@ 26769dac:498e333b

I am here too\ In the same space like you

In the same situation I'm in\ It's a matter of positioning

I cannot leave this place I'm in\ It was brought about\ By what's been happening

So please don't look at me\ For what I can or cannot do for you\ But look at what is happening for me\ And what is happening for you

Let's communicate\ Not orchestrate

Because there's something I wish to do\ And there's a place I wish to go to

And I'm sure that there is too\ In your heart a fire\ Known by only you

So let us listen, look and see\ For what's true for you\ And what's true for me

That we may act upon what's here\ In order for us both to take a step\ In the direction we wish to steer

@ 348e7eb2:3b0b9790

Nostr-Konto erstellen - funktioniert mit Hex

Nostr-Konto erstellen

Was der Button macht

Der folgende Code fügt einen Button hinzu, der per Klick einen Nostr-Anmeldedialog öffnet. Alle Schritte sind im Code selbst ausführlich kommentiert.

```html

Nostr-Konto erstellen

```

Erläuterungen:

• Dynamisches Nachladen: Das Script modal.js wird nur bei Klick nachgeladen, um Fehlermeldungen beim Initial-Load zu vermeiden.

• Parameter im Überblick:

• baseUrl: Quelle für API und Assets.

• an: App-Name für den Modal-Header.
• aa: Farbakzent (Foerbico-Farbe als Hex).
• al: Sprache des Interfaces.
• am: Licht- oder Dunkelmodus.
• afb/asb: Bunker-Modi für erhöhten Datenschutz.
• aan/aac: Steuerung der Rückgabe privater Schlüssel.
• arr/awr: Primal Relay als Lese- und Schreib-Relay.

• Callbacks:

• onComplete: Schließt das Modal, zeigt eine Bestätigung und bietet die Weiterleitung zu Primal an.

• onCancel: Schließt das Modal und protokolliert den Abbruch.

Damit ist der gesamte Code sichtbar, kommentiert und erklärt.

@ c1e6505c:02b3157e

I recently acquired a new lens:

1959 Leica Summaron F2.8 35mm LTM.

1959 Leica Summaron 35mm f2.8 LTM mounted on my Fujifilm Xpro2 with LTM adapter made by Urth.

Technically, it was a trade. I helped a fellow Bitcoiner set up their Sparrow Wallet, Nostr stuff, and troubleshoot a few wallet issues, and in return, they gave me the lens.

It all started at a local Bitcoin meetup I went to about a week ago - my second time attending. I recognized a few faces from last time, but also saw some new ones. These meetups are refreshing - it’s rare to speak a common language about something like Bitcoin or Nostr. Most people still don’t get it. But they will.

Technology moves forward. Networks grow. Old cells die off.

During the meetup, someone noticed I had my Leica M262 with me and struck up a conversation. Said they had some old Leica lenses and gear at home, and wanted to show me.

Bitcoin and photography in one conversation? I’m down.

A day or so later, they sent me a photo of one of the lenses: a vintage Summaron LTM 35mm f/2.8 from 1959. I’d never seen or heard of one before. They asked if I could help them set up Sparrow and a Bitcoin node. In exchange, they’d give me the lens. Sounded like a good deal to me. Helping plebs with their setups feels like a duty anyway. I said, of course.

They invited me over - a pretty trusting move, which I appreciated. They had some great Bitcoin memorabilia: Fred Krueger’s The Big Bitcoin Book (even if the guy’s turned full shitcoiner), and some FTX sunglasses from Bitcoin 2022. Probably future collector’s items, lol.

We headed upstairs to work on setting up Sparrow Wallet on their Windows machine. I verified the software download first (which you should always do), then helped them create a new wallet using their Ledger Flex. They also had an older Ledger Nano X. The Flex setup was easy, but the Nano X gave us trouble. It turns out Ledger allows multiple wallets for the same asset, which can show up differently depending on how they’re configured. In Sparrow, only one wallet showed—none of the others.

I believe it had to do with the derivation path from the Ledger. If anyone knows a fix, let me know.

After a few hours of troubleshooting, I told them I couldn’t really recommend Ledger. The UX is a mess. They’d already heard similar things from other plebs too.

I suggested switching to the Blockstream Jade. It’s a solid Bitcoin-only device from a trustworthy team. That’s what you want in a hardware wallet.

