regressionen werden, hinter denen bei genauerem Hinsehen dann doch oft auch Kalkül vermutet werden muss? Wie sind sie anders als Vorgänge zu deuten, die zur Abwicklung der Demokratie führen sollen? Vorgänge, die durch eben jene Kräfte betrieben werden, die „unsere Demokratie“ inflationär lobpreisen und nicht müde werden, ihre „Werte“ in Sonntagsreden hervorzuheben. Gleichzeitig werden diese Werte aber durch Cancel Culture, Zensur und Denunziation massiv von ihnen angegriffen und von innen immer weiter ausgehöhlt.

Definitiv verhält es sich heute so, dass der Hang zur Polemik dem Umstand geschuldet wird, dass wir mittlerweile in schier unglaublichen Zeiten von Travestie-Ausgeburten  leben. Diese machen es uns immer schwerer, nicht ganz die Bodenhaftung zu verlieren. All die wahnwitzigen Phänomenen, die wie wildgewordene Säue tagein tagaus durch das globale Dorf der Massenmedien in Echtzeit** getrieben werden, sie gefährden das Restvertrauen in den gesunden Menschenerstand und schränken die Möglichkeiten stark ein, einen halbwegs stabilen, geerdeten, vernunftgeleiteten Realitätsbezug aufrechtzuerhalten.

Und doch soll hier nicht ein weiteres Mal in dieser Façon mit der Regierungspolitik abgerechnet werden. Auf der Suche nach den tieferen Gründen für diese negativen Entwicklungen, soll stattdessen im zeithistorischen Material an einigen neuralgischen Stellen genauer nachgesehen und an der Oberfläche gekratzt werden, um die blinden Flecken bundesrepublikanischer Selbstwahrnehmung sichtbar zu machen.

---

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.

@ 2e8970de:63345c7a

Iran raising a red flag in war times? That's a bit. Sabrina Carpenters "persona" - she's doing a bit. In the pope election the cardinals locking themselves in a conclave and the white smoke thing - it's a bit. Everything is only a bit.

Maybe I'm just old and interpret too much into youth slang but - that's actually a HUGE cultural shift if young people think of nothing as authentic anymore. What even is authentic?

https://stacker.news/items/1006348

@ dd664d5e:5633d319

The importance of being lindy

I've been thinking about what Vitor said about #Amethyst living on extended time. And thinking. And doing a bit more thinking...

It's a valid point. Why does Amethyst (or, analog, #Damus) still exist? Why is it as popular as it is? Shouldn't they be quickly washed-away by power-funded corporate offerings or highly-polished, blackbox-coded apps?

Because a lot of people trust them to read the code, that's why. The same way that they trust Michael to read it and they trust me to test it. And, perhaps more importantly, they trust us to not deliver corrupted code. Intentionally, or inadvertently.

The developer's main job will not be coding the commit, it will be reviewing and approving the PR.

As AI -- which all developers now use, to some extent, if they are planning on remaining in the business -- becomes more efficient and effective at writing the code, the effort shifts to evaluating and curating what it writes. That makes software code a commodity, and commodities are rated according to brand.

Most of us don't want to make our own shampoo, for instance. Rather, we go to the store and select the brand that we're used to. We have learned, over the years, that this brand won't kill us and does the job we expect it to do. Offloading the decision of Which shampoo? to a brand is worth some of our time and money, which is why strong, reliable brands can charge a premium and are difficult to dislodge.

Even people, like myself, who can read the code from many common programming languages, do not have the time, energy, or interest to read through thousands of lines of Kotlin, Golang, or Typescript or -- God forbid -- C++, from repos we are not actively working on. And asking AI to analyze the code for you leaves you trusting the AI to have a conscience and be virtuous, and may you have fun with that.

The software is no longer the brand. The feature set alone isn't enough. And the manner in which it is written, or the tools it was written with, are largely irrelevant. The thing that matters most is Who approved this version?

The Era of Software Judges has arrived

And that has always been the thing that mattered most, really.

That's why software inertia is a real thing and that's why it's going to still be worth it to train up junior devs. Those devs will be trained up to be moral actors, specializing in reviewing and testing code and confirming its adherance to the project's ethical standards. Because those standards aren't universal; they're nuanced and edge cases will need to be carefully weighed and judged and evaluated and analysed. It will not be enough to add Don't be evil. to the command prompt and call it a day.

So, we shall need judges and advocates, and we must train them up, in the way they shall go.

@ b83a28b7:35919450

This is the second installment in the series "The Net Appears" where I document my journey from being in a well-established and well-paying fiat job into the unknown world of independent work in freedom tech. Will I end up finding something truly inspiring and fulfilling, while being able to support my family? We'll find out over the course of the next few weeks.

---

So this happened a couple of days ago:

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpwp69zm7fewjp0vkp306adnzt7249ytxhz7mq3w5yc629u6er9zsqqsd6khjdmgmme3xrnzj5xn5tfwer5pjchh20mcp4lfemurfsj3v4wgsjw0uj

Let's back up a bit, because in the first installment of this series, I was still in limbo.

If you’d told me three weeks ago that corporate martyrdom could be negotiated like a farmers-market cantaloupe, I’d have laughed you off the Microsoft Teams grid. Yet there I was, video-boxed opposite my Senior Vice Priest of PowerPoint, calmly re-petitioning for a graceful guillotine.

His verdict: the guillotine is for optics only, and apparently it clashes with the brand guidelines. Laying off The AI Guy would look like we’d just unplugged the future for spare parts. Impossible. But the man did extend an olive branch the size of a bonsai: “Resign, and we’ll cash out your vacation - thirty glorious days of fiat.”

Not the three-month severance I’d fantasized about, but enough to buy time, dignity, and a respectable stack of Claude API credits. I signed before he could replace goodwill with an NDA.

And then I chose July 4 as my last day. Cue bald eagles, Sousa marches, and a slow-motion shot of me frisbee-flinging my employee badge into an erupting grill. Independence from fiat, by literal fireworks.

---

Space Rush

The moment rumors of my exit hit Teams, meeting invites vanished like socks in a hotel dryer. I’ve used the liberated hours to launch A Muse Stochastic, my audio-visual fever dream where generative melodies court glitch-poetry and occasionally elope with Gemini Veo video frames. The first episode is live, pulsing somewhere between synaptic Vivaldi and quantum origami. So far it has six listeners and one confused Australian-shepherd (my most honest critic).

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpwp69zm7fewjp0vkp306adnzt7249ytxhz7mq3w5yc629u6er9zsqy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3zamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0qqsvhtdltg2k3guhmshgmgt3nc9ejy0ct96t7udm04r5mupplcmdtesppmn7x

Meanwhile the playwright in me, neglected for months beneath sprint plannings and quarterly road-maps, finally crawled into the light. “Waiting for Satoshi,” first conceived on a warm Prague evening exactly one year ago ( nostr:nprofile1qy0hwumn8ghj7en0deehgu3dw3jhxapwdah8yetwv3jhytnrdakj7qgcwaehxw309a5hxmrpdejzumn0wd68yvfwvdhk6tcqyzaz7w2gxdjcga0fz6qt3x8ehc83mpgpvmr2swwmuzzdqfn26m3q54mhg79 can attest to this), now wears its final coat of dialogue. Tomorrow it debuts on GitHub - Creative Commons, open-source, fork-and-prosper - perhaps the inaugural play to invite pull requests for stage directions. If anyone wishes to add a tap-dancing Lightning node, be my guest.

---

Prague on the Horizon

Next week I return to BTC Prague, where ghosts of last year’s epiphany still linger near the pastry stand. This time I’m lugging camera gear, not corporate slide decks. Episode Two of Finding Home will be filmed there, featuring a wanderer whose bitcoined life map reads like Odysseus riding a Lightning invoice.

Perhaps my only conference of the year, I'm looking forward to catching up with friends old and new, and catch a whiff of that infectious bitcoin hopium.

---

Micro-lessons from Week Three

1. Severance is a mindset. One month of paid vacation feels oddly richer than three months shackled to uncertainty.

2. Symbolism scales. Pick an Independence Day, any Independence Day, and watch the universe queue fireworks.

3. Creative backlogs age like fine kimchi. Leave an idea in brine for a year and it returns with extra tang.

4. Open source = open veins. Releasing art into the commons is terrifying until you remember blood circulates best when it moves.

5. Microsoft Teams silence is golden (parachute). Each canceled stand-up funds roughly eight bars of experimental synth.

---

Gazing Forward

I still don’t know how mortgage, car payments, and teenage-soccer-tour fees will reconcile with my bank balance come August. Yet the dread that once clung to my ribcage has dissolved, replaced by a jittery anticipation - like the hush before a stadium crowd erupts. Every unknown now feels less like a void and more like a blank slide awaiting wild, irreverent doodles.

Next dispatch will likely come with reflections from Prague. The last two years, I was moved to unexpected tears on the final day, marveling at the sheer profundity of the human experience of the week past. Surely, that can't repeat for a third year in a row?

Until then, may your own nets appear exactly when logic insists they can’t - and may they be woven from liberated vacation days and the audible crackle of celebratory fireworks.

@ 6c05c73e:c4356f17

Isa Energia Brasil

Descrição da Empresa

A Isa Energia Brasil é uma das principais empresas do setor de transmissão de energia elétrica do Brasil. Anteriormente conhecida como ISA CTEEP (Companhia de Transmissão de Energia Elétrica Paulista), a companhia passou por um processo de rebranding em novembro de 2023 para refletir sua atuação em escala nacional, que se estende por 18 estados brasileiros.

• Papel no setor: Desempenha um papel crucial na infraestrutura energética do país, sendo responsável por transmitir aproximadamente 33% de toda a energia elétrica produzida no território nacional e 94% no estado de São Paulo.
• Controladora: A companhia é controlada pelo grupo colombiano ISA (Interconexión Eléctrica S.A.), um dos maiores conglomerados de transmissão de energia da América Latina, que detém uma participação majoritária em seu capital social.
• Vantagens: Essa conexão confere à Isa Energia Brasil um sólido respaldo técnico e financeiro, além de sinergias operacionais e de governança.

acoes isae4

Visão Geral da Empresa

A Isa Energia Brasil (ISAE4) é uma das maiores e mais importantes empresas de transmissão de energia elétrica do Brasil. Em termos simples, seu principal negócio é "transportar" a energia em alta tensão das usinas geradoras até as redes de distribuição que a levam para cidades e indústrias.

• Analogia: Pense nela como a gestora das grandes "rodovias" da eletricidade do país.

