@ 83279ad2:bd49240d

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Wild parrots tend to fly in flocks, but when kept as single pets, they may become lonely and bored https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHcAOlamgDc

Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-taught-pet-parrots-to-video-call-each-other-and-the-birds-loved-it-180982041/

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973639

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Your device, your data. TRMNL's architecture prevents outsiders (including us) from accessing your local network. TRMNAL achieve this through 1 way communication between client and server, versus the other way around. Learn more.

Learn more at https://usetrmnl.com/

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973632

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Here’s Sean Voisen writing about how programming is a feeling:

For those of us who enjoy programming, there is a deep satisfaction that comes from solving problems through well-written code, a kind of ineffable joy found in the elegant expression of a system through our favorite syntax. It is akin to the same satisfaction a craftsperson might find at the end of the day after toiling away on well-made piece of furniture, the culmination of small dopamine hits that come from sweating the details on something and getting them just right. Maybe nobody will notice those details, but it doesn’t matter. We care, we notice, we get joy from the aesthetics of the craft.

This got me thinking about the idea of satisfaction in craft. Where does it come from?

Continue Reading https://blog.jim-nielsen.com/2025/craft-and-satisfaction/

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973628

@ 83279ad2:bd49240d

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

CryptPad

Collaboration and privacy. Yes, you can have both Flagship instance of CryptPad, the end-to-end encrypted and open-source collaboration suite. Cloud administered by the CryptPad development team. https://cryptpad.fr/

ONLYOFFICE DocSpace

Document collaboration made simpler. Easily collaborate with customizable rooms. Edit any content you have. Work faster using AI assistants. Protect your sensitive business data. Download or try STARTUP Cloud (Limited-time offer) FREE https://www.onlyoffice.com/

SeaFile

A new way to organize your files Beyond just syncing and sharing files, Seafile lets you add custom file properties and organize your files in different views. With AI-powered automation for generating properties, Seafile offers a smarter, more efficient way to manage your files. Try it Now, Free for up to 3 users https://seafile.com/

SandStorm

An open source platform for self-hosting web apps Self-host web-based productivity apps easily and securely. Sandstorm is an open source project built by a community of volunteers with the goal of making it really easy to run open source web applications. Try the Demo or Signup Free https://alpha.sandstorm.io/apps

NextCloud Hub

A new generation of online collaboration that puts you in control. Nextcloud offers a modern, on premise content collaboration platform with real-time document editing, video chat & groupware on mobile, desktop and web. Sign up for a free Nextcloud account https://nextcloud.com/sign-up/

LinShare

True Open Source Secure File Sharing Solution We are committed to providing a reliable Open Source file-sharing solution, expertly designed to meet the highest standards of diverse industries, such as government and finance Try the Demo https://linshare.app/

Twake Drive

The open-source alternative to Google Drive. Privacy-First Open Source Workplace. Twake workplace open source business. Improve your effeciency with truly Open Source, all-in-one digital suite. Enhance the security in every aspect of your professional and private life. Sign up https://sign-up.twake.app/

SpaceDrive

One Explorer. All Your Files. Unify files from all your devices and clouds into a single, easy-to-use explorer. Designed for creators, hoarders and the painfully disorganized. Download desktop app (mobile coming soon) https://www.spacedrive.com/

ente

Safe Home for your photos Store, share, and discover your memories with end-to-end encryption. End-to-end encryption, durable storage and simple sharing. Packed with these and much more into our beautiful open source apps. Get started https://web.ente.io

fileStash

Turn your FTP server into... Filestash is the enterprise-grade file manager connecting your storage with your identity provider and authorisations. Try the demo https://demo.filestash.app

STORJ

Disruptively fast.‍ Globally secure. S3-compatible distributed cloud services that make the most demanding workflows fast and affordable. Fast track your journey toward high performance cloud services. Storj pricing is consistent and competitive in meeting or exceeding your cloud services needs. Give the products a try to experience the benefits of the distributed cloud. Get Started https://www.storj.io/get-started

FireFile

The open‑source alternative to Dropbox. Firefiles lets you setup a cloud drive with the backend of your choice and lets you seamlessly manage your files across multiple providers. It revolutionizes cloud storage management by offering a unified platform for all your storage needs. Sign up Free https://beta.firefiles.app

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973626

@ 005bc4de:ef11e1a2

The beautiful evil of horse racing

Horse racing intrigues me. And, it appalls me. I find it to be both gloriously beautiful and brutally cruel.

One of the fun facts shared tirelessly around social media for Kentucky Derby #151 was something like this: "This is the first Derby where every horse is in the bloodline of Secretariat." Secretariat, if you don't know, won the Triple Crown in 1973 (KY Derby, Preakness, Belmont) and still holds the fastest times in all three of those races.

That's really a nice fun fact when you first hear it, but maybe it shouldn't be too surprising. After a successful racing career, a male racehorse "retires" to a life of studding himself out, which is where the real horse money is. His post-racing stats: he bred 60 mares per year, he sired 660 foals, and he earned an estimated $120 million in stud fees. When you start branching out the Secretariat family tree over several generations, well, the sheer numbers must be very large. That means the chances that any given Thoroughbred might have a hint of Secretariat blood must get rather high. Grok AI estimates there are 500,000 Thoroughbreds today worldwide, and that beteen 250,000 to 400,000 are in Secretariat's lineage, that's 50% to 80% of every Thoroughbred. Suddenly, the social media snippet from Derby #151 is less surprising, less cool.

Secretariat, retired from racing.

The beautiful side of horse racing

Horse racing is beautiful. This is the easy part to write. If you've ever been to a horse track, especially on a big race day, it's a true multi-sensory experience.

• There are smells that we typically don't smell often in this modern world...especially if you hang out near the paddock. Personally, I don't find horse dung particularly stinky, but earthy.
• There are tastes and good smells. Food and drink are a huge part of horse racing. There is a reason that the Derby has its own pie (a chocolate pecan pie) and each major race has its own drink. Feasting and tailgating are huge parts of horse racing.
• There are things to feel, actually to bodily feel. Aside from crowds of people to bump into, if you stand close to the track, you can feel the reverberation of hooves beating the dirt. We hear the term "thundering herd" sometimes in college sports, but, that term is not just words. You can actually feel the thunder of those hooves.
• The sounds are distinctly horse racing. The announcer's calls of "Less than a minute," "They're in the gates," and "And they're off!" are iconic, not to mention the terms "down to the wire," "won by a nose," or "photo finish." And then there's the bugle's announcement, the singing of "My Old Kentucky Home" at the Derby, the roar of the crowd, and moans of loss from bad bets, shrieks of joy from good bets, and that thunder from the herd, of course.
• The visuals are just stunning. People-wise, the women in their pastel sundresses, the men are snazzy in their colors too (though some go too over-the-top for my liking; they move from classy to clownish), and then there are the hats which are their own category altogether. There's the track, and the spires, and the grass and dirt (or mud) and roses. And there's the jockeys and their colorful silks. But, mostly, there's the horses. A Thoroughbred racehorse at full speed, in full stride, is incredible to look upon. It is a beast that is entirely built for one pure reason: speed. You might be familiar with ESPN's "The Body Issue" that features elite, pro athletes in the nude so that their incredible physiques are displayed. Horse racing is the same thing, equine style. The Derby, in particular, is a sports photographer's bonanza. If you actually know what you're doing, you can't not get great results. Below are some photos amateur me point-and-clicked on Derby Day at a horse track (not Churchill Downs):

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/Eq7LSG39v5H5NpQppxhzwhfAtJVQikYVppRJsgZXh6KxGXU2YochRXqoJaW7NMZ8Yd8.jpg]

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/23wWw7ZbXPJxKFAyLwuraK1QypVcLV6QpsyG6Ccr6ZLiPYgNtUBa3ALWx1XR4wPYayhmT.png]

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/2432HqW3ZtUCjvGD7WTkg2z2ngoByX2rV6htgENN1eytUYXycRCaQdevL7xn1mdKC8qG8.gif]

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/245HijMM8pQ7c2EdJwrzUPa3LDjm1P51WqU6j5mYkAJnAXJrkbAn6XBNCzR7G28MSR62u.png]

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/EpVAhnScSoAVCYvw2Faf7ZyipskYLvu9MuBXzmHN3jdVPoDBVAVR8yqrrGf1c7Apxzb.jpg]

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/245Hm6k5HafqiMfzUiNK7Z3pUG752f4CmLc5pMVuonkQVY1sKG9ucSrdGgvNVQGNud628.gif]

Horse racing appeals to all senses and is viscerally exhilarating in so many ways. It is beautiful.

Genetics

But, let's get back to the real point: this game is all about Brave New World-like breeding and genetics. It is horse eugenics. The idea is simple: fast Mommy horse and fast Daddy horse means fast baby horse. In horse racing, a horse's blood lineage is called its dosage. Personally, I pay zero attention to dosage (I focus on track length and closing the long races), but dosage is a mathematical stat that tries to answer, "How much is this horse truly a Thoroughbred and a genetic winner?" This question of dosage begs another question, "What actually is a Thoroughbred?"

A Thoroughbred is a horse breed. There are a lot of horse breeds, a lot. For a novice like me, it's very hard to distinguish one from another. I think most people can see a difference between a draft horse, bred for pulling heavy loads, and a Thoroughbred, bred for speed. I think most people, if betting on a foot race, would bet on the Thoroughbred below, left and not on "Jupiter, the largest draft horse in America" on the right. If betting on hauling a wagon load of beer up a steep hill, most would bet Jupiter.

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/23yx8AjtVZkpE7jXJ2RXzV78hhXSvsgU97i2FkvfcFcEZevfshNgwPw2diJNhmL344gmR.png]

But, when comparing racing horses, there are also Sandardbreds which are bred for harness racing and thus have a heavier build than Thoroughbreds. The two breeds are shown below, but their distinctions are not particularly outstanding to my novice eye. Can you tell the difference, which is the Standardbred versus the Thoroughbred? (Answer at the bottom of page.) Maybe side-by-side you can tell, but could you tell if you saw one standing alone? If you saw two of the same breed, could you judge by appearance which one runs faster? If you can, I tip my cap to you.

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/23zbTqFJgYpKyXwxbGsVeQiKv4tTZSj8S8QboTJWEhTETPqjnaUVDtX2BirjBXH5KVNo6.png]

I imagine most people are much more familiar with, and can more readily notice, the differences in dog breeds. For instance, take the French Bulldog, the Greyhound, or the world's best dog breed, the Labrador Retriever (totally unbiased here).

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/244oozGkxAwS4sqoWiT8phQv8ssrqq4caB9bHgDufsogds7scUUfhp54WTKmosDzfL5WT.png]

The French Bulldog is bred for cosmetics, the greyhound for pure speed, and the Labrador for all-around everything...intelligence, sturdy athleticism, loyal companionship (totally unbiased here). In these three dogs, we can clearly see the differences that have resulted from breeding.

The evil side of horse racing

Horse racing is evil. And, it is cruel. But, for now, let's step back to the dogs. Dog breeding can be cruel as well.

The French Bulldog is something of the "it" dog right now. A quick Google Gemini search reported it as the most popular breed in 2025.

I remember when "101 Dalmatians" came out 1996. Dalmatians skyrocketed in popularity. But, that popularity was anything but a blessing for Dalmatian pups. They were overbred (and are too inbred as it is), oversold, and were taken in by people eager to get in on the "it" dog then and scoop up the cute spotted pups. But, Dalmatians are very active pups that grow into very active dogs. When the novelty of the spotted pup wore off, many were returned or given away or taken to shelters as being uncontrollable.

The French Poodle situation is not too different. The dogs were bred for little purpose beyond the sin of human vanity. People wanted a short, stocky, smoosh-faced dog that they perceived as cute. And, that's what they got: an unathletic dog that looked a certain way, with middle-of-the-road intelligence, and little use aside from its appearance.

Worse, seeking out this certain "toy dog" look, French Bulldogs suffer from a plethora of health issues. Summed up, they have the lowest life expectancy "by a large margin" of all dogs at only 4.5 years (average is 11.2. years).

There is a neighbor near to me who breeds French Bulldogs. Evidently, it's a lucrative business as they apparently sell for an estimated $2,000 to $8,000 dollars each. I don't know how many litters the neighbor's have bred and pawned, but it has been several. The breeder bitch is constantly given a little trot outside before being hauled to the vet for insemination. (Sadly, this seems to be about the only time she is taken out for exercise and family "fun.") Considering he and his wife have no real job, this seems to be their job. Breed, advertise (complete with foofy tutu outfit photos), market, sell, repeat. With only a 4.5 year life span, I see the lucrative nature in this business.

All told, it's basically a sin and a shame that humans do this to these dogs. A certain segment of people desire a certain unnatural smooshed face in a dog. And because we vainly want a certain look in a dog, so as to accessorize our own look, we breed them into forms unnatural to a canine, curse them with severe breathing difficulties and other serious health issues, and short lives.

A Greyhound is essentially a canine Thoroughbred. From generations of selective breeding, it has a massive chest, long body with a narrow waist, and long, spindly legs. It's sole purpose is speed. Ironically, both the Thoroughbred and Greyhound can race at about the same speed...44 mph, give or take.