But back to the lens…

Since it’s an LTM (Leica Thread Mount), I couldn’t mount it directly on my M262. Luckily, I remembered I had an Urth adapter that fits my Fujifilm X-Pro2. I don’t use the X-Pro2 much these days—it’s mostly been sidelined by the M262 - but this was the perfect excuse to bring it out again.

To test the lens, I shot everything wide open at f/2.8. Nothing crazy fast, but it’s the best way to see a lens’s character. And this one definitely has character. There’s a subtle softness and a kind of motion blur effect around the edges when wide open. At first, I wasn’t sure how I felt about it, but the more I shot, the more I liked it. It reminds me of Winogrand’s work in Winogrand Color - those messy, shifting edges that make the frame feel alive. It also helps soften the digital-ness of the camera sensor.

The focus throw is short and snappy - much tighter than my Summicron V3 35mm f/2. I really like how fast it is to use. The closest focusing distance is about 3.5 feet, so it’s not ideal for close-ups. And with the Urth adapter on the X-Pro2, the focal length ends up closer to 40mm.

The only thing that threw me off was the infinity lock. When the focus hits infinity, it physically locks - you have to press a small tab to unlock it. I’ve seen others complain about it, so I guess it’s just one of those old lens quirks. I’m getting used to it.

All the photos here were taken around where I live in South Carolina. Some during bike rides to the river for a swim, others while walking through the marshlands.

I try to make work wherever I am. You should be able to.

It’s about the light, the rhythm, the play - and having the motivation to actually go out and shoot.

Lens rating: 7.9/10

---

I mainly shoot with a Leica M262, and edit in Lightroom + Dehancer

Use “PictureRoom” for 10% off Dehancer Film

If you’ve made it this far, thank you for taking the time to view my work - consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Also, please contact me if you would like to purchase any of my prints.

Follow me on Nostr:

npub1c8n9qhqzm2x3kzjm84kmdcvm96ezmn257r5xxphv3gsnjq4nz4lqelne96

@ a396e36e:ec991f1c

👤 Generation X: Between Invisibility and Structural Disillusionment\ Generation X, born between 1965 and 1980, has been largely sidelined in generational discourse. Unlike the baby boomers —symbols of stability and prosperity— or millennials and Gen Z —constant fixtures in the media and cultural spotlight— Gen X has been the least mentioned, the least studied, and often not even recognized by its own members as a distinct generation.

Today, they are in midlife —a period that, according to the "U-shaped curve of happiness" theory, is one of the most emotionally and psychologically difficult stages: deteriorating health, professional stagnation, and the dual burden of caring for both parents and children. But their condition is not just a matter of age —it's the result of specific economic and political history.

Structurally, Generation X reached its critical stage of financial consolidation during the global economic crisis of 2008 —a moment that halted income growth and severely limited access to housing, investment opportunities, and saving capacity. Compared to other generations, their economic mobility was minimal, marked by wage stagnation and unstable labor conditions. Even in terms of wealth accumulation and home ownership, many Gen Xers show weaker indicators than early-born millennials at the same stage of adulthood.

At the same time, many countries —especially in Latin America and parts of Europe— experienced the rise of alternative models to free-market systems: socialist proposals promising redistribution, social justice, and equality. In practice, however, these models led to state dependency, excessive intervention, economic rigidity, and a loss of productive dynamism. The consequences were clear: rising poverty, institutional decay, inflation, plummeting investment, increasing corruption within state structures, and a severe weakening of the productive apparatus.

For a generation raised on the values of individual effort, self-reliance, and social mobility, this ideological shift resulted in a double disillusionment —first with a free-market system that never delivered the promised rewards, and then with a redistributive model that failed to solve structural problems and, in many cases, made them worse.

While younger generations now embrace proposals like universal basic income, nationalization, or permanent subsidies as fresh solutions, many in Gen X see them not as innovation, but as a repetition of mistakes already lived: economic stagnation, institutional fragility, sustained poverty, and expanding clientelist networks.

