@ eac63075:b4988b48

The future of physical money is at stake, and the discussion about DREX, the new digital currency planned by the Central Bank of Brazil, is gaining momentum. In a candid and intense conversation, Federal Deputy Julia Zanatta (PL/SC) discussed the challenges and risks of this digital transition, also addressing her Bill No. 3,341/2024, which aims to prevent the extinction of physical currency. This bill emerges as a direct response to legislative initiatives seeking to replace physical money with digital alternatives, limiting citizens' options and potentially compromising individual freedom. Let's delve into the main points of this conversation.

https://www.fountain.fm/episode/i5YGJ9Ors3PkqAIMvNQ0

(PT-BR version here)

What is a CBDC?

Before discussing the specifics of DREX, it’s important to understand what a CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) is. CBDCs are digital currencies issued by central banks, similar to a digital version of physical money. Unlike cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, which operate in a decentralized manner, CBDCs are centralized and regulated by the government. In other words, they are digital currencies created and controlled by the Central Bank, intended to replace physical currency.

A prominent feature of CBDCs is their programmability. This means that the government can theoretically set rules about how, where, and for what this currency can be used. This aspect enables a level of control over citizens' finances that is impossible with physical money. By programming the currency, the government could limit transactions by setting geographical or usage restrictions. In practice, money within a CBDC could be restricted to specific spending or authorized for use in a defined geographical area.

In countries like China, where citizen actions and attitudes are also monitored, a person considered to have a "low score" due to a moral or ideological violation may have their transactions limited to essential purchases, restricting their digital currency use to non-essential activities. This financial control is strengthened because, unlike physical money, digital currency cannot be exchanged anonymously.

Practical Example: The Case of DREX During the Pandemic

To illustrate how DREX could be used, an example was given by Eric Altafim, director of Banco Itaú. He suggested that, if DREX had existed during the COVID-19 pandemic, the government could have restricted the currency’s use to a 5-kilometer radius around a person’s residence, limiting their economic mobility. Another proposed use by the executive related to the Bolsa Família welfare program: the government could set up programming that only allows this benefit to be used exclusively for food purchases. Although these examples are presented as control measures for safety or organization, they demonstrate how much a CBDC could restrict citizens' freedom of choice.

To illustrate the potential for state control through a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), such as DREX, it is helpful to look at the example of China. In China, the implementation of a CBDC coincides with the country’s Social Credit System, a governmental surveillance tool that assesses citizens' and companies' behavior. Together, these technologies allow the Chinese government to monitor, reward, and, above all, punish behavior deemed inappropriate or threatening to the government.

How Does China's Social Credit System Work?

Implemented in 2014, China's Social Credit System assigns every citizen and company a "score" based on various factors, including financial behavior, criminal record, social interactions, and even online activities. This score determines the benefits or penalties each individual receives and can affect everything from public transport access to obtaining loans and enrolling in elite schools for their children. Citizens with low scores may face various sanctions, including travel restrictions, fines, and difficulty in securing loans.

With the adoption of the CBDC — or “digital yuan” — the Chinese government now has a new tool to closely monitor citizens' financial transactions, facilitating the application of Social Credit System penalties. China’s CBDC is a programmable digital currency, which means that the government can restrict how, when, and where the money can be spent. Through this level of control, digital currency becomes a powerful mechanism for influencing citizens' behavior.

Imagine, for instance, a citizen who repeatedly posts critical remarks about the government on social media or participates in protests. If the Social Credit System assigns this citizen a low score, the Chinese government could, through the CBDC, restrict their money usage in certain areas or sectors. For example, they could be prevented from buying tickets to travel to other regions, prohibited from purchasing certain consumer goods, or even restricted to making transactions only at stores near their home.

Another example of how the government can use the CBDC to enforce the Social Credit System is by monitoring purchases of products such as alcohol or luxury items. If a citizen uses the CBDC to spend more than the government deems reasonable on such products, this could negatively impact their social score, resulting in additional penalties such as future purchase restrictions or a lowered rating that impacts their personal and professional lives.

In China, this kind of control has already been demonstrated in several cases. Citizens added to Social Credit System “blacklists” have seen their spending and investment capacity severely limited. The combination of digital currency and social scores thus creates a sophisticated and invasive surveillance system, through which the Chinese government controls important aspects of citizens’ financial lives and individual freedoms.

Deputy Julia Zanatta views these examples with great concern. She argues that if the state has full control over digital money, citizens will be exposed to a level of economic control and surveillance never seen before. In a democracy, this control poses a risk, but in an authoritarian regime, it could be used as a powerful tool of repression.