Man's sinful nature has abused the Greyhound too. These hounds are racing dogs and racing means gambling. So, dog tracks for have been common. The pups are bred, they race a few years, then they are hopefully adopted out. A good friend of mine once adopted a retired racer to become the family dog. "Bandit" initially had a post-race job as a business's guard dog. But, due to him constantly doing nothing but laying around and sleeping, he was fired as a guard dog (who gets a Greyhound for a guard dog anyway?). Bandit eventually went to my friend, was a bit neurotic, but turned out to be a good family dog.

I think most Greyhounds don't have the fortunate story of Bandit. Once raced out, they're done and forgotten. Man's thrills are fleeting, whatever sparkles in his eye soon fades. To combat the ills of dog racing, I know that the citizens of Florida voted to outlaw dog racing in 2018 (and it indeed ended Dec. 31, 2020). Now, dog tracks lay rusting away, and Greyhounds are largely forgotten.

And then, there's the Labrador Retriever. What's not to like? These dogs can do it all, and they do it all well. Name a dog task, Labs do that well. Full disclosure: I once had a Lab (or rather, half Lab, and half...Great Dane? Doberman? Something?). Her mother was Lab and my dog looked Lab, though a bit taller and leaner. She was incredible. So, yes, I favor Labs.

But, even my beloved Labs and all that they excel in, even Labs have their issues, such as high rates of hip dysplasia. Selective breeding, and a too-narrow gene pool, have consequences.

Back to horses

Let's try to bring this back to horses. Thoroughbreds and horse racing mirror both of the characteristics seen in the French Bulldog and the Greyhound.

• Thoroughbreds have been, and still are, extremely selectively bred to accentuate certain qualities: speed, speed, speed.
• Thoroughbreds are bred for money. Literally, a champion stud or mare doesn't breed for free.

Regarding speed, Thoroughbreds have a massive muscular chest, almost no waist at all, massive muscular hindquarters, and long, spindly, almost cartoonishly thin legs. And, this built-for-speed physique brings up one of the cruelest aspects of horse racing: Thoroughbreds are prone to "break down."

These horses are structured unnaturally, like aliens. Having such a massive, muscular, powerful architecture stilted on such twig-like legs (and getting more massive and twiggier due to constant selective breeding of these traits) is a recipe for disaster. "Breaking down" in horse terms is a rather correct term. Their leg bones break under the stress and force of running, then the horse's weight and thrust breaks the legs down further.

The name Barabaro might come to memory. Barbaro won the Kentucky Derby in 2006 impressively, by a full 6.5 lengths. Hopes were high for a Triple Crown winner. At the Preakness two weeks later, Barabaro broke down. Actually, in his pre-start excitement he broke through the gate to false start. These animals are bred to run and race, they know when it's race time. He was so jacked up and ready to run while in the starting gate, he bucked up, banged his head hard, then literally broke through the gate to false start. Then, after reentering, he started off the race clean before breaking down in front of the main grandstand of viewers. Horse's can break any of their several leg bones. Barbaro broke the cannon, sesamoid, long pastern, and dislocated the fetlock (ankle joint). In other words, he shattered his leg.

When horses break their legs, they're usually put down. As to why, there are lots of reasons, but it comes down to the fact that horses are built for standing and running, especially Thoroughbreds. They are not built for laying down to recuperate, and actually suffer health consequences for not standing. Understandably, a broken leg causes the horse to favor weight to the other legs while standing and this, in turn, can cause other issues. Altogether, the horse suffers.

In Barbaro's case, they tried to rehab him. I think normally he would have been put down on the track in the equine ambulance (the "meat wagon"), but this was Barbaro. The resources were there, he was beloved, and millions had witnessed his injury live. Not trying to save him would have been a public relations nightmare. Putting him down on live TV would have been even worse. There was surgery, then laminitis (inflammation under the hoof) in his opposite good hoof, the result of standing unnaturally. He rallied, then had more setbacks including laminitis in his front hooves. He was in pain, with no way to stand, and then was euthanized in 2007.

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/23wgoS1v6e2i2gizAqeMeXHf6Zwhz3BTuYMuYNL676tqbPZWwvXUhw7R1J6K4r7DmRj2K.png]

Regarding the money, top studs earn $200 to $400,000 for stud service. A top mare can be bought for $100 to $300,000, then you need the stud service. This is only to breed the foal. This has nothing to do with stabling or training the animals. In other words, it's extremely expensive.

Also regarding the money, there is, of course, the gambling. You might say this is the whole point of horse racing. It's certainly the whole point for breeding Thoroughbreds. It was the whole point for Greyhounds in Florida, before that point was banned.

This year, an estimated $200 million was bet on the Kentucky Derby, the one race alone. $300 million was bet on the races combined. Grok estimated that globally in 2022, horse racing was a $402 billion dollar industry and expects it to grow to $793 billion by 2030.

Those numbers are staggering. But, again, I come back to sinful man. Our love of money is the root of this beautiful evil called horse racing.

I really don't know many scenes more beautiful than a Kentucky horse ranch and a Thoroughbred running across the bluegrass. Add a colt running with his mother, the beauty is staggering. But, underneath that beauty, there is an evil side to horse racing. That side is fueled by sinful man's pride to win and his love of money.

Horse racing is a beautiful evil.

Image sources: https://wikipedia.org, original by me at the track, equine bones at https://www.anatomy-of-the-equine.com/distal-limb-bones.html, the final two images from https://pixabay.com

---

Note: In the "Can you tell the difference" side-by-side images above, the Thoroughbred was on the left, the Standardbred on the right.

---

@ b83a28b7:35919450

This article was originally part of the sermon of Plebchain Radio Episode 109 (April 25, 2025) that nostr:nprofile1qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqpqtvqc82mv8cezhax5r34n4muc2c4pgjz8kaye2smj032nngg52clq7fgefr and I did with Noa Gruman from nostr:nprofile1qyv8wumn8ghj7urjv4kkjatd9ec8y6tdv9kzumn9wsqzqvfdqratfpsvje7f3w69skt34vd7l9r465d5hm9unucnl95yq0ethzx7cf and nostr:nprofile1qye8wumn8ghj7mrwvf5hguewwpshqetjwdshguewd9hj7mn0wd68ycmvd9jkuap0v9cxjtmkxyhhyetvv9usz9rhwden5te0dehhxarj9ehx2cn4w5hxccgqyqj8hd6eed2x5w8pqgx82yyrrpfx99uuympcxmkxgz9k2hklg8te7pq0y72 . You can listen to the full episode here:

https://fountain.fm/episode/gdBHcfDgDXEgALjX7nBu

Let’s start with the obvious: Bitcoin is metal because it’s loud, it’s aggressive, it’s uncompromising. It’s the musical equivalent of a power chord blasted through a wall of amps—a direct challenge to the establishment, to the fiat system, to the sanitized, soulless mainstream. Metal has always been about rebellion, about standing outside the norm and refusing to be tamed. Bitcoin, too, was born in the shadows, dismissed as the currency of outlaws and freaks, and it thrived there, fueled by the energy of those who refused to bow down

But Bitcoin isn’t just any metal. It’s progressive metal. 
Prog metal is the genre that takes metal’s aggression and fuses it with experimentation, complexity, and a relentless drive to push boundaries. It’s not satisfied with three chords and a chorus. Prog metal is about odd time signatures, intricate solos, unexpected detours, and stories that dig into philosophy, psychology, and the human condition. It’s music for those who want more than just noise—they want meaning, depth, and innovation.

That’s Bitcoin. Bitcoin isn’t just a blunt instrument of rebellion; it’s a living, evolving experiment. It’s code that’s open to anyone, a protocol that invites innovation, a system that’s constantly being pushed, prodded, and reimagined by its community.

Like prog metal, Bitcoin is for the thinkers, the tinkerers, the relentless questioners. It’s for those who see the flaws in the mainstream and dare to imagine something radically different. 


Both prog metal and Bitcoin are about freedom — freedom from the tyranny of the predictable, the safe, the centrally controlled. They are countercultures within countercultures, refusing to be boxed in by genre or by law. Both attract those who crave complexity, who aren’t afraid to get lost in the weeds, who want to build something new and beautiful from the chaos. 


If you want to reach the heart of Bitcoin’s counterculture, you don’t do it with bland, safe, mainstream pop. You do it with prog metal—with music that refuses to compromise, that demands your attention, that rewards those who dig deeper. Prog metal is the true voice of Bitcoin’s core: the plebs, the builders, the dreamers who refuse to accept the world as it is. 


Bitcoin is prog metal. It’s technical, it’s rebellious, it’s unafraid to be different. It’s music and money for those who want to break free—not just from the old systems, but from the old ways of thinking. And as the mainstream tries to water down both, the true counterculture survives at the core, pushing boundaries, making noise, and refusing to die.

---

The sermon and episode clearly had an impact on people, as evidenced by the fountain charts here (snapshot taken on May 6, 2025)

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqkcpsw4kc03j906dg8rt8thes432z3yy0d6fj4phylz48xs3g437qqsy7rfh8n6vgxppkwzq2ntjps0lmt4njkxjrv3rv5r59l7lkv6ahps2eavd9 And here's the clip of the sermon:

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpwp69zm7fewjp0vkp306adnzt7249ytxhz7mq3w5yc629u6er9zsqqsptkpkd0458yshe7gfshck2f9nfxnqe0nrjz0ptlkm9rhv094rxagapyv4d

@ 7e538978:a5987ab6

Across Switzerland, customers at SPAR supermarkets are now able to pay for their groceries using Lightning on Bitcoin — a step towards everyday Bitcoin adoption. This rollout was led by DFX, a Bitcoin services company focused on onboarding businesses and individuals to Bitcoin. Behind the scenes LNbits plays a key role.

## Lightning at the Checkout

SPAR’s approach is simple: at the till, customers can scan a static QR code to pay in Bitcoin using the Lightning Network. Each checkout in each participating store has its own unique LNURL address — a reusable QR code designed for fast, low-friction Lightning payments.

To manage these LNURLs, DFX leverages LNbits. Using the LNbits Pay Links extension, DFX generates LNURLs for each till across the network of participating SPAR locations. The result is a robust, reliable setup that works at scale. Store staff do not interact with LNbits directly — instead, DFX manages the backend, ensuring each till has a dedicated LNURL without operational overhead for SPAR employees.

At SPAR we use static QR codes that meet the LNURL standard. Therefore we use LNbits. Each checkout has its own personal LNURL address which we generate with LNbits.

— Cyrill Thommen, CEO of DFX.Swiss— Cyrill Thommen, CEO of DFX.Swiss

## LNbits in Action

LNbits provided DFX with a modular, open-source solution that allows them to build only what they need, without locking into a rigid platform. For instance, DFX built custom monitoring around payment events using the LNbits API, while keeping full control over wallet infrastructure.

The ability to generate and manage LNURLs through the LNbits API, while layering additional monitoring and business logic on top, made LNbits a practical choice.

DFX’s setup highlights how open source software, Bitcoin and purpose-built tools can underpin enterprise-grade deployments. The system works reliably — without introducing friction for customers or staff.

Bitcoin in the Real World

Switzerland is already one of Europe’s most Bitcoin-friendly environments, with over 1,000 businesses accepting Bitcoin. But SPAR’s implementation is noteworthy for its scale and practicality: everyday purchases, completed with Bitcoin, at a national supermarket chain.

LNbits' flexible architecture, API-first design, and plug-in system make it well suited to precisely this kind of adoption.

As more retailers explore Lightning integration, SPAR’s rollout sets a precedent — showing how modular, open-source tools like LNbits can bring Bitcoin into daily life, seamlessly.

@ 9c35fe6b:5977e45b

Sailing the Nile on the Dahabiya Gorgonia Nile Cruise offers an intimate way to experience the timeless beauty of Egypt. This elegant boat is ideal for travelers who seek calm, charm, and tradition. With only a few cabins onboard, guests can enjoy a more serene atmosphere compared to larger vessels. ETB Tours Egypt offers this unique cruise option as part of its Egypt vacation packages, blending cultural richness with comfort.

Cultural Encounters Along the Nile The Dahabiya Nile Cruises give you a chance to witness life along the riverbanks up close. Onboard the Gorgonia, travelers visit lesser-known villages, ancient temples, and local markets far from the tourist crowds. With ETB Tours Egypt, your itinerary includes authentic experiences guided by knowledgeable Egyptologists—an ideal choice for those seeking Egypt private tours.

Scenic Sailing with Modern Comfort Although traditional in style, the Dahabiya Gorgonia is equipped with modern amenities to ensure a pleasant journey. Guests enjoy spacious decks, elegant dining, and personalized service. Whether part of an All inclusive Egypt vacations or a custom-designed plan, this cruise ensures you travel in style without missing out on comfort.

Smart Choices for Smart Travelers ETB Tours Egypt also makes sure that the Dahabiya Gorgonia Nile Cruise is available as part of their Egypt budget tours, offering excellent value without compromising on experience. It's perfect for those who want to enjoy the best of Egypt without overspending. Flexible options are also available through their wide range of Egypt travel packages, making it easy to match your schedule and interests.