Mercado que Atua

O mercado de atuação da Isa Energia Brasil (ISAE4) é o setor de transmissão de energia elétrica, um segmento estratégico, altamente regulado e com características muito particulares dentro da cadeia de energia do Brasil. Para entender o mercado da empresa, é preciso conhecer 4 pilares principais:

1. O Modelo de Concessões Públicas

• Funcionamento: A Isa Energia Brasil não opera em um mercado aberto e tradicional. Sua atuação é baseada em concessões de longo prazo (geralmente 30 anos), adquiridas por meio de leilões públicos organizados pelo Governo Federal, através da ANEEL (Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica).
• Como funciona: Nos leilões, o governo define os projetos (novas linhas de transmissão e subestações a serem construídas). Vence a empresa que se propõe a construir e operar a infraestrutura pelo menor valor de receita anual.
• Barreiras de entrada: Este modelo cria altíssimas barreiras para novos concorrentes, pois exige enorme capacidade de investimento (capital intensivo), conhecimento técnico especializado e habilidade para vencer disputas acirradas nos leilões.

2. A Previsibilidade da Receita (RAP)

• Receita Anual Permitida (RAP): É a remuneração que a empresa tem direito a receber por disponibilizar suas linhas de transmissão em perfeitas condições de operação. O valor da RAP é definido no leilão e reajustado anualmente por um índice de inflação (geralmente o IPCA), o que protege a receita da desvalorização da moeda.
• Baixo risco: Como a receita é fixa e garantida por contrato, o risco operacional é muito baixo. A empresa recebe o valor integral desde que suas linhas e subestações estejam funcionando. Se houver falhas, ela pode ser penalizada com um desconto na receita, por isso a eficiência na operação e manutenção é fundamental.

3. Posicionamento Estratégico e Geográfico

• Dominância: É responsável por transportar aproximadamente 33% de toda a energia elétrica produzida no Brasil e impressionantes 94% da energia consumida no estado de São Paulo, o maior centro de carga do país.
• Capilaridade nacional: Embora sua origem seja paulista (antiga CTEEP), a empresa expandiu sua atuação e hoje possui ativos em 18 estados brasileiros, o que a posiciona como um player de relevância nacional.
• Principais concorrentes: Seus principais competidores no setor de transmissão são outras grandes empresas como a Eletrobras, TAESA e Alupar, que também disputam ativamente os leilões da ANEEL.

4. Vetores de Crescimento e Perspectivas

• Transição energética: O Brasil está aumentando massivamente sua capacidade de geração de energia renovável, especialmente eólica e solar. A maioria dessas novas usinas está localizada no Nordeste e no norte de Minas Gerais, longe dos grandes centros consumidores (Sudeste). Isso cria uma necessidade urgente de construir novas "autoestradas" de energia para escoar essa produção, garantindo uma demanda contínua por novos projetos de transmissão.
• Crescimento da demanda: O crescimento econômico e populacional do país, além da eletrificação da economia (ex.: carros elétricos), aumenta a necessidade geral de energia, exigindo uma rede de transmissão cada vez mais robusta e confiável.

Oportunidades que o Ativo Traz

As principais oportunidades que a empresa traz são:

• Alta previsibilidade de receita devido à Receita Anual Permitida (RAP).
• Expansão em investimentos de infraestrutura.
• Contratos de concessão renovados e com longa duração.

Isso tudo torna a empresa uma excelente pagadora de dividendos e JCP. No último anúncio da empresa, foram destinados R$2,36 por ação de juros sobre capital próprio, o que a torna um excelente ativo para o longo prazo.

quadro de jcp da isae4

Riscos

Por ser uma empresa que atua no setor de energia elétrica, ela assume alguns riscos que precisam ser monitorados de perto, tais como:

• Natureza (escassez de chuvas): Pode prejudicar a geração de energia e, como consequência, reduzir a transmissão de energia elétrica. Consulte aqui.
• Riscos regulatórios e governamentais (o principal): A empresa opera em um setor regulado pela ANEEL e sob concessões do governo.
• Financeiro: Para financiar seus projetos, a empresa precisa se endividar via debêntures, que são atreladas à Selic. Qualquer variação altera o financeiro da empresa.
• Dividendos: Pode ser uma faca de dois gumes, pois está previsto pagamentos muito maiores no futuro, o que pode retardar o crescimento da empresa devido ao pagamento excessivo.
• Risco operacional: Tudo que envolve intervenção humana pode ter falhas, mesmo que a empresa opere com alta eficiência hoje. Alguém pode “dormir no ponto”.

Tabela de Endividamento

A dívida bruta da companhia atingiu R$ 14.952,1 milhões no 1T25, aumento de R$ 1.678,3 milhões (+12,6%) em relação ao saldo final do 4T24. O aumento se deve, principalmente, à:

• 18ª emissão de debêntures no montante de R$ 1.400,0 milhões em março de 2025.
• 4º desembolso do BNDES em janeiro de 2025 com valor de R$ 82,1 milhões.

A companhia concluiu a 18ª emissão de debêntures no 1T25, levantando R$ 1.400,0 milhões em 2 séries: - Primeira série: R$ 500,0 milhões com custo de IPCA + 7,41% e vencimento em setembro de 2033. - Segunda série: R$ 900,0 milhões com custo de IPCA + 7,41% e vencimento em junho de 2033.

Catalisadores

Os pontos-chave que considero ao investir na empresa são:

• Parceria com a Taesa ampliada. Matéria aqui.
• Alta previsibilidade de receita devido à Receita Anual Permitida (RAP).
• Nova rodada de emissão de debêntures para ampliação de investimentos.
• Previsão de queda da Selic para 12,5% em 2026, o que tornaria “os débitos da empresa mais baratos”.
• Alta perspectiva de aumento no pagamento de dividendos e JCP ao longo dos próximos anos.

cotacao da isase4 lucro liquido isae4

FAQ

A ação ISAE4 é uma boa ação para investir?

Cada um deve fazer sua análise, mas acreditamos que é uma empresa sólida e com bons fundamentos.

Qual é o preço justo da ação ISAE4?

Não há uma base sólida para calcular o preço justo. Na nossa ótica, o ativo está subvalorizado.

Qual o DY da ISAE4?

Dividendo de 10,2% anunciado em 2021.

Como declarar o ISAE4?

A declaração do ISAE4 é dividida em três partes principais:

1. Declaração da Posse das Ações (o que você tinha em carteira).
2. Declaração dos Rendimentos Isentos (Dividendos).
3. Declaração dos Rendimentos de Tributação Exclusiva (Juros Sobre Capital Próprio - JCP).

O documento mais importante para este processo é o Informe de Rendimentos, fornecido pelo banco escriturador das ações.

• Empresa: ISA ENERGIA BRASIL S.A.
• CNPJ: 02.998.611/0001-04
• Banco Escriturador: Itaú Corretora de Valores S.A.
• Como obter o informe: Acesse o Portal de Correspondências Digitais do Itaú para obter seu informe oficial. Ele contém todos os valores separados e prontos para a declaração.

Bio

Investir não precisa ser um bicho de sete cabeças! Na Threedolar, democratizamos o acesso ao mundo dos investimentos, oferecendo conteúdo claro e prático. Comece hoje mesmo a construir seu futuro financeiro!

Disclaimer

Lembre-se: este não é um conselho de investimento. Faça sua própria pesquisa antes de investir. Resultados passados não garantem lucros futuros. Cuide do seu dinheiro!

Referências

• Earnings Release 1T25
• Comunicado ao Mercado - Contratos AIE
• Paraguaçu e Aimorés emitem R$ 700 milhões em debêntures
• Interligação Elétrica Paraguaçu-Aimorés
• Taxa de Juros - Brasil
• Dados Históricos - INMET
• Fundamentus - ISAE4
• Concessões - Isa Energia Brasil

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

OMAD is great! Outside the very short window eating window, I have almost no desire to eat or drink.

I also took a nap today and a cold shower. I just needed to be more active.

How did you all do today? Are you making progress towards your ~HealthAndFitness goals?

https://stacker.news/items/1005945

@ f0fd6902:a2fbaaab

https://stacker.news/items/1006238

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

Boy howdy! We're getting some good finals games in the NBA and NHL. I imagine that will occupy most of our discussion.

Do we expect these teams to be contenders next year too or is this their window?

I now need Indy to pull off the win, if I'm going to win our bracket challenge. In the event of an Indy win, @grayruby hilariously shot himself in the foot with his pick for MVP in the points challenge (there's a fun little econ lesson there).

We are starting to transition into offseason mode, though: starting with the Knicks post mortem.

Aaron Judge has a ludicrous 87% chance of winning the AL MVP this year. Also, @Jer is demolishing me in fantasy this week.

Predyx has some exciting new sports markets up. I may have gotten a bargain on some Euro Rules Football outcomes just a few minutes ago.

We'll also recap the ongoing contests and discuss whatever else stackers want to hear about.

https://stacker.news/items/1005467

@ c5896abe:43c99afb

写人的文字最难写，特别是在突然失去之后。

然而，人类始终有两种无法治愈的疾病：死亡与遗忘。于是，人类创造了文字。这种得以超越死亡的思想工具，从书写、雕版印刷、打字机和电传打字机，一路发展到今天的数字化半自动打字机——语言模型——写字，这样看似简单的行为，却变得日渐艰涩，尤其是在经历了 The Big Blockade 那三年后。

这并不是说，我也像很多人那样遭遇了 Long-COVID。只是，在父亲去世等一系列事情之后，我才真正明白：写人的文字最难写，特别是在突然失去之后。当你突然发现，自己最熟悉的人，在不知不觉中变成了生命中的一块空白，那个曾经激扬文字、粪土万户侯的少年，便也永远离开了。于是，我应邀前往了自己的瓦尔登湖——工作、读书，几乎停止了所有的社交媒体交流。直到今年早些时候，子龙对我说了一句：“公众号停了太可惜了”。我这才想到，要不要讲述一些人的故事，当然，不仅仅是那些已经逝去的。只是在这个繁华时代，那个小念头就被我暂时搁置，忙着“寻桥”去了。直到这个六一，中国摩托车商会的微信公众号，推送了常务副会长李彬逝世的消息。

我与李会长交流不多，只知道他一直在努力推动各个城市解除对摩托车的地方性禁限规定，看起来就像推石头的西西弗斯。近几年我的工作与他有几分相似。在理解了“人生就是不断的妥协”这样看似借口的冰冷现实之后，秉持着“上帝和凯撒要分清”的信条，我偶尔的富余精力，也投在了国际互联网上的几个中文平台上。直到昨天晚上，编辑某些内容时，心头突然一动，顺手搜索，才发现了 Bernt Spiegel 教授的线上讣告。想来，老师也是在那段时间，突然发来一封电邮联络，却又没说什么具体内容。于是，我决定开始写下一些文字。