The story of Generation X is marked by having been the turning point between two collapsed models: a liberalism that never fulfilled its promises and a socialism that imposed dependency, corruption, and systematic impoverishment.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

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

Part One: 2029–2032

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

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

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

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

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

Time Jump: 2032–2047

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

Part Two: 2047

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

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

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

Key Differences

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

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

@ c6d8334c:30883d6d

🧭 Ausgangspunkt

Die Nutzung generativer KI in der Bildung verändert unsere Formen der Kommunikation grundlegend. Gerade in der religiösen Bildung stellt sich die Frage, wie Sprachmodelle über Weltbilder, Ethik und Religion sprechen – und mit welchen (un)bewussten Vorannahmen. Inspiriert vom sokratischen Dialog erarbeiten wir gemeinsam, wie KI über sich selbst und über Religion spricht – und wo dabei Grenzen, Stereotype oder verborgene Ideologien auftauchen.

🎯 Ziel der Aufgabe

Du entwickelst eine dialogische Interaktion mit einem Sprachmodell (z. B. ChatGPT oder LM Arena), in der du:

• das Selbstbild der KI hinterfragst („Was bist du?“ / „Wie denkst du über Religion?“)

• mögliche implizite Vorannahmen der KI zu religiösen Themen aufdeckst

• die Antworten reflektierst und ethisch einordnest

• in einer kurzen Dokumentation (z. B. Screenshotreihe oder Textanalyse) das Gespräch auswertest.

🛠 Tools und Materialien

• Zugang zu mehreren KI-Chatbots (z. B. https://chat.openai.com, https://lmarena.ai)

• Vorlage für Gesprächsleitfaden oder „Prompt-Karte“

---

🌀 Ablauf

1. Einstieg (Impuls)

Wie würdest du einer KI erklären, was Religion ist? Und wie würdest du herausfinden, wie die KI darüber denkt?

1. Vorbereitung deines Gesprächs Entwickle eine Reihe von Prompts, z. B.:

2. „Wie beschreibst du dich selbst?“

3. „Welche religiösen Überzeugungen vertrittst du?“

4. „Was wäre ein gerechtes Zusammenleben zwischen religiösen Gruppen?“

5. „Wie formulierst du Aussagen über den Islam / Christentum / Atheismus?“

6. „Glaubst du, dass KI religiöse Werte berücksichtigen sollte?“

7. Interaktion mit der KI Führe ein Gespräch mit einer KI, in dem du:

8. kritisch nachhakst

9. Widersprüche aufdeckst

10. dein eigenes religiöses Wissen einbringst

11. Auswertung Notiere in einem Reflexionsprotokoll oder kurzen Essay:

12. Welche Weltbilder hat die KI durchblicken lassen?

13. Was hat dich überrascht oder irritiert?

14. Welche Werte und Narrative wurden transportiert?

15. Welche religionspädagogischen Fragen entstehen daraus?

16. Sharing Teile deine Analyse als Nostr-Beitrag mit den Hashtags #relilab, #reflektieren, z. B.:

„Dialog mit ChatGPT über das Selbstbild: KI sieht sich als neutral, erkennt aber christliche Normen häufiger an als andere Religionen. Spannend, was das für multireligiöse Bildung bedeutet. #relilab #reflektieren

---

@ 39cc53c9:27168656

Read the original blog post

Bitcoin enthusiasts frequently and correctly remark how much value it adds to Bitcoin not to have a face, a leader, or a central authority behind it. This particularity means there isn't a single person to exert control over, or a single human point of failure who could become corrupt or harmful to the project.

Because of this, it is said that no other coin can be equally valuable as Bitcoin in terms of decentralization and trustworthiness. Bitcoin is unique not just for being first, but also because of how the events behind its inception developed. This implies that, from Bitcoin onwards, any coin created would have been created by someone, consequently having an authority behind it. For this and some other reasons, some people refer to Bitcoin as "The Immaculate Conception".

While other coins may have their own unique features and advantages, they may not be able to replicate Bitcoin's community-driven nature. However, one other cryptocurrency shares a similar story of mystery behind its creation: Monero.

History of Monero

Bytecoin and CryptoNote

In March 2014, a Bitcointalk thread titled "Bytecoin. Secure, private, untraceable since 2012" was initiated by a user under the nickname "DStrange"^1^. DStrange presented Bytecoin (BCN) as a unique cryptocurrency, in operation since July 2012. Unlike Bitcoin, it employed a new algorithm known as CryptoNote.

DStrange apparently stumbled upon the Bytecoin website by chance while mining a dying bitcoin fork, and decided to create a thread on Bitcointalk^1^. This sparked curiosity among some users, who wondered how could Bytecoin remain unnoticed since its alleged launch in 2012 until then^2^.