To Contact Us: E-Mail: info@etbtours.com Mobile & WhatsApp: +20 10 67569955 - +201021100873 Address: 4 El Lebeny Axis, Nazlet Al Batran, Al Haram, Giza, Egypt

@ 78b3c1ed:5033eea9

各ノードにポリシーがある理由 → ノードの資源（CPU、帯域、メモリ）を守り、無駄な処理を避けるため

なぜポリシーがコンセンサスルールより厳しいか 1.資源の節約 コンセンサスルールは「最終的に有効かどうか」の基準だが、全トランザクションをいちいち検証して中継すると資源が枯渇する。 ポリシーで「最初から弾く」仕組みが必要。

1. ネットワーク健全性の維持 手数料が低い、複雑すぎる、標準でないスクリプトのトランザクションが大量に流れると、全体のネットワークが重くなる。 これを防ぐためにノードは独自のポリシーで中継制限。

2. 開発の柔軟性 ポリシーはソフトウェアアップデートで柔軟に変えられるが、コンセンサスルールは変えるとハードフォークの危険がある。 ポリシーを厳しくすることで、安全に新しい制限を試すことができる。

---

標準ポリシーの意味は何か？ ノードオペレーターは自分でbitcoindの設定やコードを書き換えて独自のポリシーを使える。 理論上ポリシーは「任意」で、標準ポリシー（Bitcoin Coreが提供するポリシー）は単なるデフォルト値。 ただし、標準ポリシーには以下の大事な意味がある。

1. ネットワークの互換性を保つ基準 みんなが全く自由なポリシーを使うとトランザクションの伝播効率が落ちる。 標準ポリシーは「大多数のノードに中継される最小基準」を提供し、それを守ればネットワークに流せるという共通の期待値になる。

2. 開発・サービスの指針 ウォレット開発者やサービス提供者（取引所・支払いサービスなど）は、「標準ポリシーに準拠したトランザクションを作れば十分」という前提で開発できる。 もし標準がなければ全ノードの個別ポリシーを調査しないと流れるトランザクションを作れなくなる。

3. コミュニティの合意形成の場 標準ポリシーはBitcoin Coreの開発・議論で決まる。ここで新しい制限や緩和を入れれば、まずポリシーレベルで試せる。 問題がなければ、将来のコンセンサスルールに昇格させる議論の土台になる。

つまりデフォルトだけど重要。 確かに標準ポリシーは技術的には「デフォルト値」にすぎないが、実際にはネットワークの安定・互換性・開発指針の柱として重要な役割を果たす。

---

ビットコインノードにおける「無駄な処理」というのは、主に次のようなものを指す。 1. 承認される見込みのないトランザクションの検証 例: 手数料が極端に低く、マイナーが絶対にブロックに入れないようなトランザクション → これをいちいち署名検証したり、メモリプールに載せるのはCPU・RAMの無駄。

1. 明らかに標準外のスクリプトや形式の検証 例: 極端に複雑・非標準なスクリプト（non-standard script） → コンセンサス的には有効だが、ネットワークの他ノードが中継しないため、無駄な伝播になる。

2. スパム的な大量トランザクションの処理 例: 攻撃者が極小手数料のトランザクションを大量に送り、メモリプールを膨張させる場合 → メモリやディスクI/O、帯域の消費が無駄になる。

3. 明らかに無効なブロックの詳細検証 例: サイズが大きすぎるブロック、難易度条件を満たさないブロック → 早期に弾かないと、全トランザクション検証や署名検証で計算資源を浪費する。

これらの無駄な処理は、ノードの CPU時間・メモリ・ディスクI/O・帯域 を消耗させ、最悪の場合は DoS攻撃（サービス妨害攻撃） に悪用される。 そこでポリシーによって、最初の受信段階、または中継段階でそもそも検証・保存・転送しないように制限する。 まとめると、「無駄な処理」とはネットワークの大勢に受け入れられず、ブロックに取り込まれないトランザクションやブロックにノード資源を使うこと。

---

無駄な処理かどうかは、単に「ポリシーで禁止されているか」で決まるわけではない。

本質的には次の2つで判断される 1. ノードの資源（CPU、メモリ、帯域、ディスク）を過剰に使うか 2. 他のノード・ネットワーク・マイナーに受け入れられる見込みがあるか

将来のBitcoin CoreのバージョンでOP_RETURNの出力数制限やデータサイズ制限が撤廃されたとする。 この場合標準ポリシー的には通るので、中継・保存されやすくなる。 しかし、他のノードやマイナーが追随しなければ意味がない。大量に流せばやはりDoS・スパム扱いされ、無駄な資源消費になる。

最終的には、ネットワーク全体の運用実態。 標準ポリシーの撤廃だけでは、「無駄な処理ではない」とは断定できない。 実質的な「無駄な処理」の判定は、技術的制約＋経済的・運用的現実のセットで決まる。

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

Autor: Nicolas Riedl. 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.

Dieser Beitrag erschien zuerst bei Radio München.

---

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

---

Das Kriegsgrauen kriecht unter die Haut. Bilder von verstümmelten Beinen und Armen, von Kriegstraumatisierten schweigenden Männern, von Kriegsgräbern steigen auf. Als Mutter, Schwester, Tante, Großmutter wachsen die Ängste, dass sich ein Verwandter von der politischen und medialen Kriegslust anstecken lässt und tatsächlich die Beteiligung an den näher kommenden kriegerischen Auseinandersetzungen in Erwägung zieht. Einen wütenden Kommentar anlässlich der wachsenden Kriegstreiberei verfasste unser Autor Nicolas Riedl.

https://soundcloud.com/radiomuenchen/sofa-soldaten-an-die-front-von-nicolas-riedl?utm_source=clipboard&utm_campaign=wtshare&utm_medium=widget&utm_content=https%253A%252F%252Fsoundcloud.com%252Fradiomuenchen%252Fsofa-soldaten-an-die-front-von-nicolas-riedl

---

Nicolas Riedl, Jahrgang 1993, geboren in München, studierte Medien-, Theater- und Politikwissenschaften in Erlangen. Den immer abstruser werdenden Zeitgeist der westlichen Kultur dokumentiert und analysiert er in kritischen Texten. Darüber hinaus ist er Büchernarr, strikter Bargeldzahler und ein für seine Generation ungewöhnlicher Digitalisierungsmuffel. Entsprechend findet man ihn auf keiner Social-Media-Plattform. Von 2017 bis 2023 war er für die Rubikon-Jugendredaktion und Videoredaktion tätig.

---

LASSEN SIE DER FRIEDENSTAUBE FLÜGEL WACHSEN!

Hier können Sie die Friedenstaube abonnieren und bekommen die Artikel zugesandt.

Schon jetzt können Sie uns unterstützen:

• Für 50 CHF/EURO bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo der Friedenstaube.
• Für 120 CHF/EURO bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo und ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Für 500 CHF/EURO werden Sie Förderer und bekommen ein lebenslanges Abo sowie ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Ab 1000 CHF werden Sie Genossenschafter der Friedenstaube mit Stimmrecht (und bekommen lebenslanges Abo, T-Shirt/Hoodie).

Für Einzahlungen in CHF (Betreff: Friedenstaube):

Für Einzahlungen in Euro:

Milosz Matuschek

IBAN DE 53710520500000814137

BYLADEM1TST

Sparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg

Betreff: Friedenstaube

Wenn Sie auf anderem Wege beitragen wollen, schreiben Sie die Friedenstaube an: friedenstaube@pareto.space

---

Sie sind noch nicht auf Nostr and wollen die volle Erfahrung machen (liken, kommentieren etc.)? Zappen können Sie den Autor auch ohne Nostr-Profil! Erstellen Sie sich einen Account auf Start. Weitere Onboarding-Leitfäden gibt es im Pareto-Wiki.

@ 60392a22:1cae32da

test

nostr:note18p950fmhkc58h3j7xhl66ge57nj5q4kjdhvk3m84fdhc3eukclgqjup985

nostr:note14hxkht7drs9lse8p0zl0n65g76jdcyh6t9fqdu27hn6ljx0nv6vsxgqgc3 nostr:note17vcw0mhzcjc885evcv20x404p4nf5e5sv69ggkge0sa0y54xy2mqmet74h nostr:note19huuef8yttx6c8lf34wldapu82zzsx9ve9ma9x4k65jmjl6ak0ds6pf25g nostr:note1f5x9qr35cdq9ehe5z33xth4c660z5rtfqtfjh3d6audpg5gnguws259hsl nostr:note1eznmhmdk938x575ztgznephu4v7xfwduvts348xuz3fvp8879e0qzlyhys nostr:note1tw2mtfjk6exged7r0fsa9vkf7wufrrc2dpwsqfwuu54u7x3r454q07cth8

ok?

@ 502ab02a:a2860397

สัปดาห์นี้ถือว่าเป็นเบรคคั่นพักผ่อนแก้เครียดนิดหน่อยแล้วกันครับ เรามาเล่าย้อนอดีตกันนิดหน่อย เหมือนสตาร์วอส์ที่ฉายภาค 4-5-6 แล้วย้อนไป 1-2-3 ฮาๆๆๆ

เคยได้ยินคำว่า Nuremberg Trials ไหมครับ ย้อนความนิดนึงว่า Nuremberg (Nürnberg อ่านว่า เนือร์นแบร์ก) คือชื่อเมืองในเยอรมนีที่เคยเป็นเวทีพิจารณาคดีประวัติศาสตร์หลังสงครามโลกครั้งที่ 2

“Nuremberg Trials” คือการไต่สวนผู้มีส่วนเกี่ยวข้องกับ อาชญากรรมสงครามของนาซีเยอรมัน หลังสงครามโลกครั้งที่ 2 ในปี 1945–46 พันธมิตรผู้ชนะสงครามได้จับตัวผู้นำนาซี นักการเมือง หมอ นักวิทยาศาสตร์ มาขึ้นศาล ข้อหาของพวกเขาไม่ได้แค่ฆ่าคน แต่รวมถึงการละเมิดศีลธรรมมนุษย์ขั้นพื้นฐาน อย่างการทดลองทางการแพทย์กับนักโทษ โดยไม่มีการขอความยินยอม

จากการไต่สวนนี้ จึงเกิดหลักจริยธรรมที่ชื่อว่า “Nuremberg Code” ซึ่งกลายเป็นรากฐานของการทดลองทางการแพทย์ยุคใหม่ หัวใจของโค้ดนี้คือคำว่า “Informed Consent” แปลว่า ถ้าจะทำอะไรกับร่างกายใคร ต้องได้รับความยินยอมจากเขาอย่างเต็มใจ และมีข้อมูลครบถ้วน นี่แหละ คือบทเรียนจากบาดแผลของสงครามโลก

แต่แล้ว...ในปี 2020 โลกก็เข้าสู่ยุคที่ใครบางคนบอกว่า “ต้องเชื่อผู้เชี่ยวชาญ” ใครกังวล = คนไม่รักสังคม ใครถามเยอะ = คนต่อต้านวิทยาศาสตร์ การยินยอมโดยสมัครใจ เริ่มกลายเป็นแค่คำเชิงสัญลักษณ์

ในช่วงหลังนี้เราอาจจะได้ยินข่าวหรือทฤษฎีในอินเตอร์เนทเกี่ยวกับคำว่า Nuremberg 2.0 กันนะครับ เพราะเริ่มผุดขึ้นตามกระทู้เงียบ ๆ คลิปใต้ดิน และเวทีเสวนาแปลก ๆ ที่ไม่มีใครอยากอ้างชื่อบนเวที TED Talk ซึ่ง กลุ่มที่ใช้คำนี้มักจะหมายถึงความต้องการให้มีการ “ไต่สวน” หรือ “เอาผิด” กับนักการเมือง นักวิทยาศาสตร์ แพทย์ หรือองค์กรที่เกี่ยวข้องกับ การออกคำสั่ง การบังคับ การเซ็นเซอร์ข้อมูลที่ขัดแย้งกับแนวทางรัฐ การเผยแพร่ข้อมูลโดยไม่โปร่งใส พวกเขามองว่า นโยบายเหล่านั้นละเมิดสิทธิเสรีภาพของประชาชนในระดับที่เปรียบได้กับ “อาชญากรรมต่อมนุษยชาติ” จึงเสนอแนวคิด “Nuremberg 2.0”

พวกเขาไม่ได้เรียกร้องแค่ความโปร่งใส แต่เขาอยากเห็นการทบทวน ว่าใครกันแน่ที่ละเมิดหลักจริยธรรมที่โลกเคยตกลงกันไว้เมื่อ 80 ปีก่อน

Nuremberg คือการไต่สวนคนที่ใช้อำนาจรัฐฆ่าคนอย่างจงใจ Nuremberg 2.0 คือคำเตือนว่า “การใช้ความกลัวครอบงำเสรีภาพ” อาจไม่ต่างกันนัก

ทีนี้เคยสงสัยไหม แล้วมันเกี่ยวอะไรกับอาหาร?