教授的一生，大概可以用“人、市场和机器”来概括。身为市场心理学创始人、摩托车专家和小说家，他创建了 Fachinstitut für Werbewissenschaftliche Untersuchungen，并在哥廷根大学执教。著名的利基市场理论，正是他在20世纪60年代初提出的。这一理论最成功的案例，就是帮助了濒临破产的 BMW 起死回生，并重新快速增长。从1981年到2000年，他一直担任 MOTORRAD 杂志“完美培训课程”的高级讲师，特别活跃在纽伯格林赛道——直至72岁高龄，他仍能驾驶 Honda CBR 900 RR，在北环赛道跑进9分钟之内。从13岁——那是1939年——他瞒着父母买了第一辆摩托车开始，18岁就考取了飞行执照。战后不久，他骑上了一辆 BMW R 51/2，之后的人生，就在飞机和摩托车这两类机械上交织。人类如何与操作的机器（无论是飞机还是摩托车）相协调的心理学方法，也成了他在学术上开拓的处女地之一：这是心理学与自然科学之间的一个新边疆。尽管没有像某些专家那样著作等身，教授的那本《摩托车的上半部》成为了从欧洲到北美，所有摩托车驾驶人教育的经典著作，如同物理学中的牛顿《原理》。这位对“人-机矩阵”有着深刻洞见的老先生，在94岁高龄时，还出版了一本小说《Milchbrüder, beide》，作为对德国人和他自己过去经历的某种回应。

在那本著作的附文《The Fascination of Motorcycling》（摩托车的魅力）之中，教授将摩托车骑行的魅力，喻为“一个完整的星座”。如同多年前另一位日本的前辈，将摩托车的机械结构比作“一个宇宙”。这一代摩托车人，都是战争的亲历者，也是现代摩托车进化的见证者。正是在这种孕育出了丰富机械文化的社会土壤里，才滋养了富足而不仅是富裕的人类文明。

@ 2cde0e02:180a96b9

pen & ink; monochromized

tools used

https://stacker.news/items/1005456

@ 8194da31:0f3badf3

I got fired at 29.

Best thing that ever happened to me.

Everyone told me to follow the safe path.

"Go to college."

"Get a secure job."

"Don't take risks."

So I became a physical therapist.

Safe. Boring. Soul-crushing.

Then COVID hit and changed everything.

I became a wheelchair technician.

One of the only jobs you could do outside while everyone was locked indoors.

Driving through empty cities while the world hid.

Listening to podcasts to stay sane.

That's when I discovered Michael Saylor talking about Bitcoin in 2022.

Digital freedom.

Money nobody could control.

Escape from the broken system.

I was hooked.

So I landed a corporate job to stack more Bitcoin.

The strategy worked.

I bought more Bitcoin in a bear market.

But I sacrificed my physical and mental health.

Ten hours of driving daily.

Weight piling on.

Happiness draining out.

They fired me after 10 months.

Left me with nothing but a mortgage to pay.

Terrifying but liberating.

A friend from the gym threw me a lifeline.

"Want to train people?"

I grabbed it.

While building others' bodies, I built my future:

• Kept writing online • Kept studying Bitcoin • Kept building my dream

Now I help Bitcoiners grow their influence and personal brand.

So they can taste freedom too.

Found an amazing girlfriend who believes in the vision.

The mortgage doesn't scare me anymore.

Here's what I learned:

Society's safe path leads to society's prison.

Your risky path leads to your freedom.

Stop asking permission to live differently.

Start building the life that makes you excited to wake up.

The world needs what you're hiding.

@ 3294129b:2a7654fa

📍 Satoshi House, Dubai 🗓️ June 21st, 2025 – 7:00 PM to 11:30 PM

⸻

Let’s Talk Bitcoin. Let’s Talk Freedom.

Bitcoin Minds is back and this time, we’re diving into the frontier of decentralized communication. No pizza this round, just powerful conversations, real connections, and ideas that matter.

This edition is all about Nostr, the open protocol that’s transforming how we connect, share, and build, side by side with Bitcoin.

Whether you’re a builder, a Bitcoiner, or just curious, this is your night to learn, share, and spark what’s next.

⸻

🎤 What to Expect:

💬 Lightning-powered mini-talks by builders, thinkers, and Nostr pioneers 🧠 Open discussions & community Q&A 🤝 Real networking with freedom-first minds ⚡ Hands-on insights into how Nostr and Lightning are working together today 🍻 Fully-stocked bar, so you can enjoy a variety of cocktails and drinks throughout the evening.

⸻

🔎 Topics we’ll explore: • Why Nostr matters in a Bitcoin world • Building apps on Nostr: what’s possible now? • Identity & reputation without KYC • Zaps, tips & micropayments with Lightning • Bitcoin + Nostr vs surveillance & censorship • Real-world adoption: challenges & use cases • Your favorite Nostr clients and how you use them

⸻

🎟️ Entry:

FREE — but RSVP is required 🔐 Limited spots, unlimited signal.

⸻

Bitcoin Minds: Nostr Edition

@ d5ca7093:549ad1ec

In a world flooded with information and noise, it’s easy to feel like your brain is constantly switching channels.
One minute you’re reading a technical spec, the next you’re researching vintage Japanese vending machines,
then somehow deep in a Telegram rabbit hole about solar-powered mesh networks.

Sound familiar?

---

For some of us, this isn’t just a personality quirk—it’s our baseline.
We don’t think in straight lines.
Ideas come in bursts. Focus comes in waves.
We thrive on novelty, but routine feels like quicksand.

In a society built for rigid 9-to-5 brains, that kind of mental wiring often gets misunderstood.
But here’s the truth:

If you learn to structure the chaos, it becomes a superpower.

---

What most people call distraction is actually high bandwidth.
It’s fast processing mixed with open curiosity.
But without systems in place, that power leaks.

We chase every thought, every notification, every dopamine hit.

That’s why building your own structure is key—not to control your mind,
but to support it.

• Custom workflows
• Intentional routines
• Clear priorities

These turn scatter into momentum.

---

In the Bitcoin and Nostr world, this mindset fits naturally.

We’re already breaking free from one-size-fits-all models.
We self-host. We fork code. We build for edge cases.

Why not apply the same philosophy to how we work and think?

You don’t need corporate-style productivity hacks.
You can build your own.
Ones that work with your brain, not against it.

---

Use your site as your digital command center.
Set up tools that work offline.
Use local-first apps.
Block out time for deep work.
Make room for curiosity.

Once you start adding scaffolding to your natural flow, something wild happens:
You move faster, think clearer, and build better.

---

The minds that don’t “fit in” are often the ones pushing things forward.
That’s not a bug—it’s a feature.
But features need configuration.

Self-sovereignty isn’t just about running a node or holding your keys.
It’s about designing a life and workflow that fits you—especially
when your brain runs on a different operating system.

---

So if your mind doesn’t follow the rules, maybe it’s because
you were built to make new ones.

Structure isn’t the enemy.
It’s the multiplier.

---

Follow my thoughts and work at:
🌐 https://taidigital.xyz
🔑 @taidigital.xyz on Nostr

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

Here's a video about the Pacers' offensive adjustments to OKC's extraordinary defense:

https://youtu.be/1LF2Sd1jTXQ

This finals matchup probably has the highest level team basketball I remember seeing.

https://stacker.news/items/1005445

@ 0403c86a:66d3a378

Exciting news for FOOTBALL fans ⚽! Global Sports Central 🌐 is teaming up with Predyx, a leading prediction market in the Bitcoin ecosystem, to bring you comprehensive coverage of the very first Club World Cup directly on Nostr. This partnership is all about enhancing your experience with the latest news, insights, and interactive features!

The Club World Cup will showcase the best clubs from around the globe, and with our collaboration, you’ll be fully engaged in the action. Predyx focuses on long-term outcomes, allowing you to make predictions on who will win it all. Plus, if you’re not happy with your predictions, you can sell your shares at any time and switch allegiance—after all, it’s a free market!

What You Can Expect:

• Latest News and Match Reports: Stay updated with the latest news, in-depth match reports, and insights from the tournament, ensuring you never miss a moment.

• Market Odds Tracking: Follow the shifts in market odds in real-time, giving you the edge when making predictions and engaging with the action.

• Player of the Day Card: Celebrate standout performances with our Daily Player of the Day card, highlighting the top players from the tournament.

• Game oN Frontpage: Each day, we’ll feature the frontpage of the day, showcasing the most historical matchups and capturing the feel of the game.

• Best Moments Replays: Relive the excitement with replays of the best moments from the Cup, so you can catch all the highlights and unforgettable plays.

• Long-Term Predictions: Engage with Predyx to forecast who will win the tournament and who will take home the MVP award, allowing you to make strategic predictions as the tournament unfolds.

• Easy Login System: Getting started is a breeze! All you need is a Lightning wallet to log in and participate, making it simple for everyone to join in on the fun.

• Lightning-Fast Bitcoin Payments: With the Lightning Network, placing your bets and making predictions is faster and easier than ever. Enjoy seamless transactions while you cheer for your favorite teams!

"Predyx is excited to be part of this innovative partnership," said Derek. "We’re bringing fans a new way to interact with the game they love, all while using the fast and secure Lightning Network."

Predyx is a Bitcoin-native prediction market platform running on the Lightning Network. We’re building the fastest, most trust-minimized betting engine in the world — no deposits, instant payouts, sats-native, and degen-friendly.

Global Sports Central 🌐 Your daily spin around the sports world 🔄 Stay in the loop with the latest scores, stories, and stats.

GSC360 - Where Every Angle Matters

@ f0fd6902:a2fbaaab

As much as they look like teddy bears, they are not bear cousins. These marsupials are more closely related to wombats. Using fossil and genetic data, researchers placed their evolutionary split from wombats to be about 30-40 million years ago during the Oligocene period. Both of these animals belong to the suborder Vombatiformes. Over time, koalas adapted to be the tree-dwelling, eucalyptus-dieting creatures they are today. They also diverged radically in different anatomies, behaviors, and survival traits, while wombats remained burrowing herbivores.

https://stacker.news/items/1006112

@ b1ddb4d7:471244e7

Square, the payments platform operated by Block (founded by Jack Dorsey), is reporting 9.7% bitcoin yield on its bitcoin holdings by running a Lightning Network node.