DREX and Bill No. 3,341/2024

Julia Zanatta became aware of a bill by a Workers' Party (PT) deputy (Bill 4068/2020 by Deputy Reginaldo Lopes - PT/MG) that proposes the extinction of physical money within five years, aiming for a complete transition to DREX, the digital currency developed by the Central Bank of Brazil. Concerned about the impact of this measure, Julia drafted her bill, PL No. 3,341/2024, which prohibits the elimination of physical money, ensuring citizens the right to choose physical currency.

“The more I read about DREX, the less I want its implementation,” says the deputy. DREX is a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), similar to other state digital currencies worldwide, but which, according to Julia, carries extreme control risks. She points out that with DREX, the State could closely monitor each citizen’s transactions, eliminating anonymity and potentially restricting freedom of choice. This control would lie in the hands of the Central Bank, which could, in a crisis or government change, “freeze balances or even delete funds directly from user accounts.”

Risks and Individual Freedom

Julia raises concerns about potential abuses of power that complete digitalization could allow. In a democracy, state control over personal finances raises serious questions, and EddieOz warns of an even more problematic future. “Today we are in a democracy, but tomorrow, with a government transition, we don't know if this kind of power will be used properly or abused,” he states. In other words, DREX gives the State the ability to restrict or condition the use of money, opening the door to unprecedented financial surveillance.

EddieOz cites Nigeria as an example, where a CBDC was implemented, and the government imposed severe restrictions on the use of physical money to encourage the use of digital currency, leading to protests and clashes in the country. In practice, the poorest and unbanked — those without regular access to banking services — were harshly affected, as without physical money, many cannot conduct basic transactions. Julia highlights that in Brazil, this situation would be even more severe, given the large number of unbanked individuals and the extent of rural areas where access to technology is limited.

The Relationship Between DREX and Pix

The digital transition has already begun with Pix, which revolutionized instant transfers and payments in Brazil. However, Julia points out that Pix, though popular, is a citizen’s choice, while DREX tends to eliminate that choice. The deputy expresses concern about new rules suggested for Pix, such as daily transaction limits of a thousand reais, justified as anti-fraud measures but which, in her view, represent additional control and a profit opportunity for banks. “How many more rules will banks create to profit from us?” asks Julia, noting that DREX could further enhance control over personal finances.

International Precedents and Resistance to CBDC

The deputy also cites examples from other countries resisting the idea of a centralized digital currency. In the United States, states like New Hampshire have passed laws to prevent the advance of CBDCs, and leaders such as Donald Trump have opposed creating a national digital currency. Trump, addressing the topic, uses a justification similar to Julia’s: in a digitalized system, “with one click, your money could disappear.” She agrees with the warning, emphasizing the control risk that a CBDC represents, especially for countries with disadvantaged populations.

Besides the United States, Canada, Colombia, and Australia have also suspended studies on digital currencies, citing the need for further discussions on population impacts. However, in Brazil, the debate on DREX is still limited, with few parliamentarians and political leaders openly discussing the topic. According to Julia, only she and one or two deputies are truly trying to bring this discussion to the Chamber, making DREX’s advance even more concerning.

Bill No. 3,341/2024 and Popular Pressure

For Julia, her bill is a first step. Although she acknowledges that ideally, it would prevent DREX's implementation entirely, PL 3341/2024 is a measure to ensure citizens' choice to use physical money, preserving a form of individual freedom. “If the future means control, I prefer to live in the past,” Julia asserts, reinforcing that the fight for freedom is at the heart of her bill.

However, the deputy emphasizes that none of this will be possible without popular mobilization. According to her, popular pressure is crucial for other deputies to take notice and support PL 3341. “I am only one deputy, and we need the public’s support to raise the project’s visibility,” she explains, encouraging the public to press other parliamentarians and ask them to “pay attention to PL 3341 and the project that prohibits the end of physical money.” The deputy believes that with a strong awareness and pressure movement, it is possible to advance the debate and ensure Brazilians’ financial freedom.

What’s at Stake?

Julia Zanatta leaves no doubt: DREX represents a profound shift in how money will be used and controlled in Brazil. More than a simple modernization of the financial system, the Central Bank’s CBDC sets precedents for an unprecedented level of citizen surveillance and control in the country. For the deputy, this transition needs to be debated broadly and transparently, and it’s up to the Brazilian people to defend their rights and demand that the National Congress discuss these changes responsibly.