เพราะจากวิกฤตโรคระบาด เราเริ่มเห็น “วิทยาศาสตร์แบบผูกขาด” คุมเกมส์ บริษัทเทคโนโลยีเริ่มเข้ามาทำอาหาร ชื่อใหม่ของเนื้อสเต๊กกลายเป็น “โปรตีนทางเลือก” อาหารจากแล็บกลายเป็น “ทางรอดของโลก” สารเคมีอัดลงไปแทนเนื้อจริง ๆ แต่มีฉลากติดว่า "รักษ์โลก ปลอดภัย ยั่งยืน"

แต่ถ้ามองให้ลึกลงไปอีกนิด บางกลุ่มคนกลับเริ่มเห็นอะไรบางอย่างที่ขนลุกกว่า เพราะมันคือ “ระบบควบคุมสุขภาพ” ที่อาศัย “ความกลัว” เป็นหัวเชื้อ และ “วิทยาศาสตร์แบบผูกขาด” เป็นกลไก

จากนั้น…ทุกอย่างก็จะถูกเสิร์ฟอย่างสวยงามในรูปแบบ "นวัตกรรมเพื่ออนาคต" ไม่ว่าจะเป็นอาหารเสริมชนิดใหม่ เนื้อสัตว์ปลูกในแล็บ หรืออาหารที่ไม่ต้องเคี้ยว

ลองคิดเล่น ๆครับ ถ้าสารอาหารถูกควบคุมได้ เหมือนที่เราเคยถูกบังคับกับบางอย่างได้ล่ะ? วันหนึ่ง เราอาจถูกขอให้ "กิน" ในสิ่งที่ระบบสุขภาพอนาคตเขาบอกว่าดี แล้วถ้าเฮียบอกว่าไม่อยากกิน...เขาอาจไม่ห้าม แต่ App สุขภาพจะเตือนว่า “คุณมีพฤติกรรมเสี่ยงต่อโลกใบนี้” แต้มเครดิตจะสุขภาพจะลดลงและส่วนลดข้าวกล่องเนื้อจากจุลินทรีย์จะไม่เข้าบัญชีเฮียอีกเลย

ใช่…มันไม่เหมือนการบังคับ แต่มันคือการสร้าง “ระบบทางเดียว” ที่ทำให้คนที่อยากเดินออกนอกแถว เหมือนเดินลงเหว

Nuremberg 2.0 จึงไม่ใช่แค่เรื่องของอดีตหรือโรคระบาด แต่มันเป็นกระจกที่สะท้อนว่า “ถ้าเราไม่เรียนรู้จากประวัติศาสตร์ เราอาจกินซ้ำรอยมันเข้าไปในมื้อเย็น”

อนาคตของอาหารอาจไม่ได้อยู่ในจาน แต่อยู่ในนโยบาย อยู่ในบริษัทที่ผลิตโปรตีนจากอากาศ อยู่ในทุนที่ซื้อนักวิทยาศาสตร์ไว้ทั้งวงการ และถ้าเราหลับตาอีกครั้ง หลายคนก็กลัวว่า...บทไต่สวน Nuremberg รอบใหม่ อาจไม่สามารถเกิดขึ้นอีกต่อไป เพราะคราวนี้ คนร้ายจะไม่ได้ถือปืน แต่อาจถือใบรับรองโภชนาการระดับโลกในมือแทน

#pirateketo #กูต้องรู้มั๊ย #ม้วนหางสิลูก #siamstr

@ a9e24cc2:597d8933

𝐌𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐀𝐆𝐄  BlackHat_Nexus 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐀𝐍𝐘 𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐃 𝐎𝐅 𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐄 𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐀𝐂𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓Fast, Available and Reliable for any of the following services 🤳 Recovery of lost funds🤳 Facebook Hack🤳 WhatsApp Hack 🤳 Instagram Hack🤳 Spying🤳 Windows Hacking🤳 Recover lost wallet 🤳 Credit score trick 🤳 Recover Password🤳 Gmail Hack🤳 SnapChat Hacking 🤳 Cellphone Monitoring 🤳 Tik Tok Hack🤳 Twitter Hack🤳 Lost Phone Tracking🤳 Lost IaptopTracking🤳 Lost Car Tracking🤳 Cloning WhatsApp🤳 Cryptocurrency Wallet🤳 Hacking🤳 Iphone unlock 🤳 Got banned 🤳 Private Number available🤳 Telegram hacking 🤳 Websites hacking 🤳 Hack University 🤳 IOS and Android hack 🤳 Wifi Hacking 🤳 CCTV hacking🤳 Hack Bot Game 🤳 Free fire hack 🤳 Changing of school grades 🤳 Cards 💳hackingNo 🆓 services 🚫WhatsApp +1 3606068592Send a DM https://t.me/BlackHat_Nexus@BlackHat_Nexus

@ 752f5d10:88491db3

Opinion about Trendo: Forex Trading & Broker (android)

L o s i n g $111,555 overnight was a crushing blow. The account lockout and subpar customer service that followed left me stunned. However, I gained invaluable insights from this ordeal : Conduct thorough research before committing Verify credentials and read reviews from multiple sources Be c a u t i o u s of un realistic promises Demand responsive and reliable support. Fortunately, I found chelsy__desmarais__54__A T__g=m=a=i=l__D=o=t__c_o_m, which helped me re-cover from this financial setback. W_h_a_t_s_A_p_p ; +1=8=5=9=4=3=6=4=2=1=1

WalletScrutiny #nostrOpinion

Join the conversation!

@ c9badfea:610f861a

• Bitcoin Exchanges
• Bitcoin Wallets
• Bitcoin Circular Economies
• Nostr Apps

ℹ️ To add profiles to the follow packs, please leave a comment

@ 8671a6e5:f88194d1

"I tried pasting my login key into the text field, but no luck—it just wouldn't work. Turns out, the login field becomes completely unusable whenever the on-screen keyboard shows up on my phone. So either no one ever bothered to test this on a phone, or they did and thought, ‘Eh, who needs to actually log in anyway?’."

### \ \ Develop and evolve

Any technology or industry at the forefront of innovation faces the same struggle. Idealists, inventors, and early adopters jump in first, working to make things usable for the technical crowd. Only later do the products begin to take shape for the average user.

Bitcoin’s dropping the Ball on usability (and user-experience)

First, we have to acknowledge the progress we've made. Bitcoin has come a long way in terms of usability—no doubt about it. Even if I still think it’s bad, it’s nowhere near as terrible as it was ten or more years ago. The days of printing a paper wallet from some shady website and hoping it would still work months or years later are behind us. The days of buggy software never getting fixed are mostly over.

The Bitcoin technology itself made progress through many BIPs (Bitcoin Improvement Proposals) and combined with an increasing number of apps, devs, websites and related networks (Liquid, Lightning, Nostr, ....) we can say that we're seeing a strong ecosystem going its way. The ecosystem is alive and expanding, and technically, things are clearly working. The problem is that we’re still building with a mindset where developers and project managers consider usability—but don’t truly care about it in practice. They don’t lead with it. (Yes, there are always exceptions.)

All that progress looks cool, when you see the latest releases of hardware wallets, software wallets, exchanges, nostr clients and services built purely for bitcoin, you're usually thinking that we've progressed nicely. But I want to focus on the downside of all these shiny tools. Because if Bitcoin has made it this far, it’s mostly thanks to people who deeply understand its value and are stubborn enough to push through the friction. They don’t give up when the user experience sucks.

Many bitcoiners completely lost their perspective on the software front in my opinion. Because we could have been so much further ahead, and we didn't because some of the most important components on the user-facing side of Bitcoin (arguably the most important part) hasn’t kept pace with the popularity and possible growth. And that should be a great concern, because Bitcoin is meant to be open and accessible. The blockchain is public. This is supposed to be for everyone. This is an open ledger technology so in theory everything is user-facing to one extent or another. Yet we fail on that front to make the glue stick. Somewhere, we’re easily amused by the tools we create, and often contains hurdles we can’t see or feel. While users reject it after 5 seconds tops.

We didn’t came a lot further yet, because we’ve ignored usability at its core (pun intended).

I’m not talking about usability in the “it works on my machine” sense. I’m talking about usability that meets the standard of modern apps. Think Spotify, Instagram, Uber, Gmail. Products that ordinary people use without reading a manual or digging through forums.

That’s the bar. We’re still far from it.

Bad UX scares your grandma away

… and that’s how many bitcoiners apparently like it.

Subsequently, when I say usability, I’m using it as an umbrella term. For me, it covers user experience, user interface, and real-life, full-cycle testing—from onboarding a brand new user to rolling out a new version of the app. And oh boy, our onboarding is so horrible. (“Hey wanna try bitcoin? Here’s an app that takes up to 4 minutes or more to get though, but wait, you’ll have to install a plugin, or wait I’ll send you an on-chain transaction…)

Take a look at the listings on Bitvocation, an excellent job board for Bitcoiners and related projects. You’ll quickly notice a pattern: almost no companies are hiring software testers. It’s marketing, more marketing, some sales, and of course, full-stack developers. But … No testers.

Because testing has become something that’s often skipped or automated in a hurry. Maybe the devs run a test locally to confirm that the feature they just built doesn’t crash outright. That’s it. And if testing does happen at a company, it’s usually shallow—focused only on the top five percent of critical bugs. The finer points that shape real user experience, like button placement, navigation flow, and responsiveness, are dumped on “the community.”

Which leads to some software being rushed out to production, and only then do teams discover how many problems exist in the real world. If there’s anyone left to care that is, since most teams are scattered all over the world and get paid by the hour by some VC firm on a small runway to a launch date.

This has real life consequences I’ve seen for myself with new users. Like a lightning wallet having a +5 minute onboarding time, and a fat on-screen error for the new users, or a hardware wallet stuck in an endless upgrade loop, just because nobody tested it on a device that was “old” (as in, one year old).

The result is clear: usability and experience testing are so low on the priority list, they may as well not exist. And that’s tragic, because the enthusiasm of new users gets crushed the moment they run into what I call Linux’plaining.

That’s when something obvious fails — like a lookup command that’s copied straight from their own help documentation but doesn’t work — and the answer you get as a user is something like: “Yeah, but first you have to…” followed by an explanation that isn’t mentioned anywhere in the interface or documentation. You were just supposed to know. No one updates the documentation, and no one cares. As most of the projects are very temporary or don’t really care if it succeeds or not, because they’re bitcoiners and bitcoin always wins. Just like PGP always was super cool and good, and users should just be smarter.

Lessons from the past usability disasters

We can always learn from the past especially when its precedents are still echoing through the systems we use today

So here goes, some examples from the legacy / fiat industry:

Lotus Notes, for example. Once a titan in enterprise communication software, which managed to capture about 145 million mailboxes. But its downfall is an example of what happens when you ignore and keep ignoring real-life user needs and fail to evolve with the market. Software like that doesn’t just fade, it collapses under the weight of its own inertia and bloat. If you think bitcoin can’t have that, yes… we’re of course not having a competitor in the market (hard money is hard money, not a mailbox or office software provider of course). But we can erode trust to the extent that it becomes LotusNotes’d.

Its archaic 1990s interface came with clunky navigation and a chaotic document management system. Users got frustrated fast—basic tasks took too long. Picture this: you're stuck in a cubicle, trying to find the calendar function in Lotus Notes while a giant office printer hisses and spits out stacks of paper behind you. The platform never made the leap to modern expectations. It failed to deliver proper mobile clients and clung to outdated tech like LotusScript and the Domino architecture, which made it vulnerable to security issues and incompatible with the web standards of the time. By 2012, IBM pulled the plug on the Lotus brand, as businesses moved en masse to cloud-based alternatives.

Another kind of usability failure has plagued PGP1 (and still does so after 34 years). PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) is a time-tested and rock-solid method for encryption and key exchange, but it’s riddled with usability problems, especially for anyone who isn’t technically inclined.

Its very nature and complexity are already steep hurdles (and yes, you can’t make it fully easy without compromising how it’s supposed to work—granted). But the real problem? Almost zero effort has gone into giving even the most eager new users a manageable learning curve. That neglect slowly killed off any real user base—except for the hardcore encryption folks who already know what they’re doing.

Ask anyone in a shopping street or the historic center of your city if they’ve heard of PGP. And on the off chance someone knows it’s not a trendy new fast-food joint called “Perfectly Grilled Poultry,” the odds of them having actually used it in the past six months are basically zero, unless you happen to bump into that one neckbeard guy in his 60s wearing a stained Star Wars T-shirt named Leonard.

The builders of PGP made one major mistake: they never treated usability as a serious design goal (that’s normal for people knee deep in encryption, I get that, it’s the way it is). PGP is fantastic on itself. Other companies and projects tried to build around it, but while they stumbled, tools like Signal and ProtonMail stepped in; offering the same core features of encryption and secure messaging, minus the headache. They delivered what PGP never could: powerful functionality wrapped in something regular people can actually use. Now, we’ve got encrypted communication flowing through apps like Signal, where all the complex tech is buried so deep in the background, the average user doesn’t even realize it’s there. ProtonMail went one step further even, integrating PGP so cleanly that users never need to exchange keys or understand the cryptography behind it all, yet still benefit from bulletproof encryption.

There’s no debate—this shift is a good thing. History shows that unusable software fades into irrelevance. Whether due to lack of interest, failure to reach critical mass, or a competitor swooping in to eat market share, clunky tools don’t survive. Now, to be clear, Bitcoin doesn’t have to worry about that kind of threat. There’s no real competition when it comes to hard money. Unless, of course, you genuinely believe that flashy shitcoins are a viable alternative—in which case, you might as well stop reading here and go get yourself scammed on the latest Solana airdrop or whatever hype train’s leaving the station today for the degens.