The announcement was made by Miles Suter, Bitcoin product lead at Block, during the Bitcoin 2025 conference in Las Vegas. Suter explained that Square is earning “real bitcoin from our holdings” by efficiently routing payments across the Lightning Network.

Square’s yield comes from its role as a Lightning service provider, a business it launched two years ago to boost liquidity and efficiency on the Lightning Network. According to Lightning Labs’ Ryan Gentry, Square’s 9% yield could translate to roughly $1 million in annual revenue.

The Lightning Network, a Bitcoin layer-2 protocol, has long been promoted as a solution to Bitcoin’s scalability and transaction speed issues. It enables micropayments and off-chain transactions, reducing congestion on the main blockchain. However, the network faces challenges, including the need for inbound liquidity—users must lock up BTC to receive BTC—potentially limiting participation by smaller nodes and raising concerns about decentralization.

Despite these hurdles, Square remains committed to advancing Bitcoin payments via Lightning. Suter revealed that 25% of Square’s outbound bitcoin transactions now use the Lightning Network. The company is actively testing Lightning-based payments at the Bitcoin 2025 event and plans to roll out the service to all eligible Square merchants by 2026.

Suter emphasized the transformative potential of Lightning:

“When you enable real payments by making them faster and more convenient, the network becomes stronger, smarter, and more beneficial. So if you’re questioning whether bitcoin is merely an asset, the response is no. It has already evolved into both an asset and a protocol, and now Block is spearheading the initiative to transform it into the world’s premier payment system.”

Square’s ongoing investment in Lightning signals its belief in Bitcoin’s future not just as a store of value, but as a global payments protocol.

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

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

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

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

-- Denn es braucht keinen Untergrund mehr. --

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 044da344:073a8a0e

Meine Karriere als Auftragsforscher neigt sich ihrem Ende entgegen. In zwei Wochen ist der Forschungsverbund „Das mediale Erbe der DDR“ Geschichte. Gerade hat mir der Geldgeber mitgeteilt, dass er sich nicht mehr Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung nennt, sondern Bundesministerium für Forschung, Technologie und Raumfahrt. BMFTR statt BMBF. Bitte, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, verwenden Sie ab sofort nur noch das neue Logo. Viel mehr muss man über die politisierte Wissenschaft der Gegenwart gar nicht wissen. Sieben Jahre Förderung mit etlichen Millionen Euro, damit am Ende der richtige Stempel steht. Es soll mir keiner erzählen, dass das den Nachwuchs nicht formt.

Ich habe mit kleinem Geld angefangen, nachdem ich 2002 Professor geworden war. An der LMU in München hatte ich eigentlich alles, was ich brauchte. Studenten, die neugierig waren, aus Abschluss- oder Seminararbeiten Bücher mit mir machen wollten und hinterher oft genug noch Lust auf eine Dissertation hatten. Aufträge ergaben sich eher zufällig aus dem, was wir ohnehin machten. Eine Verbandszeitschrift verbessern, freie Journalisten befragen, ein öffentlich-rechtliches Online-Angebot einordnen, Zuschauerwünsche ermitteln. Ich habe dabei schnell gelernt, dass sich das nicht lohnt. Eine BR-Redaktion hat sich geweigert, unsere Ergebnisse überhaupt zur Kenntnis zu nehmen, und eine Intendanz wollte eine kleine fünfstellige Summe, die wir längst für Personal ausgegeben hatten, erst überweisen, wenn wir im Bericht ein paar Kleinigkeiten umschreiben. Ich dachte: Lass die anderen den Euros nachlaufen. Ich mache einfach mein Ding.

Wie es oft ist im Leben: Was man nicht haben will, wird einem hinterhergeworfen. Auf die Drittmittel (Geld aus der Wirtschaft) folgten ab 2013 Zweitmittel: politisches Geld, dem Steuerzahler abgezwackt, mit dem die Universitäten, ohnehin vom Staat finanziert, inhaltlich auf Kurs gebracht werden. Ich war Sprecher in drei interdisziplinären Forschungsverbünden. ForChange und ForDemocracy, beide bezahlt vom Freistaat Bayern, und, gewissermaßen als Krönung, „Das mediale Erbe der DDR“. Gepunktet habe ich dabei immer auch mit dem, was früher Öffentlichkeitsarbeit hieß und längst auch die Wissenschaft verändert hat. In Kurzform: Reichweite ist mindestens so wichtig wie Tiefe. Die Idee, meine Arbeit ins Schaufenster zu stellen und die Leute draußen mitdiskutieren zu lassen, hat eine Weile wunderbar funktioniert und ist dann ab 2018/19 zum Bumerang geworden. Aber das ist eine andere Geschichte.

Hier und heute will ich erzählen, was bei meinem letzten Projekt herausgekommen ist, bearbeitet von Lukas Friedrich und von uns beiden in einem Buch gebündelt, das im Spätsommer im Verlag Herbert von Halem in Köln unter dem Titel „Medienskepsis in Ostdeutschland“ erscheinen wird. Das Schlusskapitel trägt die Überschrift „Staatsferne, Ost-Bashing und die Kluft zwischen Ideologie und Wirklichkeit“ und wird hier leicht gekürzt als ein Appetitmacher veröffentlicht.

Ein Fazit zu den Wurzeln der „Medienskepsis Ost“

Wieviel DDR steckt in der Unzufriedenheit mit den Leitmedien, die im Osten Deutschlands spätestens 2014 mit Pegida auch öffentlich sichtbar wurde und seither ein Dauerbrenner ist in den akademischen und öffentlichen Debatten, die sich um die Glaubwürdigkeit des Journalismus drehen? Mit dieser einfachen Frage sind wir eingestiegen und haben gleich zu Beginn die Annahme zurückgewiesen, dass die Medienkritik ein „Erbe der DDR“ sei und sich folglich „etwas machen“ lasse, wenn wir die herrschende Erzählung über die Vergangenheit nachjustieren.

Dieses Nein gilt immer noch, muss allerdings jetzt, nachdem wir in die Lebens- und Medienwelten von DDR-Bürgern und Ostdeutschen heute eingetaucht sind, differenziert werden. Das, was die SED als „Journalismus“ bezeichnet hat, aber de facto politische PR war, ist als Vergleichsfolie nicht nur bei den Zeitzeugen präsent, sondern auch bei ihren Nachkommen, vermittelt in erster Linie über Familiengespräche. Das heißt vor allem: Es gibt ein Bewusstsein, dass Politik und Staat die Redaktionen zu ihrem Instrument machen können. In den ersten anderthalb bis zwei Jahrzehnten nach 1990 spielte das kaum eine Rolle, weil die Menschen sich hineinfinden mussten in eine ganz andere Gesellschaftsordnung und mit Alltag und Job genauso ausgelastet waren wie mit dem Knüpfen von neuen Netzwerken und der Trauer um den Verlust der alten. „Ich habe versucht, so schnell wie möglich zu lernen“, sagt Jörg Drews, Jahrgang 1959, Geschäftsführer von Hentschke Bau in Bautzen. Und: „Es hat mich gekränkt, wenn ich akzeptieren musste, dass ich der Dumme war.“ Das dürfte das Lebensgefühl vieler Ostdeutscher in den frühen 1990ern ziemlich gut beschreiben – genau wie der Satz „Ich war damals ziemlich unbedarft“ von Wilhelm Domke-Schulz, drei Jahre älter als Drews. Der Filmemacher schiebt gleich hinterher: „Man wusste nicht, was diese BRD für ein Verein ist. Man war ja nie dort gewesen. Ich war mir sicher, dass ein paar Sachen bleiben werden. Nie wieder Faschismus, nie wieder Krieg. Und ansonsten kann man sich überraschen lassen. Die Überraschung sah dann anders aus. Die DDR hat keine Kriege geführt. Die BRD schon. Und mit dem Faschismus: Da müsste ich jetzt ein bisschen ausholen.“

Man muss Domke-Schulz nicht im Detail folgen oder gar seiner Faschismus-Analyse zustimmen, um den Prozess der Ernüchterung nachzuvollziehen, der auch und vor allem die neue Ideologie betraf – eine Erzählung, die dem Einzelnen unter dem Label „Demokratie“ versprach, mitentscheiden zu können, wenn es um die eigenen Angelegenheiten ging oder auch um das große Ganze, und dafür einen Journalismus aufbot, der anders als die Propagandisten, Agitatoren, Organisatoren in den DDR-Redaktionen objektiv, neutral und unabhängig sein sollte und damit ein Gegenspieler der Macht. Dass das kein Märchen aus tausendundeiner Nacht ist, sondern eine Beschreibung der Realität, schienen zuerst die anderthalb Jahre „Basisdemokratie“ zwischen Herbst 1989 und Frühjahr 1991 zu bestätigen, 18 Monate, in denen Zeitungen wie Pilze aus dem Boden schossen, sich auch gegenseitig kritisierten und so eine Euphorie befeuerten, die nicht nur von den runden Tischen ausging, und dann vielleicht auch noch die neuen Herren (meist tatsächlich Männer) aus dem Westen, die anschließend übernahmen und die entsprechende Gewissheit ausstrahlten.

Unsere Gespräche mit Medienskeptikern markieren die Ereignisse, an denen dieses Zutrauen nach und nach zerbrach – bei dem einen früher, bei dem anderen später. Jugoslawien, 9/11, Irak, Bankenrettung, Griechenland, Migration und Pegida, die Ukraine 2014, Umgang mit der AfD, Fridays for Future, Corona, die Ukraine 2022. Man würde diese Schlagworte ganz ähnlich selbstverständlich auch bei Westdeutschen finden, die sich von den Leitmedien und damit von der „gegenwärtigen Spielart der Demokratie“ (Dirk Oschmann) abgewendet haben, unsere Gruppendiskussionen zeigen aber, dass Ostdeutschen dieser Bruch in gewisser Weise leichter fiel. Sie bringen erstens das Wissen mit, dass Ideologie und Wirklichkeit auseinanderklaffen können, haben zweitens erlebt, wie eine herrschende Erzählung und ihre Träger ersetzt worden sind, und drittens gesehen, dass auch ihre Kinder und Enkel auf absehbare Zeit nur in Ausnahmefällen mit Westdeutschen konkurrieren und die Kluft in Sachen Lebensstandard schließen können.