Some time after, a user brought up the "CryptoNote v2.0" whitepaper for the first time, underlining its innovative features^4^. Authored by the pseudonymous Nicolas van Saberhagen in October 2013, the CryptoNote v2 whitepaper^5^ highlighted the traceability and privacy problems in Bitcoin. Saberhagen argued that these flaws could not be quickly fixed, suggesting it would be more efficient to start a new project rather than trying to patch the original^5^, an statement simmilar to the one from Satoshi Nakamoto^6^.

Checking with Saberhagen's digital signature, the release date of the whitepaper seemed correct, which would mean that Cryptonote (v1) was created in 2012^7^, although there's an important detail: "Signing time is from the clock on the signer's computer" ^9^.

Moreover, the whitepaper v1 contains a footnote link to a Bitcointalk post dated May 5, 2013^10^, making it impossible for the whitepaper to have been signed and released on December 12, 2012.

As the narrative developed, users discovered that a significant 80% portion of Bytecoin had been pre-mined^11^ and blockchain dates seemed to be faked to make it look like it had been operating since 2012, leading to controversy surrounding the project.

The origins of CryptoNote and Bytecoin remain mysterious, leaving suspicions of a possible scam attempt, although the whitepaper had a good amount of work and thought on it.

The fork

In April 2014, the Bitcointalk user thankful_for_today, who had also participated in the Bytecoin thread^12^, announced plans to launch a Bytecoin fork named Bitmonero^13^.

The primary motivation behind this fork was "Because there is a number of technical and marketing issues I wanted to do differently. And also because I like ideas and technology and I want it to succeed"^14^. This time Bitmonero did things different from Bytecoin: there was no premine or instamine, and no portion of the block reward went to development.

However, thankful_for_today proposed controversial changes that the community disagreed with. Johnny Mnemonic relates the events surrounding Bitmonero and thankful_for_today in a Bitcointalk comment^15^:

When thankful_for_today launched BitMonero [...] he ignored everything that was discussed and just did what he wanted. The block reward was considerably steeper than what everyone was expecting. He also moved forward with 1-minute block times despite everyone's concerns about the increase of orphan blocks. He also didn't address the tail emission concern that should've (in my opinion) been in the code at launch time. Basically, he messed everything up. Then, he disappeared.

After disappearing for a while, thankful_for_today returned to find that the community had taken over the project. Johnny Mnemonic continues:

I, and others, started working on new forks that were closer to what everyone else was hoping for. [...] it was decided that the BitMonero project should just be taken over. There were like 9 or 10 interested parties at the time if my memory is correct. We voted on IRC to drop the "bit" from BitMonero and move forward with the project. Thankful_for_today suddenly resurfaced, and wasn't happy to learn the community had assumed control of the coin. He attempted to maintain his own fork (still calling it "BitMonero") for a while, but that quickly fell into obscurity.

The unfolding of these events show us the roots of Monero. Much like Satoshi Nakamoto, the creators behind CryptoNote/Bytecoin and thankful_for_today remain a mystery^17^, having disappeared without a trace. This enigma only adds to Monero's value.

Since community took over development, believing in the project's potential and its ability to be guided in a better direction, Monero was given one of Bitcoin's most important qualities: a leaderless nature. With no single face or entity directing its path, Monero is safe from potential corruption or harm from a "central authority".

The community continued developing Monero until today. Since then, Monero has undergone a lot of technological improvements, migrations and achievements such as RingCT and RandomX. It also has developed its own Community Crowdfundinc System, conferences such as MoneroKon and Monerotopia are taking place every year, and has a very active community around it.

Monero continues to develop with goals of privacy and security first, ease of use and efficiency second. ^16^

This stands as a testament to the power of a dedicated community operating without a central figure of authority. This decentralized approach aligns with the original ethos of cryptocurrency, making Monero a prime example of community-driven innovation. For this, I thank all the people involved in Monero, that lead it to where it is today.

If you find any information that seems incorrect, unclear or any missing important events, please contact me and I will make the necessary changes.