The main takeaway here is that Bitcoin must avoid becoming the next Lotus Notes, bloated with features but neglected by users—or the next PGP, sidelined by its own lack of usability. That kind of trajectory would erode trust, especially if usability and onboarding keep falling behind. And honestly, we’re already seeing signs of this in bitcoin. User adoption in Europe, especially in countries like Germany is noticeably lagging. The introduction of the EU’s MiCA regulations isn’t helping either. Most of the companies that were actually pushing adoption are now either shutting down, leaving the EU, or jumping through creative loopholes just to stay alive. And the last thing on anyone’s mind is improving UX. It takes time, effort, and specialized people to seriously think through how to build this properly, from the beginning, with this ease of use and onboarding in mind. That’s a luxury most teams can’t or won’t prioritize right now. Understandably when the lack of funds is still a major issue within the bitcoin space. (for people sitting on hard money, there’s surprisingly little money flowing into useful projects that aren’t hyped up empty boxes)

The number of nodes being set up by end users worldwide isn’t exactly skyrocketing either. Sure, there’s some growth but let’s not overstate it. Based on Bitnodes’ snapshots taken in March of each year, we’re looking at: 2022 : around 10500 2023 : around 17000 2024 : around 18500 2025 : around 21000 (I know there are different methods of measuring these, like read-only nodes, the % change is roughly the same nonetheless)

In my opinion, if we had non-clunky software that was actually released with proper testing and usability in mind, we could’ve easily doubled those node numbers. A bad user experience with a wallet spreads fast—and brings in exactly zero new users. The same goes for people trying to set up a miner or spin up a node, only to give up after a few frustrating steps. Sure, there are good people out there making guides and videos2 to help mitigate those hurdles, and that helps. But let’s be honest: there’s still very little “wow” factor when average users interact with most Bitcoin software. Almost every time they walk away, it’s because of one of two things—usability issues or bugs.

For the record: if a user can’t set up a wallet because the interface is so rotten or poorly tested, so they don’t know where to click or how to even select a seed word from a list, then that’s a problem — that’s a bug. Argue all you want: sure, it’s not a code-level bug and no, it’s not a system crash. But it is a usability failure. Call it onboarding friction, UX flaw, whatever fits your spreadsheet or circus Maximus of failures in your ticketing system. Bottom line: if your software doesn’t help users accomplish its core purpose, it’s broken. It’s a bug. Pretending it’s something a copywriter or marketing team can fix is pure deflection. The solution isn’t to relabel the problem, 1990’s telecom-style, just to avoid dealing with it. It’s to actually sit down, think, collaborate, and go through the issue, and getting real solutions out. ”No it’s not an issue, that’s how it works” like someone from a failing (and by now defunct) wallet told me once, is not a solution.

You got 21 seconds

The user can’t be onboarded because your software has an “issue”? In my book, that’s a bug. The usual response when you report it? “Yeah, that’s not a priority.” Well, guess what? It actually is a priority. All these small annoyances, hurdles, and bits of BS still plague this industry, and they make the whole experience miserable for regular people trying it out for the first time. The first 21 seconds (yeah, you see what I did there) are the most important when someone opens new software. If it doesn’t click right away—if they’re fiddling with sats or dollar signs, or hunting for some hidden setting buried behind a tiny arrow—it’s game over. They’re annoyed. They’re gone.

And this is exactly why we’re seeing a flood of shitcoin apps sweeping new users off their feet with "faster apps" or "nicer designs" apps that somehow can afford the UI specialists and slick, centralized setups to spread their lies and scams.

I hate to say it, but the Phantom wallet for example, for the Solana network, loaded with fake airdrop schemes and the most blatant scams — has a far better UX than most Bitcoin wallets and Lightning Wallets. Learn from it. Download that **** and get to know what we do wrong and how we can learn from the enemy.

That’s a hard truth. So, instead of just screaming “Uh, shitcooooin!” (yes, we know it is), maybe we should start learning from it. Their apps are better than ours in terms of UI and UX. They attract more people 5x faster (we know that’s also because of the fast gains and retardation playing with the marketing) but we can’t keep ignoring that. Somehow these apps attract more than our trustworthiness, our steady, secure, decentralized hard money truth.

It’s like stepping into one of the best Italian restaurants in town—supposedly. But then the menu’s a mess, the staff is scrolling on their phones, and something smells burnt coming from the kitchen. So, what do you do? You walk out. You cross the street to the fast food joint and order a burger and fries. And as you’re walking out with your food, someone from the Italian place yells at you: “Fast food is bad!” ”Yeah man I know, I wanted a nice Spaghetti aglio e olio, but here I am, digesting a cheeseburger that felt rather spongy.” (the problem is so gone so deep now, that users just walk past that Italian restaurant, don’t even recognize it as a restaurant because it doesn’t have cheeseburgers).

Fear of the dark

Technical people, not marketeers built bitcoin, it’s build on hundreds of small building blocks that interacted over time to have the bitcoin network and it’s immer evolving value. At one point David Chaum cooked up eCash, using blind signatures to let people send digital money anonymously — except it was still stuck on clunky centralized servers. Go back even further, to the 1970s, when Diffie, Hellman, and Rivest introduced public-key cryptography—the magic sauce that gave us secure digital signatures and authentication, making sure your messages stayed private and tamper-proof.

Fast forward to the 1990s, where peer-to-peer started to take off, decentralized networks getting started. Adam Back’s Hashcash in ‘97 used proof-of-work to fight email spam, and the cypherpunks were all about sticking it to the man with privacy-first, the invention 199 Human-Readable 128-bit keys3, decentralized systems. We started to swap files over p2p networks and later, torrents.

All these parts—anonymous cash, encryption, and leaderless networks finally clicked into place when Satoshi Nakamoto poured them into a chain of blocks, built on an ingenious “time-stamping” system: the timechain, or blockchain if you prefer. And just like that, Bitcoin was born—a peer-to-peer money system that didn’t need middlemen and actually worked without any central servers.

So yes, it’s only natural that Bitcoin and the many tools, born from math, obscurity, and cryptography, isn’t exactly always a user-interface darling. That’s also it’s charm for me in any case, as the core is robust and valuable beyond belief. That’s why we love to so see more use, more adoption.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t squash critical “show-stopper” bugs before releasing bitcoin-related software. And it sure as hell doesn’t mean we should act like jerks when a user points out something’s broken, confusing, or just doesn’t meet expectations. We can’t be complacent either about our role as builders of the next generations, as the core is hard money, and it would be a fatal mistake for the world to see it being used only for some rockstars from Wall Street and their counterparts to store their debt laden fiat. We can free people, make them better, make them elevate themselves. And yet, the people we try to elevate, we often alienate. All because we don’t test our stuff well enough. We should be so good, we blow the banking apps away. (they’re blowing themselves out of the market luckily with fiat “features” and overly over the top use of “analytics” to measure your carbon footprint for example).

We should be so damn professional that someone using Bitcoin apps for a full year wouldn’t even notice any bugs, because there wouldn’t be much to get annoyed by.

So… we have to do better. I’ve seen it time and time again — on Lightning tipping apps, Nostr plugins, wallets, hardware wallets, even metal plates we can screw up somehow … you name it. “It works on my machine”, isn’t enough anymore! Those days are over.

Even apps built with solid funding and strong dev and test teams like fedi.xyz4 can miss the mark. While the idea was good and the app itself ran fine without too much hurdles and usual bugs. But usability failed on a different front: there was just nothing meaningful to do in the app beyond poking around, chatting a bit, and sending a few sats back and forth. The communities it’s supposed to connect, just aren’t there, or weren’t there “yet”.

It’s a beautifully designed application and a strong proof-of-concept for federated community funds. But then… nothing. No one I know uses it. Their last blogpost was from beginning of October 2024, which doesn’t bode well, writing this than 6 months after. That said, they got some great onboarding going, usually under 20 seconds, which proves it can be done right (even if it was all a front-end for a more complex backend).

As you can see “usability” is a broad terminology, covering technical aspects, user-interface, but also use-cases. Even if you have a cool app that works really well and is well thought-out users won’t use it if there’s no real substance. You can’t get that critical mass by waiting for customers to come in or communities to embrace it. They won’t, because most of the individuals already had past experiences with bitcoin apps or services, and there’s a reason for them not being on-board already.

A lot of bitcoin companies build tools for new people. Never for the lapsed people, the persons that came in, thought of it as an investment or “a coin”… then left because of a bad experience or the price going down in fiat. All the while we have some software that usually isn’t so kind to new people, or causes loss of funds and time. Even if they make one little “mistake” of not knowing the system beforehand.

Bitcoin’s Moby Dick

\ Bitcoin itself has a big issue here. The user base could grow faster, and more robust, if there wasn’t software that worked as a sort of repellent against users.

I especially see a younger and less tech-savvy audience absolutely disliking the software we have now. No matter if it’s Electrum’s desktop wallet (hardly the sexiest tool out there, although I like it myself, but it lacks some features), Sparrow, or any lightning wallet out there (safe for WoS). I even saw people disliking Proton wallet, which I personally thought of as something really slick, well-made and polished. But even that doesn’t cut it for many people, as the “account” and “wallet” system wasn’t clear enough for them. (You see, we all have the same bias, because we know bitcoin, we look at it from a perspective of “facepalm, of course it’s a wallet named “account”, but when you sit next to a new user, it becomes clear that this is a hurdle. (please proton wallet: name a wallet a wallet, not “account”. But most users already in bitcoin, love what you’re doing)

Naturally disliking usability

The same technically brilliant people who maintain Bitcoin and build its apps haven’t quite tapped into their inner Steve Jobs—if that person even exists in the Bitcoin space. Let’s be honest: the next iOS-style wow moment, or the kind of frictionless usability seen in Spotify or Instagram, probably won’t come from hardcore Bitcoin devs alone. In fact, some builders in the space seem to actively disregard—or even look down on—discussions about usability. Just mention names like Wallet of Satoshi (yes, we all know it’s a custodial frontend) or the need for smoother interactions with Bitcoin, and you’ll get eye-rolls or defensive rants instead of curiosity or openness.

Moving more towards a better user interface for things like Sparrow or Bitcoin Core for example, would bring all kinds of “bad things” according to some, and on top of that, bring in new users (noobs) that ask questions like: “Do you burn all these sats when I make a transaction?” (Yes, that’s a real one.)

I get the “usability sucks” gripe — fear of losing key features, dumbing things down, or opening the door to unwanted changes (like BIP proposals real bitcoiners hate) that tweak bitcoin to suit any user’s whim. Close to no one in bitcoin (really in bitcoin!) wants that, including me.

That fear is however largely unfounded; because Bitcoin doesn’t change without consensus. Any change that would undermine its core use or value proposition simply won’t make it through. And let’s be honest: most of the users who crave these “faster,” centralized alternatives—those drawn to slick apps, one-click solutions, and dopamine-driven UI—will either stick with fiat, ape into the shitcoin-of-the-month, or praise the shiny new CBDC once it drops (“much fast, much cool”). These degen types, chasing fiat gains and jackpot dreams, aren’t relevant to this story, No matter what we build for bitcoin, they’ll always love the fiat-story and will always dislike bitcoin because it’s not a jackpot for them. (Honestly, why don’t they just gamble at a casino?)

People who fear that improving usability will somehow bring down the Bitcoin network are being a bit too paranoid—and honestly, they often don’t understand what usability or proper testing actually means.

They treat it like fluff, when in reality it's fundamental. Usability doesn't mean dumbing things down or compromising Bitcoin's core values; it means understanding why your fancy new app isn’t being used by anyone outside of your bubble. Testing is the beating heart of getting things out with confidence. Nothing more satisfying in software building than to proudly show even your beta versions to users, knowing it’s well tested. It’s much more than clicking a few buttons and tossing your code on GitHub. It's about asking real questions: can someone outside your Telegram group actually use this and will it they be using the software at all?

If you create a Nostr app that opens an in-app browser window and then tries to log you in with your NIPS05 or NIPS07 or whatever number it is that authenticates you, then you need to think about how it’s going to work in real life. Have people already visited this underlying website? Is that website using the exact same mechanism? Is it really working like we think it is in the real world? (Some notable good things are happening with the development of Keychat for example, I have the feeling they get it, it’s not all bad). And yes, there are still bugs and things to improve there, they’re just starting. (The browser section and nostr login need some work imho).

Guess what? You can test your stuff. But it takes time and effort. The kind of effort that, if skipped, gets multiplied across thousands of people. Thousands of people wasting their time trying to use your app, hitting errors, assuming they did something wrong, retrying, googling workarounds—only to eventually realize: it’s not them. It’s a bug. A bug you didn’t catch. Because you didn’t test. And now everyone loses. And guess what? Those users? They’re not coming back.

A good example (to stay positive here) is Fountain App, where the first versions were , eh… let’s say not so good, and then quickly evolved into a company and product that works really well, and also listens to their users and fixes their bugs. The interface can still be better in my opinion, but it’s getting there. And it’s super good now.

A bad example? Alby. (Sorry to say.) It still suffers from a bloated, clunky interface and an onboarding flow that utterly confuses new or returning users. It just doesn’t get the job done. Opinions may vary, sure, but hand this app to any non-technical user and ask them to get online and do a Nostr zap. Watch what happens. If they even manage to get through the initial setup, that is.