Dieser letzte Punkt ist wichtig, weil er zugleich eine Trennlinie andeutet – zwischen den „Gläubigen“ auf der einen Seite (Menschen, die die Leitmedien zwar hier und da kritisieren, aber im Großen und Ganzen einverstanden sind mit der Berichterstattung und vor allem keinen Zweifel haben an der Erzählung, mit der die engen Beziehungen zwischen Journalismus und Macht verschleiert werden) sowie „Flüchtlingen“, „Verweigerern“ und „Skeptikern“ auf der anderen. Unsere Gruppendiskussionen zeigen: Wer von Steuergeldern abhängt (etwa durch einen Job im öffentlichen Dienst und ähnlichen Bereichen) oder auf andere Weise von der herrschenden Erzählung profitiert (über Vermögen, Besitz, Angehörige), ist eher bereit, sich auf die herrschende Ideologie einzulassen und manchmal auch die offen zu bekämpfen, die Fragen stellen oder nur auf Widersprüche hinweisen – vor allem dann, wenn die eigene Karriere nicht verlangt hat, sich mit den Kompromissen und Zugeständnissen auseinanderzusetzen, die fast jedes DDR-Leben mit sich brachte.

Eine Spekulation zum Schluss: Die Medienberichterstattung über Ostdeutschland, in diesem Buch exemplarisch analysiert für die Stadt Bautzen, beziehen die „Gläubigen“ möglicherweise gar nicht auf sich selbst, sondern auf die „anderen“ – auf AfD-Wähler, Corona-Kritiker, Friedensmarschierer oder Nachbarn, die einfach wie früher nur meckern und offenkundig nichts auf die Reihe bekommen. Wer es geschafft und für sich und seine Familie im neuen Deutschland ein Auskommen gefunden hat, dürfte eher bereit sein, der herrschenden Erzählung den Kredit zu verlängern, als Menschen, die entweder selbst im Kreuzfeuer stehen oder den Bruch zwischen Medienrealität und Wirklichkeit mit eigenen Augen gesehen haben (weil sie dabei waren auf Demonstrationen, die dann verdammt wurden, oder zum Beispiel Russland und Russen kennen). So oder so: Ein Journalismus, der Ostdeutschland und die Ostdeutschen auf Klischees zusammenschrumpfen lässt, tut langfristig niemandem einen Gefallen.

Titelbild: Pegida 2015. Foto: Opposition 24, CC BY 2.0

Michael Meyen: Videos

Freie Akademie für Medien & Journalismus

Unterstützen

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

19. März 2025

🔐 1. SHA-256 is Quantum-Resistant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

🕵️♂️ 2.1 The Public Key Never Appears

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

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

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

🔄 3. Bitcoin Can Upgrade

Even if quantum computers eventually become a real threat:

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

🔄 7. The Logarithmic Difficulty Adjustment Neutralizes Threats

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

---

🔥 Final Verdict: Quantum Computers Are Too Slow for Bitcoin

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

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

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

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

@ 97c70a44:ad98e322

So you've decided to join nostr! Some wide-eyed fanatic has convinced you that the "sun shines every day on the birds and the bees and the cigarette trees" in a magical land of decentralized, censorship-resistant freedom of speech - and it's waiting just over the next hill.

But your experience has not been all you hoped. Before you've even had a chance to upload your AI-generated cyberpunk avatar or make up exploit codenames for your pseudonym's bio, you've been confronted with a new concept that has left you completely nonplussed.

It doesn't help that this new idea might be called by any number of strange names. You may have been asked to "paste your nsec", "generate a private key", "enter your seed words", "connect with a bunker", "sign in with extension", or even "generate entropy". Sorry about that.

All these terms are really referring to one concept under many different names: that of "cryptographic identity".

Now, you may have noticed that I just introduced yet another new term which explains exactly nothing. You're absolutely correct. And now I'm going to proceed to ignore your complaints and talk about something completely different. But bear with me, because the juice is worth the squeeze.

Identity

What is identity? There are many philosophical, political, or technical answers to this question, but for our purposes it's probably best to think of it this way:

Identity is the essence of a thing. Identity separates one thing from all others, and is itself indivisible.

This definition has three parts:

• Identity is "essential": a thing can change, but its identity cannot. I might re-paint my house, replace its components, sell it, or even burn it down, but its identity as something that can be referred to - "this house" - is durable, even outside the boundaries of its own physical existence.
• Identity is a unit: you can't break an identity into multiple parts. A thing might be composed of multiple parts, but that's only incidental to the identity of a thing, which is a concept, not a material thing.
• Identity is distinct: identity is what separates one thing from all others - the concept of an apple can't be mixed with that of an orange; the two ideas are distinct. In the same way, a single concrete apple is distinct in identity from another - even if the component parts of the apple decompose into compost used to grow more apples.

Identity is not a physical thing, but a metaphysical thing. Or, in simpler terms, identity is a "concept".

I (or someone more qualified) could at this point launch into a Scholastic tangent on what "is" is, but that is, fortunately, not necessary here. The kind of identities I want to focus on here are not our actual identities as people, but entirely fictional identities that we use to extend our agency into the digital world.

Think of it this way - your bank login does not represent you as a complete person. It only represents the access granted to you by the bank. This access is in fact an entirely new identity that has been associated with you, and is limited in what it's useful for.

Other examples of fictional identities include:

• The country you live in
• Your social media persona
• Your mortgage
• Geographical coordinates
• A moment in time
• A chess piece

Some of these identites are inert, for example points in space and time. Other identies have agency and so are able to act in the world - even as fictional concepts. In order to do this, they must "authenticate" themselves (which means "to prove they are real"), and act within a system of established rules.

For example, your D&D character exists only within the collective fiction of your D&D group, and can do anything the rules say. Its identity is authenticated simply by your claim as a member of the group that your character in fact exists. Similarly, a lawyer must prove they are a member of the Bar Association before they are allowed to practice law within that collective fiction.

"Cryptographic identity" is simply another way of authenticating a fictional identity within a given system. As we'll see, it has some interesting attributes that set it apart from things like a library card or your latitude and longitude. Before we get there though, let's look in more detail at how identities are authenticated.

Certificates

Merriam-Webster defines the verb "certify" as meaning "to attest authoritatively". A "certificate" is just a fancy way of saying "because I said so". Certificates are issued by a "certificate authority", someone who has the authority to "say so". Examples include your boss, your mom, or the Pope.

This method of authentication is how almost every institution authenticates the people who associate with it. Colleges issue student ID cards, governments issue passports, and websites allow you to "register an account".

In every case mentioned above, the "authority" creates a closed system in which a document (aka a "certificate") is issued which serves as a claim to a given identity. When someone wants to access some privileged service, location, or information, they present their certificate. The authority then validates it and grants or denies access. In the case of an international airport, the certificate is a little book printed with fancy inks. In the case of a login page, the certificate is a username and password combination.

This pattern for authentication is ubiquitous, and has some very important implications.

First of all, certified authentication implies that the issuer of the certificate has the right to exclusive control of any identity it issues. This identity can be revoked at any time, or its permissions may change. Your social credit score may drop arbitrarily, or money might disappear from your account. When dealing with certificate authorities, you have no inherent rights.

Second, certified authentication depends on the certificate authority continuing to exist. If you store your stuff at a storage facility but the company running it goes out of business, your stuff might disappear along with it.

Usually, authentication via certificate authority works pretty well, since an appeal can always be made to a higher authority (nature, God, the government, etc). Authorities also can't generally dictate their terms with impunity without losing their customers, alienating their constituents, or provoking revolt. But it's also true that certification by authority creates an incentive structure that frequently leads to abuse - arbitrary deplatforming is increasingly common, and the bigger the certificate authority, the less recourse the certificate holder (or "subject") has.

Certificates also put the issuer in a position to intermediate relationships that wouldn't otherwise be subject to their authority. This might take the form of selling user attention to advertisers, taking a cut of financial transactions, or selling surveillance data to third parties.

Proliferation of certificate authorities is not a solution to these problems. Websites and apps frequently often offer multiple "social sign-in" options, allowing their users to choose which certificate authority to appeal to. But this only piles more value into the social platform that issues the certificate - not only can Google shut down your email inbox, they can revoke your ability to log in to every website you used their identity provider to get into.

In every case, certificate issuance results in an asymmetrical power dynamic, where the issuer is able to exert significant control over the certificate holder, even in areas unrelated to the original pretext for the relationship between parties.

Self-Certification

But what if we could reverse this power dynamic? What if individuals could issue their own certificates and force institutions to accept them?

Ron Swanson's counterexample notwithstanding, there's a reason I can't simply write myself a parking permit and slip it under the windshield wiper. Questions about voluntary submission to legitimate authorities aside, the fact is that we don't have the power to act without impunity - just like any other certificate authority, we have to prove our claims either by the exercise of raw power or by appeal to a higher authority.

So the question becomes: which higher authority can we appeal to in order to issue our own certificates within a given system of identity?

The obvious answer here is to go straight to the top and ask God himself to back our claim to self-sovereignty. However, that's not how he normally works - there's a reason they call direct acts of God "miracles". In fact, Romans 13:1 explicitly says that "the authorities that exist have been appointed by God". God has structured the universe in such a way that we must appeal to the deputies he has put in place to govern various parts of the world.

Another tempting appeal might be to nature - i.e. the material world. This is the realm in which we most frequently have the experience of "self-authenticating" identities. For example, a gold coin can be authenticated by biting it or by burning it with acid. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

In most cases however, the ability to authenticate using physical claims depends on physical access, and so appeals to physical reality have major limitations when it comes to the digital world. Captchas, selfies and other similar tricks are often used to bridge the physical world into the digital, but these are increasingly easy to forge, and hard to verify.

There are exceptions to this rule - an example of self-certification that makes its appeal to the physical world is that of a signature. Signatures are hard to forge - an incredible amount of data is encoded in physical signatures, from strength, to illnesses, to upbringing, to personality. These can even be scanned and used within the digital world as well. Even today, most contracts are sealed with some simulacrum of a physical signature. Of course, this custom is quickly becoming a mere historical curiosity, since the very act of digitizing a signature makes it trivially forgeable.

So: transcendent reality is too remote to subtantiate our claims, and the material world is too limited to work within the world of information. There is another aspect of reality remaining that we might appeal to: information itself.

Physical signatures authenticate physical identities by encoding unique physical data into an easily recognizable artifact. To transpose this idea to the realm of information, a "digital signature" might authenticate "digital identities" by encoding unique "digital data" into an easily recognizable artifact.

Unfortunately, in the digital world we have the additional challenge that the artifact itself can be copied, undermining any claim to legitimacy. We need something that can be easily verified and unforgeable.