The deputy also emphasizes that, regardless of political or partisan views, this issue affects all Brazilians. “This agenda is something that will affect everyone. We need to be united to ensure people understand the gravity of what could happen.” Julia believes that by sharing information and generating open debate, it is possible to prevent Brazil from following the path of countries that have already implemented a digital currency in an authoritarian way.

A Call to Action

The future of physical money in Brazil is at risk. For those who share Deputy Julia Zanatta’s concerns, the time to act is now. Mobilize, get informed, and press your representatives. PL 3341/2024 is an opportunity to ensure that Brazilian citizens have a choice in how to use their money, without excessive state interference or surveillance.

In the end, as the deputy puts it, the central issue is freedom. “My fear is that this project will pass, and people won’t even understand what is happening.” Therefore, may every citizen at least have the chance to understand what’s at stake and make their voice heard in defense of a Brazil where individual freedom and privacy are respected values.

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Imagine sending a private message to a friend, only to learn that authorities could be scanning its contents without your knowledge. This isn't a scene from a dystopian novel but a potential reality under the European Union's proposed "Chat Control" measures. Aimed at combating serious crimes like child exploitation and terrorism, these proposals could significantly impact the privacy of everyday internet users. As encrypted messaging services become the norm for personal and professional communication, understanding Chat Control is essential. This article delves into what Chat Control entails, why it's being considered, and how it could affect your right to private communication.

https://www.fountain.fm/episode/coOFsst7r7mO1EP1kSzV

Sections:

• Introduction
• What Is Chat Control?
• Why Is the EU Pushing for Chat Control?
• The Privacy Concerns and Risks
• The Technical Debate: Encryption and Backdoors
• Global Reactions and the Debate in Europe
• Possible Consequences for Messaging Services
• What Happens Next? The Future of Chat Control
• Conclusion

What Is Chat Control?

"Chat Control" refers to a set of proposed measures by the European Union aimed at monitoring and scanning private communications on messaging platforms. The primary goal is to detect and prevent the spread of illegal content, such as child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and to combat terrorism. While the intention is to enhance security and protect vulnerable populations, these proposals have raised significant privacy concerns.

At its core, Chat Control would require messaging services to implement automated scanning technologies that can analyze the content of messages—even those that are end-to-end encrypted. This means that the private messages you send to friends, family, or colleagues could be subject to inspection by algorithms designed to detect prohibited content.

Origins of the Proposal

The initiative for Chat Control emerged from the EU's desire to strengthen its digital security infrastructure. High-profile cases of online abuse and the use of encrypted platforms by criminal organizations have prompted lawmakers to consider more invasive surveillance tactics. The European Commission has been exploring legislation that would make it mandatory for service providers to monitor communications on their platforms.

How Messaging Services Work

Most modern messaging apps, like Signal, Session, SimpleX, Veilid, Protonmail and Tutanota (among others), use end-to-end encryption (E2EE). This encryption ensures that only the sender and the recipient can read the messages being exchanged. Not even the service providers can access the content. This level of security is crucial for maintaining privacy in digital communications, protecting users from hackers, identity thieves, and other malicious actors.

Key Elements of Chat Control

• Automated Content Scanning: Service providers would use algorithms to scan messages for illegal content.
• Circumvention of Encryption: To scan encrypted messages, providers might need to alter their encryption methods, potentially weakening security.
• Mandatory Reporting: If illegal content is detected, providers would be required to report it to authorities.
• Broad Applicability: The measures could apply to all messaging services operating within the EU, affecting both European companies and international platforms.

Why It Matters

Understanding Chat Control is essential because it represents a significant shift in how digital privacy is handled. While combating illegal activities online is crucial, the methods proposed could set a precedent for mass surveillance and the erosion of privacy rights. Everyday users who rely on encrypted messaging for personal and professional communication might find their conversations are no longer as private as they once thought.

Why Is the EU Pushing for Chat Control?

The European Union's push for Chat Control stems from a pressing concern to protect its citizens, particularly children, from online exploitation and criminal activities. With the digital landscape becoming increasingly integral to daily life, the EU aims to strengthen its ability to combat serious crimes facilitated through online platforms.

Protecting Children and Preventing Crime

One of the primary motivations behind Chat Control is the prevention of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) circulating on the internet. Law enforcement agencies have reported a significant increase in the sharing of illegal content through private messaging services. By implementing Chat Control, the EU believes it can more effectively identify and stop perpetrators, rescue victims, and deter future crimes.

Terrorism is another critical concern. Encrypted messaging apps can be used by terrorist groups to plan and coordinate attacks without detection. The EU argues that accessing these communications could be vital in preventing such threats and ensuring public safety.