Another example? Bitkit. When I tried transferring funds from the "savings" to the "spending" account, the wallet silently opened a Lightning channel—no warning, no explanation—and suddenly my coins were locked up. To make things worse, the wallet still showed the full balance as spendable, even though part of it was now stuck in that channel. That was in November 2024, the last time I touched Bitkit. I wasted too much time trying to figure it out, I haven’t looked back (assuming the project is even still alive, I didn’t see them pop up anywhere).

Some metal BIP39 backup tools are great in theory but poorly executed. I bought one that didn’t even include a simple instruction on how to open it. The person I gave it to spent two hours trying to open it with a screwdriver and even attempted drilling. Turns out, it just slides open with some pressure. A simple instruction would’ve saved all that frustration.

Builders often assume users “just get it,” but a small guide could’ve prevented all the hassle. It’s a small step, but it’s crucial for better user experience. So why not avoid such situations and put a friggin cheap piece of paper in the box so people know how to open it? (The creators would probably facepalm if they read this, “how can users nòt see this?”). Yeah,… put a paper in there with instructions.

That’s natural, because as a creator you’re “in” it, you know. You don’t see how others would overlook something so obvious.

Bitcoiners are extremely bad on that front.

I’ll dive deeper into some examples in part 2 of this post.

By AVB

end of part 1

If you like to support independent thought and writings on bitcoin, follow this substack please https://coinos.io/allesvoorbitcoin/receive\ \ footnotes:

1 https://philzimmermann.com/EN/findpgp/

2 BTC sessions: set up a bitcoin node

3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1751

4 https://www.fedi.xyz/

@ bbef5093:71228592

India csökkentené az atomerőművek építési idejét ambiciózus nukleáris céljai eléréséhez

India célja, hogy a jelenlegi 10 évről a „világszínvonalú” 6 évre csökkentse atomerőművi projektjeinek kivitelezési idejét, hogy elérje a 2047-re kitűzött, 100 GW beépített nukleáris kapacitást.

Az SBI Capital Markets (az Indiai Állami Bank befektetési banki leányvállalata) jelentése szerint ez segítene mérsékelni a korábbi költségtúllépéseket, és vonzóbbá tenné az országot a globális befektetők számára.

A jelentés szerint a jelenlegi, mintegy 8 GW kapacitás és a csak 7 GW-nyi építés alatt álló kapacitás mellett „jelentős gyorsítás” szükséges a célok eléréséhez.

A kormány elindította a „nukleáris energia missziót”, amelyhez körülbelül 2,3 milliárd dollárt (2 milliárd eurót) különített el K+F-re és legalább öt Bharat kis moduláris reaktor (BSMR) telepítésére, de további kihívásokat kell megoldania a célok eléréséhez.

Az építési idők csökkentése kulcsfontosságú, de a jelentés átfogó rendszerszintű reformokat is javasol, beleértve a gyorsabb engedélyezést, a földszerzési szabályok egyszerűsítését, az erőművek körüli védőtávolság csökkentését, és a szabályozó hatóság (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) nagyobb önállóságát.

A jelentés szerint a nemzet korlátozott uránkészletei miatt elengedhetetlen az üzemanyagforrások diverzifikálása nemzetközi megállapodások révén, valamint az indiai nukleáris program 2. és 3. szakaszának felgyorsítása.

India háromlépcsős nukleáris programja célja egy zárt üzemanyagciklus kialakítása, amely a természetes uránra, a plutóniumra és végül a tóriumra épül. A 2. szakaszban gyorsneutronos reaktorokat használnak, amelyek több energiát nyernek ki az uránból, kevesebb bányászott uránt igényelnek, és a fel nem használt uránt új üzemanyaggá alakítják. A 3. szakaszban fejlett reaktorok működnek majd India hatalmas tóriumkészleteire alapozva.

2025 januárjában az indiai Nuclear Power Corporation (NPCIL) pályázatot írt ki Bharat SMR-ek telepítésére, először nyitva meg a nukleáris szektort indiai magáncégek előtt.

Eddig csak az állami tulajdonú NPCIL építhetett és üzemeltethetett kereskedelmi atomerőműveket Indiában.

A Bharat SMR-ek (a „Bharat” hindiül Indiát jelent) telepítése a „Viksit Bharat” („Fejlődő India”) program része.

Engedélyezési folyamat: „elhúzódó és egymásra épülő”

A Bharat atomerőmű fejlesztésének részletei továbbra sem világosak, de Nirmala Sitharaman pénzügyminiszter júliusban elmondta, hogy az állami National Thermal Power Corporation és a Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited közös vállalkozásában valósulna meg a fejlesztés.

Sitharaman hozzátette, hogy a kormány a magánszektorral közösen létrehozna egy Bharat Small Reactors nevű céget, amely SMR-ek és új nukleáris technológiák kutatás-fejlesztésével foglalkozna.

Az SBI jelentése szerint javítani kell az SMR programot, mert az engedélyezési folyamat jelenleg „elhúzódó és egymásra épülő”, és aránytalan kockázatot jelent a magánszereplők számára a reaktorfejlesztés során.

A program „stratégiailag jó helyzetben van a sikerhez”, mert szigorú belépési feltételeket támaszt, így csak komoly és alkalmas szereplők vehetnek részt benne.

A kormánynak azonban be kellene vezetnie egy kártérítési záradékot, amely védi a magáncégeket az üzemanyag- és nehézvíz-ellátás hiányától, amely az Atomenergia Minisztérium (DAE) hatáskörébe tartozik.

A jelentés szerint mind az üzemanyag, mind a nehézvíz ellátása a DAE-től függ, és „a hozzáférés hiánya” problémát jelenthet. India legtöbb kereskedelmi atomerőműve hazai fejlesztésű, nyomottvizes nehézvizes reaktor.

A jelentés szerint: „A meglévő szabályozási hiányosságok kezelése kulcsfontosságú, hogy a magánszektor vezethesse a kitűzött 100 GW nukleáris kapacitás 50%-ának fejlesztését 2047-ig.”

Az NPCIL nemrégiben közölte, hogy India 2031–32-ig további 18 reaktort kíván hozzáadni az energiamixhez, ezzel az ország nukleáris kapacitása 22,4 GW-ra nő.

A Nemzetközi Atomenergia-ügynökség adatai szerint Indiában 21 reaktor üzemel kereskedelmi forgalomban, amelyek 2023-ban az ország áramtermelésének körülbelül 3%-át adták. Hat egység van építés alatt.

---

Roszatom pert indított a leállított Hanhikivi-1 projekt miatt Finnországban

Az orosz állami Roszatom atomenergetikai vállalat pert indított Moszkvában a finn Fortum és Outokumpu cégek ellen, és 227,8 milliárd rubel (2,8 milliárd dollár, 2,4 milliárd euró) kártérítést követel a finnországi Hanhikivi-1 atomerőmű szerződésének felmondása miatt – derül ki bírósági dokumentumokból és a Roszatom közleményéből.

A Roszatom a „mérnöki, beszerzési és kivitelezési (EPC) szerződés jogellenes felmondása”, a részvényesi megállapodás, az üzemanyag-ellátási szerződés megsértése, valamint a kölcsön visszafizetésének megtagadása miatt követel kártérítést.

A Fortum a NucNetnek e-mailben azt írta, hogy „nem kapott hivatalos értesítést orosz perről”.

A Fortum 2025. április 29-i negyedéves jelentésében közölte, hogy a Roszatom finn leányvállalata, a Raos Project, valamint a Roszatom nemzetközi divíziója, a JSC Rusatom Energy International, illetve a Fennovoima (a Hanhikivi projektért felelős finn konzorcium) között a Hanhikivi EPC szerződésével kapcsolatban nemzetközi választottbírósági eljárás zajlik.

2025 februárjában a választottbíróság úgy döntött, hogy nincs joghatósága a Fortummal szembeni követelések ügyében. „Ez a döntés végleges volt, így a Fortum nem része a választottbírósági eljárásnak” – közölte a cég.

A Fortum 2015-ben kisebbségi tulajdonos lett a Fennovoima projektben, de a teljes tulajdonrészt 2020-ban leírta.

A Fennovoima konzorcium, amelyben a Roszatom a Raos-on keresztül 34%-os kisebbségi részesedéssel rendelkezett, 2022 májusában felmondta a Hanhikivi-1 létesítésére vonatkozó szerződést az ukrajnai háború miatti késedelmek és megnövekedett kockázatok miatt.

A projekt technológiája az orosz AES-2006 típusú nyomottvizes reaktor lett volna.

2021 áprilisában a Fennovoima közölte, hogy a projekt teljes beruházási költsége 6,5–7 milliárd euróról 7–7,5 milliárd euróra nőtt.

2022 augusztusában a Roszatom és a Fennovoima kölcsönösen milliárdos kártérítési igényt nyújtott be egymás ellen a projekt leállítása miatt.

A Fennovoima nemzetközi választottbírósági eljárást indított 1,7 milliárd euró előleg visszafizetéséért. A Roszatom 3 milliárd eurós ellenkeresetet nyújtott be. Ezek az ügyek jelenleg is nemzetközi bíróságok előtt vannak.

---

Dél-koreai delegáció Csehországba utazik nukleáris szerződés aláírására

Egy dél-koreai delegáció 2025. május 6-án Csehországba utazik, hogy részt vegyen egy több milliárd dolláros szerződés aláírásán, amely két új atomerőmű építéséről szól a Dukovany telephelyen – közölte a dél-koreai kereskedelmi, ipari és energetikai minisztérium.

A delegáció, amelyben kormányzati és parlamenti tisztviselők is vannak, kétnapos prágai látogatásra indul, hogy részt vegyen a szerdára tervezett aláírási ceremónián.

A küldöttség találkozik Petr Fiala cseh miniszterelnökkel és Milos Vystrcil szenátusi elnökkel is, hogy megvitassák a Dukovany projektet.

Fiala múlt héten bejelentette, hogy Prága május 7-én írja alá a Dukovany szerződést a Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) céggel.

A cseh versenyhivatal nemrég engedélyezte a szerződés aláírását a KHNP-vel, miután elutasította a francia EDF fellebbezését.

A versenyhivatal április 24-i döntése megerősítette a korábbi ítéletet, amelyet az EDF megtámadott, miután 2024 júliusában elvesztette a tenderpályázatot a KHNP-vel szemben.

Ez lehetővé teszi, hogy a két dél-koreai APR1400 reaktor egység szerződését aláírják Dukovanyban, Dél-Csehországban. A szerződés az ország történetének legnagyobb energetikai beruházása, értéke legalább 400 milliárd korona (16 milliárd euró, 18 milliárd dollár).

A szerződést eredetileg márciusban írták volna alá, de a vesztes pályázók (EDF, Westinghouse) fellebbezései, dél-koreai politikai bizonytalanságok és a cseh cégek lokalizációs igényei miatt csúszott.

A KHNP januárban rendezte a szellemi tulajdonjogi vitát a Westinghouse-zal, amely korábban azt állította, hogy a KHNP az ő technológiáját használja az APR1400 reaktorokban.

A szerződés aláírása Dél-Korea első külföldi atomerőmű-építési projektje lesz 2009 óta, amikor a KHNP négy APR1400 reaktort épített az Egyesült Arab Emírségekben, Barakahban.

Csehországban hat kereskedelmi reaktor működik: négy orosz VVER-440-es Dukovanyban, két nagyobb VVER-1000-es Temelínben. Az IAEA szerint ezek az egységek a cseh áramtermelés mintegy 36,7%-át adják.

---

Az USA-nak „minél előbb” új reaktort kell építenie – mondta a DOE jelöltje a szenátusi bizottság előtt

Az USA-nak minél előbb új atomerőművet kell építenie, és elő kell mozdítania a fejlett reaktorok fejlesztését, engedélyezését és telepítését – hangzott el a szenátusi energiaügyi bizottság előtt.

Ted Garrish, aki a DOE nukleáris energiaügyi helyettes államtitkári posztjára jelöltként jelent meg, elmondta: az országnak új reaktort kell telepítenie, legyen az nagy, kis moduláris vagy mikroreaktor.

Az USA-ban jelenleg nincs épülő kereskedelmi atomerőmű, az utolsó kettő, a Vogtle-3 és Vogtle-4 2023-ban, illetve 2024-ben indult el Georgiában.

„A nukleáris energia kivételes lehetőség a növekvő villamosenergia-igény megbízható, megfizethető és biztonságos kielégítésére” – mondta Garrish, aki tapasztalt atomenergetikai vezető. Szerinte az USA-nak nemzetbiztonsági okokból is fejlesztenie kell a hazai urándúsító ipart.

Vizsgálni kell a nemzetközi piacot és a kormányközi megállapodások lehetőségét az amerikai nukleáris fejlesztők és ellátási láncok számára, valamint meg kell oldani a kiégett fűtőelemek elhelyezésének problémáját.

1987-ben a Kongresszus a nevadai Yucca Mountain-t jelölte ki a kiégett fűtőelemek végleges tárolóhelyének, de 2009-ben az Obama-adminisztráció leállította a projektet.