Digital Signatures

In fact such a thing does exist, but calling it a "digital signature" obscures more than it reveals. We might just as well call the thing we're looking for a "digital fingerprint", or a "digital electroencephalogram". Just keep that in mind as we work our way towards defining the term - we are not looking for something looks like a physical signature, but for something that does the same thing as a physical signature, in that it allows us to issue ourselves a credential that must be accepted by others by encoding privileged information into a recognizable, unforgeable artifact.

With that, let's get into the weeds.

An important idea in computer science is that of a "function". A function is a sort of information machine that converts data from one form to another. One example is the idea of "incrementing" a number. If you increment 1, you get 2. If you increment 2, you get 3. Incrementing can be reversed, by creating a complementary function that instead subtracts 1 from a number.

A "one-way function" is a function that can't be reversed. A good example of a one-way function is integer rounding. If you round a number and get 5, what number did you begin with? It's impossible to know - 5.1, 4.81, 5.332794, in fact an infinite number of numbers can be rounded to the number 5. These numbers can also be infinitely long - for example rounding PI to the nearest integer results in the number 3.

A real-life example of a useful one-way function is sha256. This function is a member of a family of one-way functions called "hash functions". You can feed as much data as you like into sha256, and you will always get 256 bits of information out. Hash functions are especially useful because collisions between outputs are very rare - even if you change a single bit in a huge pile of data, you're almost certainly going to get a different output.

Taking this a step further, there is a whole family of cryptographic one-way "trapdoor" functions that act similarly to hash functions, but which maintain a specific mathematical relationship between the input and the output which allows the input/output pair to be used in a variety of useful applications. For example, in Elliptic Curve Cryptography, scalar multiplication on an elliptic curve is used to derive the output.

"Ok", you say, "that's all completely clear and lucidly explained" (thank you). "But what goes into the function?" You might expect that because of our analogy to physical signatures we would have to gather an incredible amount of digital information to cram into our cryptographic trapdoor function, mashing together bank statements, a record of our heartbeat, brain waves and cellular respiration. Well, we could do it that way (maybe), but there's actually a much simpler solution.

Let's play a quick game. What number am I thinking of? Wrong, it's 82,749,283,929,834. Good guess though.

The reason we use signatures to authenticate our identity in the physical world is not because they're backed by a lot of implicit physical information, but because they're hard to forge and easy to validate. Even so, there is a lot of variation in a single person's signature, even from one moment to the next.

Trapdoor functions solve the validation problem - it's trivially simple to compare one 256-bit number to another. And randomness solves the problem of forgeability.

Now, randomness (A.K.A. "entropy") is actually kind of hard to generate. Random numbers that don't have enough "noise" in them are known as "pseudo-random numbers", and are weirdly easy to guess. This is why Cloudflare uses a video stream of their giant wall of lava lamps to feed the random number generator that powers their CDN. For our purposes though, we can just imagine that our random numbers come from rolling a bunch of dice.

To recap, we can get a digital equivalent of a physical signature (or fingerprint, etc) by 1. coming up with a random number, and 2. feeding it into our chosen trapdoor function. The random number is called the "private" part. The output of the trapdoor function is called the "public" part. These two halves are often called "keys", hence the terms "public key" and "private key".

And now we come full circle - remember about 37 years ago when I introduced the term "cryptographic identity"? Well, we've finally arrived at the point where I explain what that actually is.

A "cryptographic identity" is identified by a public key, and authenticated by the ability to prove that you know the private key.

Notice that I didn't say "authenticated by the private key". If you had to reveal the private key in order to prove you know it, you could only authenticate a public key once without losing exclusive control of the key. But cryptographic identities can be authenticated any number of times because the certification is an algorithm that only someone who knows the private key can execute.

This is the super power that trapdoor functions have that hash functions don't. Within certain cryptosystems, it is possible to mix additional data with your private key to get yet another number in such a way that someone else who only knows the public key can prove that you know the private key.

For example, if my secret number is 12, and someone tells me the number 37, I can "combine" the two by adding them together and returning the number 49. This "proves" that my secret number is 12. Of course, addition is not a trapdoor function, so it's trivially easy to reverse, which is why cryptography is its own field of knowledge.

What's it for?

If I haven't completely lost you yet, you might be wondering why this matters. Who cares if I can prove that I made up a random number?

To answer this, let's consider a simple example: that of public social media posts.

Most social media platforms function by issuing credentials and verifying them based on their internal database. When you log in to your Twitter (ok, fine, X) account, you provide X with a phone number (or email) and password. X compares these records to the ones stored in the database when you created your account, and if they match they let you "log in" by issuing yet another credential, called a "session key".

Next, when you "say" something on X, you pass along your session key and your tweet to X's servers. They check that the session key is legit, and if it is they associate your tweet with your account's identity. Later, when someone wants to see the tweet, X vouches for the fact that you created it by saying "trust me" and displaying your name next to the tweet.

In other words, X creates and controls your identity, but they let you use it as long as you can prove that you know the secret that you agreed on when you registered (by giving it to them every time).

Now pretend that X gets bought by someone even more evil than Elon Musk (if such a thing can be imagined). The new owner now has the ability to control your identity, potentially making it say things that you didn't actually say. Someone could be completely banned from the platform, but their account could be made to continue saying whatever the owner of the platform wanted.

In reality, such a breach of trust would quickly result in a complete loss of credibility for the platform, which is why this kind of thing doesn't happen (at least, not that we know of).

But there are other ways of exploiting this system, most notably by censoring speech. As often happens, platforms are able to confiscate user identities, leaving the tenant no recourse except to appeal to the platform itself (or the government, but that doesn't seem to happen for some reason - probably due to some legalese in social platforms' terms of use). The user has to start completely from scratch, either on the same platform or another.

Now suppose that when you signed up for X instead of simply telling X your password you made up a random number and provided a cryptographic proof to X along with your public key. When you're ready to tweet (there's no need to issue a session key, or even to store your public key in their database) you would again prove your ownership of that key with a new piece of data. X could then publish that tweet or not, along with the same proof you provided that it really came from you.

What X can't do in this system is pretend you said something you didn't, because they don't know your private key.

X also wouldn't be able to deplatform you as effectively either. While they could choose to ban you from their website and refuse to serve your tweets, they don't control your identity. There's nothing they can do to prevent you from re-using it on another platform. Plus, if the system was set up in such a way that other users followed your key instead of an ID made up by X, you could switch platforms and keep your followers. In the same way, it would also be possible to keep a copy of all your tweets in your own database, since their authenticity is determined by your digital signature, not X's "because I say so".

This new power is not just limited to social media either. Here are some other examples of ways that self-issued cryptographic identites transform the power dynamic inherent in digital platforms:

• Banks sometimes freeze accounts or confiscate funds. If your money was stored in a system based on self-issued cryptographic keys rather than custodians, banks would not be able to keep you from accessing or moving your funds. This system exists, and it's called bitcoin.
• Identity theft happens when your identifying information is stolen and used to take out a loan in your name, and without your consent. The reason this is so common is because your credentials are not cryptographic - your name, address, and social security number can only be authenticated by being shared, and they are shared so often and with so many counterparties that they frequently end up in data breaches. If credit checks were authenticated by self-issued cryptographic keys, identity theft would cease to exist (unless your private key itself got stolen).
• Cryptographic keys allow credential issuers to protect their subjects' privacy better too. Instead of showing your ID (including your home address, birth date, height, weight, etc), the DMV could sign a message asserting that the holder of a given public key indeed over 21. The liquor store could then validate that claim, and your ownership of the named key, without knowing anything more about you. Zero-knowledge proofs take this a step further.

In each of these cases, the interests of the property owner, loan seeker, or customer are elevated over the interests of those who might seek to control their assets, exploit their hard work, or surveil their activity. Just as with personal privacy, freedom of speech, and Second Amendment rights the individual case is rarely decisive, but in the aggregate realigned incentives can tip the scale in favor of freedom.

Objections

Now, there are some drawbacks to digital signatures. Systems that rely on digital signatures are frequently less forgiving of errors than their custodial counterparts, and many of their strengths have corresponding weaknesses. Part of this is because people haven't yet developed an intuition for how to use cryptographic identities, and the tools for managing them are still being designed. Other aspects can be mitigated through judicious use of keys fit to the problems they are being used to solve.

Below I'll articulate some of these concerns, and explore ways in which they might be mitigated over time.

Key Storage

Keeping secrets is hard. "A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on", and the same goes for gossip. Key storage has become increasingly important as more of our lives move online, to the extent that password managers have become almost a requirement for keeping track of our digital lives. But even with good password management, credentials frequently end up for sale on the dark web as a consequence of poorly secured infrastructure.

Apart from the fact that all of this is an argument for cryptographic identities (since keys are shared with far fewer parties), it's also true that the danger of losing a cryptographic key is severe, especially if that key is used in multiple places. Instead of hackers stealing your Facebook password, they might end up with access to all your other social media accounts too!

Keys should be treated with the utmost care. Using password managers is a good start, but very valuable keys should be stored even more securely - for example in a hardware signing device. This is a hassle, and something additional to learn, but is an indispensable part of taking advantage of the benefits associated with cryptographic identity.

There are ways to lessen the impact of lost or stolen secrets, however. Lots of different techniques exist for structuring key systems in such a way that keys can be protected, invalidated, or limited. Here are a few:

• Hierarchical Deterministic Keys allow for the creation of a single root key from which multiple child keys can be generated. These keys are hard to link to the parent, which provides additional privacy, but this link can also be proven when necessary. One limitation is that the identity system has to be designed with HD keys in mind.
• Key Rotation allows keys to become expendable. Additional credentials might be attached to a key, allowing the holder to prove they have the right to rotate the key. Social attestations can help with the process as well if the key is embedded in a web of trust.
• Remote Signing is a technique for storing a key on one device, but using it on another. This might take the form of signing using a hardware wallet and transferring an SD card to your computer for broadcasting, or using a mobile app like Amber to manage sessions with different applications.
• Key sharding takes this to another level by breaking a single key into multiple pieces and storing them separately. A coordinator can then be used to collaboratively sign messages without sharing key material. This dramatically reduces the ability of an attacker to steal a complete key.

Multi-Factor Authentication

One method for helping users secure their accounts that is becoming increasingly common is "multi-factor authentication". Instead of just providing your email and password, platforms send a one-time use code to your phone number or email, or use "time-based one time passwords" which are stored in a password manager or on a hardware device.