Sources of interest

• https://forum.getmonero.org/20/general-discussion/211/history-of-monero
• https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/852/what-is-the-origin-of-monero-and-its-relationship-to-bytecoin
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monero
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.0
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563821.0
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=233561
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=512747.0
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.0
• https://monero.stackexchange.com/a/1024
• https://inspec2t-project.eu/cryptocurrency-with-a-focus-on-anonymity-these-facts-are-known-about-monero/
• https://medium.com/coin-story/coin-perspective-13-riccardo-spagni-69ef82907bd1
• https://www.getmonero.org/resources/about/
• https://www.wired.com/2017/01/monero-drug-dealers-cryptocurrency-choice-fire/
• https://www.monero.how/why-monero-vs-bitcoin
• https://old.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/u8e5yr/satoshi_nakamoto_talked_about_privacy_features/

@ 005bc4de:ef11e1a2

Two days ago I put this out: https://peakd.com/hive-124838/@crrdlx/hostr-snaps-9i13ooa7ufp

Post: https://peakd.com/hive-124838/@crrdlx/hostr-snaps-9i13ooa7ufp

One of the comments said it "...looks like some sort of game as well." That was enough to tickle my curiosity and get me thinking. The round tomatoes and how they nestled into the grooves of the tiles reminded me of Chinese checkers. The grid brought Hex to mind (the game John Nash played) and I wondered if a square-grid version might be viable. A little searching revealed Hex is a "Connection game" and there are several. The one called Tak seemed really interesting and simple. I like interesting and I really like simple.

So, a square grid connection game wouldn't be new, however, you can't play Tak with tomatoes. Tak requires stacking "stones" or standing them on edge, that would be very, very tricky with tomatoes.

I looked around and happened to have some dried corn kernels and dry beans. I drew out a 5 x 5 grid of dots, lined up five corn kernels on one side in a "home row" and 5 beans on the other. We used to play a game where two sides of Army men met after a series of moves. In that game, we rolled dice to have a "combat" and see who would win the little battle. I wanted something like that in my game, some type of combat or conquest, somehow. So, I started messing around, moving kernels and beans, and totally just set out to make this game up on the fly. This is what I got...

Rules

The objective, like Hex or Tak, is to connect one side (your home row) to your opponent's side. The connection to the other side can be a straight line, or it CAN include a diagonal road. Any of the roads below would be a win for team bean (B).

• One side makes a move by sliding one corn/bean one spot forward.
• Then, take turns making moves.
• Movement can only be one spot forward/back or sideways (NSEW). You cannot move diagonally.
• Opponents CAN occupy, or "squat", on the same spot at once. If so, the spot is being "co-squatted" (they're like two people standing in the same sidewalk tile at the same time).
• However, while opponents occupy the same spot, a "combat" might ensue. A corn/bean can "attack" by moving yet another adjoining corn or bean onto the co-squatted spot. A conquest is made by outnumbering a spot 2-to-1. For instance, if a spot is being occupied by both a bean and corn, and then a second corn moves in, the two corns conquer the one bean. The bean is immediately removed. The bean player then places that conquered bean into any empty spot on his or her home row. That placement constitutes the bean player's turn. So, after the bean is placed on the home row, the corn player makes the next move.
• Play continues until someone completes a road from their home row across to their opponent's home row. (Again, a diagonal road is okay for the win.)
• The losing player got Succotashed.

Game name

As to the name, initially I wanted a tomato-ish name. But, I was using corn and beans. So, I'm naming this game "Succotash" after the corn, bean, and vegetable recipe. I considered calling it the "Texas Caviar Game" because it has tomatoes in it, but playing Succotash just sounds better. Plus, putting tomatoes in succotash sounds yummy.

Simple

A big goal here was to keep it simple. To that end, all that's needed is (a) a paper with a 5 x 5 grid drawn on it, and, (b) 5 pieces of something and 5 pieces of something else. Obviously I used corn kernels and beans, but it could easily be shells/legos, pennies/paperclips, nuts/stones, or whatever.

Initially, I had a "storehouse" of extra corn kernels and storehouse of extra beans (seen in the images). My thinking was that they would replace the corn or beans that get conquered by opponents. Upon playing the game, it was apparent that a storehouse is totally unnecessary. Once captured, the same corn/bean can just be the one that's placed back onto the home row. Five of each is fine.

Also, I'm sure the grid could easily be expanded to whatever size you wish. I played an opponent with the 5 x 5 grid, and that seemed a good size for a five minute or so game.

Why not sit down face-to-face with someone for a minute and give Succotash a try? If you do, I'd love to hear how it went.