Az USA-ban az 1950-es évek óta mintegy 83 000 tonna radioaktív hulladék, köztük kiégett fűtőelem halmozódott fel, amelyet jelenleg acél- és betonkonténerekben tárolnak az erőművek telephelyein.

Garrish korábban a DOE nemzetközi ügyekért felelős helyettes államtitkára volt (2018–2021), jelenleg az Egyesült Haladó Atomenergia Szövetség igazgatótanácsának elnöke.

---

Egyéb hírek

Szlovénia közös munkát sürget az USA-val a nukleáris energiában:
Az USA és Horvátország tisztviselői együttműködésről tárgyaltak Közép- és Délkelet-Európa energiaellátásának diverzifikálása érdekében, különös tekintettel a kis moduláris reaktorokra (SMR). Horvátország és Szlovénia közösen tulajdonolja a szlovéniai Krško atomerőművet, amely egyetlen 696 MW-os nyomottvizes reaktorával Horvátország áramfogyasztásának 16%-át, Szlovéniáénak 20%-át adja. Szlovénia fontolgatja egy második blokk építését, de tavaly elhalasztotta az erről szóló népszavazást.

Malawi engedélyezi a Kayelekera uránbánya újraindítását:
A Malawi Atomenergia Hatóság kiadta a sugárbiztonsági engedélyt a Lotus (Africa) Limited számára, így újraindulhat a Kayelekera uránbánya, amely több mint egy évtizede, 2014 óta állt a zuhanó uránárak és biztonsági problémák miatt. A bánya 85%-át az ausztrál Lotus Resources helyi leányvállalata birtokolja. A Lotus szerint a bánya újraindítása teljesen finanszírozott, kb. 43 millió dollár (37 millió euró) tőkével.

Venezuela és Irán nukleáris együttműködést tervez:
Venezuela és Irán a nukleáris tudomány és technológia terén való együttműködésről tárgyalt. Az iráni állami média szerint Mohammad Eslami, az Iráni Atomenergia Szervezet vezetője és Alberto Quintero, Venezuela tudományos miniszterhelyettese egyetemi és kutatási programok elindításáról egyeztetett. Venezuelában nincs kereskedelmi atomerőmű, de 2010-ben Oroszországgal írt alá megállapodást új atomerőművek lehetőségéről. Iránnak egy működő atomerőműve van Bushehr-1-nél, egy másik ugyanott épül, mindkettőt Oroszország szállította.

@ b6dcdddf:dfee5ee7

You can now fund projects on Geyser using Credit Cards, Apple Pay, Bank Transfers, and more.

The best part: 🧾 You pay in fiat and ⚡️ the creator receives Bitcoin.

You heard it right! Let's dive in 👇

First, how does it work? For contributors, it's easy! Once the project creator has verified their identity, anyone can contribute with fiat methods. Simply go through the usual contribution flow and select 'Pay with Fiat'. The first contribution is KYC-free.

Why does this matter? 1. Many Bitcoiners don't want to spend their Bitcoin: 👉 Number go up (NgU) 👉 Capital gains taxes With fiat contributions, there's no more excuse to contribute towards Bitcoin builders and creators! 2. Non-bitcoin holders want to support projects too. If someone loves your mission but only has a debit card, they used to be stuck. Now? They can back your Bitcoin project with familiar fiat tools. Now, they can do it all through Geyser!

So, why swap fiat into Bitcoin? Because Bitcoin is borderless. Fiat payouts are limited to certain countries, banks, and red tape. By auto-swapping fiat to Bitcoin, we ensure: 🌍 Instant payouts to creators all around the world ⚡️ No delays or restrictions 💥 Every contribution is also a silent Bitcoin buy

How to enable Fiat contributions If you’re a creator, it’s easy: - Go to your Dashboard → Wallet - Click “Enable Fiat Contributions” - Complete a quick ID verification (required by our payment provider) ✅ That’s it — your project is now open to global fiat supporters.

Supporting Bitcoin adoption At Geyser, our mission is to empower Bitcoin creators and builders. Adding fiat options amplifies our mission. It brings more people into the ecosystem while staying true to what we believe: ⚒️ Build on Bitcoin 🌱 Fund impactful initiatives 🌎 Enable global participation

**Support projects with fiat now! ** We've compiled a list of projects that currently have fiat contributions enabled. If you've been on the fence to support them because you didn't want to spend your Bitcoin, now's the time to do your first contribution!

Education - Citadel Dispatch: https://geyser.fund/project/citadel - @FREEMadeiraOrg: https://geyser.fund/project/freemadeira - @MyfirstBitcoin_: https://geyser.fund/project/miprimerbitcoin

Circular Economies - @BitcoinEkasi: https://geyser.fund/project/bitcoinekasi - Madagascar Bitcoin: https://geyser.fund/project/madagasbit - @BitcoinChatt : https://geyser.fund/project/bitcoinchatt - Uganda Gayaza BTC Market: https://geyser.fund/project/gayazabtcmarket

Activism - Education Bitcoin Channel: https://geyser.fund/project/streamingsats

Sports - The Sats Fighter Journey: https://geyser.fund/project/thesatsfighterjourney

Culture - Bitcoin Tarot Cards: https://geyser.fund/project/bitcointarotcard

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973003

@ 2e8970de:63345c7a

https://www.epi.org/blog/wage-growth-since-1979-has-not-been-stagnant-but-it-has-definitely-been-suppressed/

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/972959

@ 40bdcc08:ad00fd2c

Introduction

Bitcoin’s OP_RETURN opcode, a mechanism for embedding small data in transactions, has ignited a significant debate within the Bitcoin community. Originally designed to support limited metadata while preserving Bitcoin’s role as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, OP_RETURN is now at the center of proposals that could redefine Bitcoin’s identity. The immutable nature of Bitcoin’s timechain makes it an attractive platform for data storage, creating tension with those who prioritize its monetary function. This discussion, particularly around Bitcoin Core pull request #32406 (GitHub PR #32406), highlights a critical juncture for Bitcoin’s future.

What is OP_RETURN?

Introduced in 2014, OP_RETURN allows users to attach up to 80 bytes of data to a Bitcoin transaction. Unlike other transaction outputs, OP_RETURN outputs are provably unspendable, meaning they don’t burden the Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) set—a critical database for Bitcoin nodes. This feature was a compromise to provide a standardized, less harmful way to include metadata, addressing earlier practices that embedded data in ways that bloated the UTXO set. The 80-byte limit and restriction to one OP_RETURN output per transaction are part of Bitcoin Core’s standardness rules, which guide transaction relay and mining but are not enforced by the network’s consensus rules (Bitcoin Stack Exchange).

Standardness vs. Consensus Rules

Standardness rules are Bitcoin Core’s default policies for relaying and mining transactions. They differ from consensus rules, which define what transactions are valid across the entire network. For OP_RETURN: - Consensus Rules: Allow OP_RETURN outputs with data up to the maximum script size (approximately 10,000 bytes) and multiple outputs per transaction (Bitcoin Stack Exchange). - Standardness Rules: Limit OP_RETURN data to 80 bytes and one output per transaction to discourage excessive data storage and maintain network efficiency.

Node operators can adjust these policies using settings like -datacarrier (enables/disables OP_RETURN relay) and -datacarriersize (sets the maximum data size, defaulting to 83 bytes to account for the OP_RETURN opcode and pushdata byte). These settings allow flexibility but reflect Bitcoin Core’s default stance on limiting data usage.

The Proposal: Pull Request #32406

Bitcoin Core pull request #32406, proposed by developer instagibbs, seeks to relax these standardness restrictions (GitHub PR #32406). Key changes include: - Removing Default Size Limits: The default -datacarriersize would be uncapped, allowing larger OP_RETURN data without a predefined limit. - Allowing Multiple Outputs: The restriction to one OP_RETURN output per transaction would be lifted, with the total data size across all outputs subject to a configurable limit. - Deprecating Configuration Options: The -datacarrier and -datacarriersize settings are marked as deprecated, signaling potential removal in future releases, which could limit node operators’ ability to enforce custom restrictions.

This proposal does not alter consensus rules, meaning miners and nodes can already accept transactions with larger or multiple OP_RETURN outputs. Instead, it changes Bitcoin Core’s default relay policy to align with existing practices, such as miners accepting non-standard transactions via services like Marathon Digital’s Slipstream (CoinDesk).

Node Operator Flexibility

Currently, node operators can customize OP_RETURN handling: - Default Settings: Relay transactions with one OP_RETURN output up to 80 bytes. - Custom Settings: Operators can disable OP_RETURN relay (-datacarrier=0) or adjust the size limit (e.g., -datacarriersize=100). These options remain in #32406 but are deprecated, suggesting that future Bitcoin Core versions might not support such customization, potentially standardizing the uncapped policy.

Arguments in Favor of Relaxing Limits

Supporters of pull request #32406 and similar proposals argue that the current restrictions are outdated and ineffective. Their key points include: - Ineffective Limits: Developers bypass the 80-byte limit using methods like Inscriptions, which store data in other transaction parts, often at higher cost and inefficiency (BitcoinDev Mailing List). Relaxing OP_RETURN could channel data into a more efficient format. - Preventing UTXO Bloat: By encouraging OP_RETURN use, which doesn’t affect the UTXO set, the proposal could reduce reliance on harmful alternatives like unspendable Taproot outputs used by projects like Citrea’s Clementine bridge. - Supporting Innovation: Projects like Citrea require more data (e.g., 144 bytes) for security proofs, and relaxed limits could enable new Layer 2 solutions (CryptoSlate). - Code Simplification: Developers like Peter Todd argue that these limits complicate Bitcoin Core’s codebase unnecessarily (CoinGeek). - Aligning with Practice: Miners already process non-standard transactions, and uncapping defaults could improve fee estimation and reduce reliance on out-of-band services, as noted by ismaelsadeeq in the pull request discussion.

In the GitHub discussion, developers like Sjors and TheCharlatan expressed support (Concept ACK), citing these efficiency and innovation benefits.

Arguments Against Relaxing Limits

Opponents, including prominent developers and community members, raise significant concerns about the implications of these changes: - Deviation from Bitcoin’s Purpose: Critics like Luke Dashjr, who called the proposal “utter insanity,” argue that Bitcoin’s base layer should prioritize peer-to-peer cash, not data storage (CoinDesk). Jason Hughes warned it could turn Bitcoin into a “worthless altcoin” (BeInCrypto). - Blockchain Bloat: Additional data increases the storage and processing burden on full nodes, potentially making node operation cost-prohibitive and threatening decentralization (CryptoSlate). - Network Congestion: Unrestricted data could lead to “spam” transactions, raising fees and hindering Bitcoin’s use for financial transactions. - Risk of Illicit Content: The timechain’s immutability means data, including potentially illegal or objectionable content, is permanently stored on every node. The 80-byte limit acts as a practical barrier, and relaxing it could exacerbate this issue. - Preserving Consensus: Developers like John Carvalho view the limits as a hard-won community agreement, not to be changed lightly.

In the pull request discussion, nsvrn and moth-oss expressed concerns about spam and centralization, advocating for gradual changes. Concept NACKs from developers like wizkid057 and Luke Dashjr reflect strong opposition.

Community Feedback

The GitHub discussion for pull request #32406 shows a divided community: - Support (Concept ACK): Sjors, polespinasa, ismaelsadeeq, miketwenty1, TheCharlatan, Psifour. - Opposition (Concept NACK): wizkid057, BitcoinMechanic, Retropex, nsvrn, moth-oss, Luke Dashjr. - Other: Peter Todd provided a stale ACK, indicating partial or outdated support.

Additional discussions on the BitcoinDev mailing list and related pull requests (e.g., #32359 by Peter Todd) highlight similar arguments, with #32359 proposing a more aggressive removal of all OP_RETURN limits and configuration options (GitHub PR #32359).

| Feedback Type | Developers | Key Points | |---------------|------------|------------| | Concept ACK | Sjors, ismaelsadeeq, others | Improves efficiency, supports innovation, aligns with mining practices. | | Concept NACK | Luke Dashjr, wizkid057, others | Risks bloat, spam, centralization, and deviation from Bitcoin’s purpose. | | Stale ACK | Peter Todd | Acknowledges proposal but with reservations or outdated support. |

Workarounds and Their Implications

The existence of workarounds, such as Inscriptions, which exploit SegWit discounts to embed data, is a key argument for relaxing OP_RETURN limits. These methods are costlier and less efficient, often costing more than OP_RETURN for data under 143 bytes (BitcoinDev Mailing List). Supporters argue that formalizing larger OP_RETURN data could streamline these use cases. Critics, however, see workarounds as a reason to strengthen, not weaken, restrictions, emphasizing the need to address underlying incentives rather than accommodating bypasses.

Ecosystem Pressures

External factors influence the debate: - Miners: Services like Marathon Digital’s Slipstream process non-standard transactions for a fee, showing that market incentives already bypass standardness rules. - Layer 2 Projects: Citrea’s Clementine bridge, requiring more data for security proofs, exemplifies the demand for relaxed limits to support innovative applications. - Community Dynamics: The debate echoes past controversies, like the Ordinals debate, where data storage via inscriptions raised similar concerns about Bitcoin’s purpose (CoinDesk).