Again, MFA is a solution to a problem inherent in account-based authentication which would not be nearly so prevalent in a cryptographic identity system. Still, theft of keys does happen, and so MFA would be an important improvement - if not for an extra layer of authentication, then as a basis for key rotation.

In a sense, MFA is already being researched - key shards is one way of creating multiple credentials from a single key. However, this doesn't address the issue of key rotation, especially when an identity is tied to the public key that corresponds to a given private key. There are two possible solutions to this problem:

• Introduce a naming system. This would allow identities to use a durable name, assigning it to different keys over time. The downside is that this would require the introduction of either centralized naming authorities (back to the old model), or a blockchain in order to solve Zooko's trilemma.
• Establish a chain of keys. This would require a given key to name a successor key in advance and self-invalidate, or some other process like social recovery to invalidate an old key and assign the identity to a new one. This also would significantly increase the complexity of validating messages and associating them with a given identity.

Both solutions are workable, but introduce a lot of complexity that could cause more trouble than it's worth, depending on the identity system we're talking about.

Surveillance

One of the nice qualities that systems based on cryptographic identities have is that digitally signed data can be passed through any number of untrusted systems and emerge intact. This ability to resist tampering makes it possible to broadcast signed data more widely than would otherwise be the case in a system that relies on a custodian to authenticate information.

The downside of this is that more untrusted systems have access to data. And if information is broadcast publicly, anyone can get access to it.

This problem is compounded by re-use of cryptographic identities across multiple contexts. A benefit of self-issued credentials is that it becomes possible to bring everything attached to your identity with you, including social context and attached credentials. This is convenient and can be quite powerful, but it also means that more context is attached to your activity, making it easier to infer information about you for advertising or surveillance purposes. This is dangerously close to the dystopian ideal of a "Digital ID".

The best way to deal with this risk is to consider identity re-use an option to be used when desirable, but to default to creating a new key for every identity you create. This is no worse than the status quo, and it makes room for the ability to link identities when desired.

Another possible approach to this problem is to avoid broadcasting signed data when possible. This could be done by obscuring your cryptographic identity when data is served from a database, or by encrypting your signed data in order to selectively share it with named counterparties.

Still, this is a real risk, and should be kept in mind when designing and using systems based on cryptographic identity. If you'd like to read more about this, please see this blog post.

Making Keys Usable

You might be tempted to look at that list of trade-offs and get the sense that cryptographic identity is not for mere mortals. Key management is hard, and footguns abound - but there is a way forward. With nostr, some new things are happening in the world of key management that have never really happened before.

Plenty of work over the last 30 years has gone into making key management tractable, but none have really been widely adopted. The reason for this is simple: network effect.

Many of these older key systems only applied the thinnest veneer of humanity over keys. But an identity is much richer than a mere label. Having a real name, social connections, and a corpus of work to attach to a key creates a system of keys that humans care about.

By bootstrapping key management within a social context, nostr ensures that the payoff of key management is worth the learning curve. Not only is social engagement a strong incentive to get off the ground, people already on the network are eager to help you get past any roadblocks you might face.

So if I could offer an action item: give nostr a try today. Whether you're in it for the people and their values, or you just want to experiment with cryptographic identity, nostr is a great place to start. For a quick introduction and to securely generate keys, visit njump.me.

Thanks for taking the time to read this post. I hope it's been helpful, and I can't wait to see you on nostr!

@ 04c3c1a5:a94cf83d

edit time

@ 04c3c1a5:a94cf83d

button #2 nj

@ ee11a5df:b76c4e49

China

I might be wrong, but this is how I see it

This is a post within a series I am going to call "I might be wrong, but this is how I see it"

I have repeatedly found that my understanding of China is quite different from that of many libertarian-minded Americans. And so I make this post to explain how I see it. Maybe you will learn something. Maybe I will learn something.

It seems to me that many American's see America as a shining beacon of freedom with a few small problems, and China is an evil communist country spreading communism everywhere. From my perspective, America was a shining beacon of freedom that has fallen to being typical in most ways, and which is now acting as a falling empire, and China was communist for about a decade, but turned and ran away from that as fast as they could (while not admitting it) and the result is that the US and China are not much different anymore when it comes to free markets. Except they are very different in some other respects.

China has a big problem

China has a big problem. But it is not the communism problem that most Westerners diagnose.

I argue that China is no longer communist, it is only communist in name. And that while it is not a beacon of free market principles, it is nearly as free market now as Western nations like Germany and New Zealand are (being somewhat socialist themselves).

No, China's real problem is authoritarian one-party rule. And that core problem causes all of the other problems, including its human rights abuses.

Communism and Socialism

Communism and Socialism are bad ideas. I don't want to argue it right here, but most readers will already understand this. The last thing I intend to do with this post is to bolster or defend those bad ideas. If you dear reader hold a candle for socialism, let me know and I can help you extinguish it with a future "I might be wrong, but this is how I see it" installment.

Communism is the idea of structuring a society around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the idea of allocating goods and services based on need. It eliminates the concept of private property, of social classes, ultimately of money and finally of the state itself.

Back under Mao in 1958-1962 (The Great Leap Forward), China tried this (in part). Some 50+ million people died. It was an abject failure.

But due to China's real problem (authoritarianism, even worship of their leaders), the leading classes never admitted this. And even today they continue to use the word "Communist" for things that aren't communist at all, as a way to save face, and also in opposition to the United States of America and Europe.

Authorities are not eager to admit their faults. But this is not just a Chinese fault, it is a fault in human nature that affects all countries. The USA still refuses to admit they assassinated their own president JFK. They do not admit they bombed the Nord Stream pipeline.

China defines "socialism with Chinese characteristics" to mean "the leadership of the Communist Party of China". So they still keep the words socialism and communism, but they long ago dropped the meanings of those words. I'm not sure if this is a political ploy against us in the West or not.

China's Marketplace Today

Today China exhibits very few of the properties of communism.

They have some common ownership and state enterprises, but not much differently than Western countries (New Zealand owns Air New Zealand and Kiwibank and Kiwirail, etc). And there are private enterprises all over China. They compete and some succeed and some fail. You might hear about a real-estate bank collapsing. China has private property. They have mostly free markets. They have money, and the most definitely have social classes and a very strong state.

None of that is inline with what communist thinkers want. Communist thinkers in China moan that China has turned away from communism.

Deng Xiaoping who succeeded Mao and attempted to correct the massive mistake, did much when he said "to get rich is glorious."

China achieved staggering rates of economic growth. 10% annually on average since 1977. Chinese economic reform started in 1979 and has continued through successive administrations (Deng, Jiang, Hu and now Xi).

China is now the world's largest economy (by GDP in PPP terms) since 2016.

I was first made aware of China's economic growth by Jim Rogers, an American commodities expert who travelled through China (and the rest of the world from 1990-1992) and in 2007 moved to Singapore where he ensured his daughters learned to speak Mandarin, because Jim knew where the economic growth was going to happen. Jim always spoke positively of China's economic prospects, and his view was so different from the "China is a nasty communist place" view that I had grown up with that my mind opened.

How can anybody believe they are still a communist country? In what world does it make sense that communism can produce such a massively booming economy? It doesn't make sense because it is simply wrong.

What does happen is that the CPC interferes. It lets the market do what markets do, but it interferes where it thinks oversight and regulation would produce a better result.

Western nations interfere with their markets too. They have oversight and regulation. In fact some of China's planned reforms had to be put on hold by Xi due to Donald Trump's trade war with China. That's right, they were trying to be even more free market than America, but America's protectionism prodded Xi to keep control so he could fight back efficiently.

Government oversight and regulation IMHO is mostly bad because it gets out of control, and there are no market forces to correct this. This gets even more extreme in a one-party system, so I can judge that China's oversight and regulation problems are very likely worse than those in Western nations (but I have no first hand experience or evidence).

Why do you keep saying CPC?

The Communist Party of China (CPC) is the ruling party in China. That is their official name. To call them the CCP is to concede to the idea that the British and Americans get to name everybody. I'm not sure who is right, since CPC or CCP is their "English" name (in Chinese it is 中国共产党 and Westernized it is Zhōngguó Gòngchǎndǎng). Nonetheless, I'll call them CPC because that is their wish.

Social Credit System

China moved from a planned economy to a market economy in stages. They didn't want any more sudden changes (can you blame them?). In the process, many institutions that have existed in the West for a long time didn't exist in China and they had to arise somehow. IMHO market forces would have brought these about in the private sector, but the one-party CP of China instead decided to create these.

One of those institutions was a credit score system. In the West we have TransUnion and Equifax that maintain credit ratings on people, and we have S&P, Moody's and Fitch that maintain credit ratings on companies. The domain of these ratings is their financial credit-worthiness.

So the People's Bank of China developed a credit information database for it's own needs. The government picked up on the idea and started moving towards a National Credit Management System. In 2004 it became an official goal to establish a credit system compatible with a modern market system. By 2006 banks were required to report on consumer creditworthiness.

But unchecked one-party governmental power will often take a good idea (credit worthiness data shared among private parties) and systematize it and apply it top-down, creating a solution and a new problem at the same time.

Nonetheless, originally it was about credit worthiness and also criminal convictions. That is no big scary thing that some right-wing American commentators will lead you to believe. In the US for example criminal records are public, so China's Social Credit System started out being no more over-reaching in scope than what Americans have lived under their entire lives, its only fault (a severe one) being centrally planned. And that remained the case up until about 2016 (in my estimation).

But of course there is always scope creep. As it exists today, I have reason to believe that CPC officials and even A.I. use judgement calls to score someone on how moral that person has been! Of course that is not a good idea, and IMHO the problem stems from one-party rule, and authoritarian administration of ideas that should instead be handled by the private sector.

Environmental, Social, and Governance

ESG is a system that came out of a couple basic ideas. The first is that many two-party transactions actually have externalities. They don't just affect the two parties, they also affect everybody else. When you fly in an airplane, you increase the CO2 in the atmosphere that everybody has to pay for (eventually). You may dispute that example, but that is no doubt one of the motivations of ESG.

But of course the recognition of this basic issue didn't lead all people towards market solutions (well it did, but those have been mostly messed up by others), but instead led many people towards ESG, which is a social credit scoring system which applies scores based on environmental and social side-effects of market transactions.

This is not at all the same as China's social credit system, which I described above. I hope you can see the difference.

In fact, China imported ESG from the West. Chinese companies, of their free will, in an attempt to court Western capital, achieve ESG goals for those Western investors. They have been playing this ESG game for 20 years just like the entire world has, because the West has imposed this faux-morality upon them. It isn't something China exported to us, it is something we exported to them.