Bitcoin’s Identity at Stake

The OP_RETURN debate is not merely technical but philosophical, questioning whether Bitcoin should remain a focused monetary system or evolve into a broader data platform. Supporters see relaxed limits as a pragmatic step toward efficiency and innovation, while opponents view them as a risk to Bitcoin’s decentralization, accessibility, and core mission. The community’s decision will have lasting implications, affecting node operators, miners, developers, and users.

Conclusion

As Bitcoin navigates this crossroads, the community must balance the potential benefits of relaxed OP_RETURN limits—such as improved efficiency and support for new applications—against the risks of blockchain bloat, network congestion, and deviation from its monetary roots. The ongoing discussion, accessible via pull request #32406 on GitHub (GitHub PR #32406). Readers are encouraged to explore the debate and contribute to ensuring that any changes align with Bitcoin’s long-term goals as a decentralized, secure, and reliable system.

@ 8f69ac99:4f92f5fd

A concepção popular de "anarquia" evoca frequentemente caos, colapso e violência. Mas e se anarquia significasse outra coisa? E se representasse um mundo onde as pessoas cooperam e se coordenam sem autoridades impostas? E se implicasse liberdade, ordem voluntária e resiliência—sem coerção?

Bitcoin é um dos raros exemplos funcionais de princípios anarquistas em acção. Não tem CEO, nem Estado, nem planeador central—e, no entanto, o sistema funciona. Faz cumprir regras. Propõe um novo modelo de governação e oferece uma exploração concreta do anarcocapitalismo.

Para o compreendermos, temos de mudar de perspectiva. Bitcoin não é apenas software ou um instrumento de investimento—é um sistema vivo: uma ordem espontânea.

Ordem Espontânea, Teoria dos Jogos e o Papel dos Incentivos Económicos

Na política e economia contemporâneas, presume-se geralmente que a ordem tem de vir de cima. Governos, corporações e burocracias são vistos como essenciais para organizar a sociedade em grande escala.

Mas esta crença nem sempre se verifica.

Os mercados surgem espontaneamente da troca. A linguagem evolui sem supervisão central. Projectos de código aberto prosperam graças a contribuições voluntárias. Nenhum destes sistemas precisa de um rei—e, no entanto, têm estrutura e funcionam.

Bitcoin insere-se nesta tradição de ordens emergentes. Não é ditado por uma entidade única, mas é governado através de código, consenso dos utilizadores e incentivos económicos que recompensam a cooperação e penalizam a desonestidade.

Código Como Constituição

Bitcoin funciona com base num conjunto de regras de software transparentes e verificáveis. Estas regras determinam quem pode adicionar blocos, com que frequência, o que constitui uma transacção válida e como são criadas novas moedas.

Estas regras não são impostas por exércitos nem pela polícia. São mantidas por uma rede descentralizada de milhares de nós, cada um a correr voluntariamente software que valida o cumprimento das regras. Se alguém tentar quebrá-las, o resto da rede simplesmente rejeita a sua versão.

Isto não é governo por maioria—é aceitação baseada em regras.

Cada operador de nó escolhe qual versão do software quer executar. Se uma alteração proposta não tiver consenso suficiente, não se propaga. Foi assim que as "guerras do tamanho do bloco" foram resolvidas—não por votação, mas através de sinalização do que os utilizadores estavam dispostos a aceitar.

Este modelo de governação ascendente é voluntário, sem permissões, e extraordinariamente resiliente. Representa um novo paradigma de sistemas autorregulados.

Mineiros, Incentivos e a Segurança Baseada na Teoria dos Jogos

Bitcoin assegura a sua rede utilizando a Teoria de Jogos. Os mineiros que seguem o protocolo são recompensados financeiramente. Quem tenta enganar—como reescrever blocos ou gastar duas vezes—sofre perdas financeiras e desperdiça recursos.

Agir honestamente é mais lucrativo.

A genialidade de Bitcoin está em alinhar incentivos egoístas com o bem comum. Elimina a necessidade de confiar em administradores ou esperar benevolência. Em vez disso, torna a fraude economicamente irracional.

Isto substitui o modelo tradicional de "confiar nos líderes" por um mais robusto: construir sistemas onde o mau comportamento é desencorajado por design.

Isto é segurança anarquista—não a ausência de regras, mas a ausência de governantes.

Associação Voluntária e Confiança Construída em Consenso

Qualquer pessoa pode usar Bitcoin. Não há controlo de identidade, nem licenças, nem processo de aprovação. Basta descarregar o software e começar a transaccionar.

Ainda assim, Bitcoin não é um caos desorganizado. Os utilizadores seguem regras rigorosas do protocolo. Porquê? Porque é o consenso que dá valor às "moedas". Sem ele, a rede fragmenta-se e falha.

É aqui que Bitcoin desafia as ideias convencionais sobre anarquia. Mostra que sistemas voluntários podem gerar estabilidade—não porque as pessoas são altruístas, mas porque os incentivos bem desenhados tornam a cooperação a escolha racional.

Bitcoin é sem confiança (trustless), mas promove confiança.

Uma Prova de Conceito Viva

Muitos acreditam que, sem controlo central, a sociedade entraria em colapso. Bitcoin prova que isso não é necessariamente verdade.

É uma rede monetária global, sem permissões, capaz de fazer cumprir direitos de propriedade, coordenar recursos e resistir à censura—sem uma autoridade central. Baseia-se apenas em regras, incentivos e participação voluntária.

Bitcoin não é um sistema perfeito. É um projecto dinâmico, em constante evolução. Mas isso faz parte do que o torna tão relevante: é real, está a funcionar e continua a melhorar.

Conclusão

A anarquia não tem de significar caos. Pode significar cooperação sem coerção. Bitcoin prova isso.

Procuramos, desesperados, por alternativas às instituições falhadas, inchadas e corruptas. Bitcoin oferece mais do que dinheiro digital. É uma prova viva de que podemos construir sociedades descentralizadas, eficientes e justas.

E isso, por si só, já é revolucionário.

---

Photo by Floris Van Cauwelaert on Unsplash

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

If you're an engineer stepping into the Bitcoin space from the broader crypto ecosystem, you're probably carrying a mental model shaped by speed, flexibility, and rapid innovation. That makes sense—most blockchain platforms pride themselves on throughput, programmability, and dev agility.

But Bitcoin operates from a different set of first principles. It’s not competing to be the fastest network or the most expressive smart contract platform. It’s aiming to be the most credible, neutral, and globally accessible value layer in human history.

Here’s why that matters—and why Bitcoin is not just an alternative crypto asset, but a structural necessity in the global financial system.

1. Bitcoin Fixes the Triffin Dilemma—Not With Policy, But Protocol

The Triffin Dilemma shows us that any country issuing the global reserve currency must run persistent deficits to supply that currency to the world. That’s not a flaw of bad leadership—it’s an inherent contradiction. The U.S. must debase its own monetary integrity to meet global dollar demand. That’s a self-terminating system.

Bitcoin sidesteps this entirely by being:

• Non-sovereign – no single nation owns it
• Hard-capped – no central authority can inflate it
• Verifiable and neutral – anyone with a full node can enforce the rules

In other words, Bitcoin turns global liquidity into an engineering problem, not a political one. No other system, fiat or crypto, has achieved that.

2. Bitcoin’s “Ossification” Is Intentional—and It's a Feature

From the outside, Bitcoin development may look sluggish. Features are slow to roll out. Code changes are conservative. Consensus rules are treated as sacred.

That’s the point.

When you’re building the global monetary base layer, stability is not a weakness. It’s a prerequisite. Every other financial instrument, app, or protocol that builds on Bitcoin depends on one thing: assurance that the base layer won’t change underneath them without extreme scrutiny.

So-called “ossification” is just another term for predictability and integrity. And when the market does demand change (SegWit, Taproot), Bitcoin’s soft-fork governance process has proven capable of deploying it safely—without coercive central control.

3. Layered Architecture: Throughput Is Not a Base Layer Concern

You don’t scale settlement at the base layer. You build layered systems. Just as TCP/IP doesn't need to carry YouTube traffic directly, Bitcoin doesn’t need to process every microtransaction.

Instead, it anchors:

• Lightning (fast payments)
• Fedimint (community custody)
• Ark (privacy + UTXO compression)
• Statechains, sidechains, and covenants (coming evolution)

All of these inherit Bitcoin’s security and scarcity, while handling volume off-chain, in ways that maintain auditability and self-custody.

4. Universal Assayability Requires Minimalism at the Base Layer

A core design constraint of Bitcoin is that any participant, anywhere in the world, must be able to independently verify the validity of every transaction and block—past and present—without needing permission or relying on third parties.

This property is called assayability—the ability to “test” or verify the authenticity and integrity of received bitcoin, much like verifying the weight and purity of a gold coin.

To preserve this:

• The base layer must remain resource-light, so running a full node stays accessible on commodity hardware.
• Block sizes must remain small enough to prevent centralization of verification.
• Historical data must remain consistent and tamper-evident, enabling proof chains across time and jurisdiction.

Any base layer that scales by increasing throughput or complexity undermines this fundamental guarantee, making the network more dependent on trust and surveillance infrastructure.

Bitcoin prioritizes global verifiability over throughput—because trustless money requires that every user can check the money they receive.

5. Governance: Not Captured, Just Resistant to Coercion

The current controversy around OP_RETURN and proposals to limit inscriptions is instructive. Some prominent devs have advocated for changes to block content filtering. Others see it as overreach.

Here's what matters:

• No single dev, or team, can force changes into the network. Period.
• Bitcoin Core is not “the source of truth.” It’s one implementation. If it deviates from market consensus, it gets forked, sidelined, or replaced.
• The economic majority—miners, users, businesses—enforce Bitcoin’s rules, not GitHub maintainers.

In fact, recent community resistance to perceived Core overreach only reinforces Bitcoin’s resilience. Engineers who posture with narcissistic certainty, dismiss dissent, or attempt to capture influence are routinely neutralized by the market’s refusal to upgrade or adopt forks that undermine neutrality or openness.

This is governance via credible neutrality and negative feedback loops. Power doesn’t accumulate in one place. It’s constantly checked by the network’s distributed incentives.

6. Bitcoin Is Still in Its Infancy—And That’s a Good Thing

You’re not too late. The ecosystem around Bitcoin—especially L2 protocols, privacy tools, custody innovation, and zero-knowledge integrations—is just beginning.

If you're an engineer looking for:

• Systems with global scale constraints
• Architectures that optimize for integrity, not speed
• Consensus mechanisms that resist coercion
• A base layer with predictable monetary policy

Then Bitcoin is where serious systems engineers go when they’ve outgrown crypto theater.

Take-away

Under realistic, market-aware assumptions—where:

• Bitcoin’s ossification is seen as a stability feature, not inertia,
• Market forces can and do demand and implement change via tested, non-coercive mechanisms,
• Proof-of-work is recognized as the only consensus mechanism resistant to fiat capture,
• Wealth concentration is understood as a temporary distribution effect during early monetization,
• Low base layer throughput is a deliberate design constraint to preserve verifiability and neutrality,
• And innovation is layered by design, with the base chain providing integrity, not complexity...

Then Bitcoin is not a fragile or inflexible system—it is a deliberately minimal, modular, and resilient protocol.

Its governance is not leaderless chaos; it's a negative-feedback structure that minimizes the power of individuals or institutions to coerce change. The very fact that proposals—like controversial OP_RETURN restrictions—can be resisted, forked around, or ignored by the market without breaking the system is proof of decentralized control, not dysfunction.

Bitcoin is an adversarially robust monetary foundation. Its value lies not in how fast it changes, but in how reliably it doesn't—unless change is forced by real, bottom-up demand and implemented through consensus-tested soft forks.

In this framing, Bitcoin isn't a slower crypto. It's the engineering benchmark for systems that must endure, not entertain.

Final Word

Bitcoin isn’t moving slowly because it’s dying. It’s moving carefully because it’s winning. It’s not an app platform or a sandbox. It’s a protocol layer for the future of money.

If you're here because you want to help build that future, you’re in the right place.

nostr:nevent1qqswr7sla434duatjp4m89grvs3zanxug05pzj04asxmv4rngvyv04sppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgs9tc6ruevfqu7nzt72kvq8te95dqfkndj5t8hlx6n79lj03q9v6xcrqsqqqqqp0n8wc2

nostr:nevent1qqsd5hfkqgskpjjq5zlfyyv9nmmela5q67tgu9640v7r8t828u73rdqpr4mhxue69uhkymmnw3ezucnfw33k76tww3ux76m09e3k7mf0qgsvr6dt8ft292mv5jlt7382vje0mfq2ccc3azrt4p45v5sknj6kkscrqsqqqqqp02vjk5

nostr:nevent1qqstrszamvffh72wr20euhrwa0fhzd3hhpedm30ys4ct8dpelwz3nuqpr4mhxue69uhkymmnw3ezucnfw33k76tww3ux76m09e3k7mf0qgs8a474cw4lqmapcq8hr7res4nknar2ey34fsffk0k42cjsdyn7yqqrqsqqqqqpnn3znl

@ b099870e:f3ba8f5d

A donkey that is tied to a post by a rope will keep walking around the post is an attempt to free it self,only to become more immobilize and attached to the post.

ikigai