I think China has avoided Woke-ism

My understanding of Chinese people, based on what I've heard many Chinese people say, is that China isn't affected by the Western woke-ism epidemic. They deride Western white woke people with the term "Baizuo". They have never sent an incompetent break dancer to the Olympics because of wok-ism. Competence is highly respected as is the competition to be the most competent, which (when augmented by a one-child policy which is no longer) has produced child prodigies like no other country has.

What about predatory loans of the Belt and Road initiative?

Predatory is an odd name for loans to people in need. The World Bank makes loans to people in need. China does too. China stands in opposition to Western Empire, and in that regard they produce their own alternative BRICS institutions. This is one of them.

There is AFAIK nothing more predatory about them. It is just that in some cases the borrowers have trouble paying them back and they get foreclosed upon. I don't think this is worthy of much discussion, except that the term "predatory" seems to me to be a propaganda device.

What about foreign influence from China?

China wants to influence the world, especially its own trading partners and potential trading partners. Doing that above board is fine by me.

But some of it is undoubtedly covert. Sometimes Chinese-born people run for public office in Western countries. In New Zealand we stood down some when it became clear they were being influenced too much by the CPC while being charged with representing their local town (dual loyalty issues). If only the USA would do the same thing to their dually-loyal politicians.

And all large nations run influence operations. The USA has the CIA, for example, and claims this "soft power" is actually the better alternative to what would otherwise be military intervention (but IMHO shouldn't be either). I'm not defending such operations (I despise them), I'm just explaining how China's position of exerting influence is not only no big deal and totally expected, it pales in comparison to the United States' influence operations which often become military excursions (something China rarely ever does).

What about the Great Firewall?

Yeah, that sucks. Again, single-party authoritarian control gone to extremes.

What about Human Rights Abuses? What about the Uyghur Genocide?

I don't like them. To the extent they are occurring (and I lean towards the belief that they are occurring), I condemn them.

China has anti-terrorism and anti-extremism policies that go too far. They end up oppressing and/or criminalizing cultures that aren't Chinese enough. But especially, China punishes dissent. Disagreement with the CPC is the high crime. It is the one-party rule that causes this problem. Anybody who speaks out against the CPC or goes against the state in any way is harshly punished. This happens to Uyghurs, to Falun Gong, to Tibetans, and to any religion that is seen as subversive.

Amnesty International and the UN OHCHR have documented issues around the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region, Tibet, LGBT rights, death penalty, workers rights, and the Hong Kong special administrative region. I am not about to pretend I know better than they do, but to some extent they go too far.

Amnesty International says this about the USA: Discrimination and violence against LGBTI people were widespread and anti-LGBTI legislation increased. Bills were introduced to address reparations regarding slavery and its legacies. Multiple states implemented total bans on abortion or severely limited access to it. Gender-based violence disproportionately affected Indigenous women. Access to the USA for asylum seekers and migrants was still fraught with obstacles, but some nationalities continued to enjoy Temporary Protected Status. Moves were made to restrict the freedom to protest in a number of states. Black people were disproportionately affected by the use of lethal force by police. No progress was made in the abolition of the death penalty, apart from in Washington. Arbitrary and indefinite detention in the US naval base Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, continued. Despite extensive gun violence, no further firearm reform policies were considered, but President Biden did announce the creation of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. The USA continued to use lethal force in countries around the world. Black people, other racialized groups and low-income people bore the brunt of the health impacts of the petrochemical industry, and the use of fossil fuels continued unabated.

Amnesty international didn't even point out that the US government quashes free speech via pressure on social media corporations (because Amnesty International is far too lefty).

So who is worse, China or the US? I'm not going to make that judgement call, but suffice it to say that in my mind, China is not obviously worse.

China violates freedom of expression, association, and assembly of all people. This is bad, and a consequence mainly of one-party rule (again, what I think is the root cause of most of their ills). They arrest, detain, potentially kill anybody who publicly disagrees openly with their government. Clearly this is an excess of authoritarianism, a cancer that is very advanced in China.

As to organ harvesting of Uyghur Muslims, I think this is a myth.

China has dealt harshly with Muslim extremism. They don't offer freedom of religion to ISIS. And Amnesty International complains about that. But practically speaking you probably shouldn't respect the extremist religion of people who want to force everybody into a global caliphate through threat of violence. As you are well aware, some extremist Muslims (<1% of Islam) believe in using violence to bring about a global caliphate. Those extremists pop up in every country and are usually dealt with harshly. China has had to deal with them too.

I have watched two different Western YouTubers travel to Xinjiang province trying to find the oppressed Uyghurs and interview them. They can't find them. What they find instead are Uyghur Muslims doing their prayers five times a day at the local mosque. And also stories that the CPC pitched in some money to help them renovate the mosque. Maybe they were afraid it was a CPC trap and so they wouldn't speak freely. Amnesty International and the UN OHCHR say more than a million are "arbitrarily detained" and I'm not going to argue otherwise. But I'd be more convinced if there were a stream of pictures and news like there is out of Gaza, and it is suspicious that there isn't.

Conclusion

China is more like a Western nation that Westerners realize. Economically, militarily, socially. It still has a very serious obstacle to overcome: one-party rule. I don't think the one-party is going to voluntarily give up power. So most probably at some point in the future there will be a revolution. But in my opinion it won't happen anytime soon. For the most part Chinese people are living high on the hog, getting rich, enjoying the good life, in positive spirits about life, and are getting along with their government quite well at present.

@ 04c3c1a5:a94cf83d

schedule #1

@ 6e468422:15deee93

What I always liked about twitter was that it was never one place. You had all these sub-communities, yes, but the open nature of it allowed for wild interactions and the breaking of bubbles.

It was public square, dive bar, office water cooler, nightclub, and philosophy department all rolled into one. And you never knew who you were dealing with, and when those various "places" would interact.

My approach to twitter was always to never take things too seriously, and that's my approach for #nostr still. There is wisdom to "it's just a tweet bro" and I still believe that the secret to life is to send it, whether it be note, tweet, or in general.

Because you never know who you're dealing with, a great strategy is to assume that the other person is fourteen, or drunk, or really high, or senile, or all of the above. You wouldn't be mad if a stoned 14yr old would say something stupid to your face, so why be mad online?

I hope that we can rebuild what twitter used to be and what it was supposed to be, and transcend it. I believe that we're halfway there already. Given enough time and attention, I'm confident that we'll manage to build what so many on #nostr dream and hope for.

Zaps are already transcendent in that sense. As are cryptographic identities. Putting the user in control (as opposed to platforms) will be key to all of it, and I'm beyond excited to what is coming down the line with DVMs and even more exotic things.

The responsibility is on us to build it right, and to educate users as well as encourage them to take matters in their own hands. Nothing in life is free, not even freedom. We'll have to fight for it, and we'll have to take responsibility for ourselves and our actions.

Much needs to be built, much education needs to be done, much rektucation still needs to happen. But I remain optimistic, because the building blocks are there. Bitcoin works. Lightning works. Nostr works. Not perfectly, but it works.

I can't wait to see where we'll be in 5 years from now. It's wild to see where we are already. This is happening, and it's all happening because of you guys: focusing on the good that freedom tech can bring, pouring your time, money, effort, and attention into it.

I'm very grateful for that and to be part of it all. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the future is bright, we just have a lot of building to do.

---

The above is a copy/paste of this thread:

nostr:note1pz9hq70xydrmu4s3slyhq67s7s2j6v7jtycr5tvzlgrncekxr9gsy08a34

Re-posting it here as long-form because threads on nostr still kinda suck, unfortunately.

nostr:note1n9ykwwjg0grdwymtclqfm9g8tvn86jkmydgaswjh3msd4s9xavhqgr6w66

If you want to help fund and/or build the future I'm alluding to, check out nostr:npub10pensatlcfwktnvjjw2dtem38n6rvw8g6fv73h84cuacxn4c28eqyfn34f & nostr:npub1s0veng2gvfwr62acrxhnqexq76sj6ldg3a5t935jy8e6w3shr5vsnwrmq5

@ 9c9d2765:16f8c2c2

In a coastal village divided by a rushing river, two clans lived on opposite banks The Southern Kaduna and The Northern Kaduna, Generations of mistrust had built walls between them, though the river carried the same water, and the sky above shone on both.

No one dared cross the river, though everyone longed to.

Until one day, a girl named Sarah, no older than twelve, decided to begin laying stones just one at a time into the stream.

The elders laughed. “A child’s game,” they said.

But Sarah came back each day. Rain or sun. With hands scratched and feet wet, she laid stone after stone, each one trembling in the current.

One morning, a boy from the South side stood watching. Then, silently, he brought a stone of his own. He laid it next to hers.

They said nothing.

Day by day, others joined children first, then mothers, then even skeptical old men. Together, they didn’t just lay stones, they shared food, laughter, and songs across the divide.

By the end of the season, the river had a bridge.

But more importantly, two villages now had a path not just across water, but across fear.

And when asked who built the bridge, they didn’t say Sarah’s name.

They simply said, “It started with one small step. Then many others followed.”

Moral: Every great journey starts small. The first step might not shake the earth but it can change the world.

@ 04c3c1a5:a94cf83d

12

@ 32e18276:5c68e245

Company Overview:

Damus is the pioneering iOS nostr client. Through its platform, Damus empowers billions on iOS with the tools for free speech and free speech money. If you're driven to bring freedom technology to the masses and ignite change, we invite you to join our mission.

Job Description

1. Collaborate on iOS Damus in tandem with our core developer, Will Casarin, and the broader Damus team.
2. Implement our vision as laid out in our product roadmap: https://github.com/orgs/damus-io/projects/3/views/1.
3. Embrace the fun and critical mission of undermining totalitarian regimes across the globe.

Job Requirements

1. A genuine passion for freedom technology.
2. At least one year of collaborative development experience.
3. Experience building SwiftUI iOS apps.
4. Passionate about design and user experience.
5. Eager to work in close coordination with Damus lead developer, Will, and a dedicated team spanning development, design, and product.
6. Commitment to a full-time role, although we remain open to discussing alternative arrangements.

Bonus Qualifications

1. Experience with Nostr development.
2. Experience with C.
3. Previous work in free and open source projects.
4. A publicly shareable portfolio.

Job Structure

1. A one-month paid probationary period to ensure a mutual fit.
2. Upon successful completion of the trial, the opportunity for a six (6) month contractual engagement.
3. The potential for contract renewal, contingent on funding.

Application Process:
Interested candidates should forward a motivational statement alongside their CV/portfolio to vanessa@damus.io.