Legal Context and Legislative Drivers

The push for Chat Control is rooted in several legislative initiatives:

• ePrivacy Directive: This directive regulates the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in electronic communications. The EU is considering amendments that would allow for the scanning of private messages under specific circumstances.

• Temporary Derogation: In 2021, the EU adopted a temporary regulation permitting voluntary detection of CSAM by communication services. The current proposals aim to make such measures mandatory and more comprehensive.

• Regulation Proposals: The European Commission has proposed regulations that would require service providers to detect, report, and remove illegal content proactively. This would include the use of technologies to scan private communications.

Balancing Security and Privacy

EU officials argue that the proposed measures are a necessary response to evolving digital threats. They emphasize the importance of staying ahead of criminals who exploit technology to harm others. By implementing Chat Control, they believe law enforcement can be more effective without entirely dismantling privacy protections.

However, the EU also acknowledges the need to balance security with fundamental rights. The proposals include provisions intended to limit the scope of surveillance, such as:

• Targeted Scanning: Focusing on specific threats rather than broad, indiscriminate monitoring.

• Judicial Oversight: Requiring court orders or oversight for accessing private communications.

• Data Protection Safeguards: Implementing measures to ensure that data collected is handled securely and deleted when no longer needed.

The Urgency Behind the Push

High-profile cases of online abuse and terrorism have heightened the sense of urgency among EU policymakers. Reports of increasing online grooming and the widespread distribution of illegal content have prompted calls for immediate action. The EU posits that without measures like Chat Control, these problems will continue to escalate unchecked.

Criticism and Controversy

Despite the stated intentions, the push for Chat Control has been met with significant criticism. Opponents argue that the measures could be ineffective against savvy criminals who can find alternative ways to communicate. There is also concern that such surveillance could be misused or extended beyond its original purpose.

The Privacy Concerns and Risks

While the intentions behind Chat Control focus on enhancing security and protecting vulnerable groups, the proposed measures raise significant privacy concerns. Critics argue that implementing such surveillance could infringe on fundamental rights and set a dangerous precedent for mass monitoring of private communications.

Infringement on Privacy Rights

At the heart of the debate is the right to privacy. By scanning private messages, even with automated tools, the confidentiality of personal communications is compromised. Users may no longer feel secure sharing sensitive information, fearing that their messages could be intercepted or misinterpreted by algorithms.

Erosion of End-to-End Encryption

End-to-end encryption (E2EE) is a cornerstone of digital security, ensuring that only the sender and recipient can read the messages exchanged. Chat Control could necessitate the introduction of "backdoors" or weaken encryption protocols, making it easier for unauthorized parties to access private data. This not only affects individual privacy but also exposes communications to potential cyber threats.

Concerns from Privacy Advocates

Organizations like Signal and Tutanota, which offer encrypted messaging services, have voiced strong opposition to Chat Control. They warn that undermining encryption could have far-reaching consequences:

• Security Risks: Weakening encryption makes systems more vulnerable to hacking, espionage, and cybercrime.
• Global Implications: Changes in EU regulations could influence policies worldwide, leading to a broader erosion of digital privacy.
• Ineffectiveness Against Crime: Determined criminals might resort to other, less detectable means of communication, rendering the measures ineffective while still compromising the privacy of law-abiding citizens.

Potential for Government Overreach

There is a fear that Chat Control could lead to increased surveillance beyond its original scope. Once the infrastructure for scanning private messages is in place, it could be repurposed or expanded to monitor other types of content, stifling free expression and dissent.

Real-World Implications for Users

• False Positives: Automated scanning technologies are not infallible and could mistakenly flag innocent content, leading to unwarranted scrutiny or legal consequences for users.
• Chilling Effect: Knowing that messages could be monitored might discourage people from expressing themselves freely, impacting personal relationships and societal discourse.
• Data Misuse: Collected data could be vulnerable to leaks or misuse, compromising personal and sensitive information.

Legal and Ethical Concerns

Privacy advocates also highlight potential conflicts with existing laws and ethical standards:

• Violation of Fundamental Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights and other international agreements protect the right to privacy and freedom of expression.
• Questionable Effectiveness: The ethical justification for such invasive measures is challenged if they do not significantly improve safety or if they disproportionately impact innocent users.

Opposition from Member States and Organizations

Countries like Germany and organizations such as the European Digital Rights (EDRi) have expressed opposition to Chat Control. They emphasize the need to protect digital privacy and caution against hasty legislation that could have unintended consequences.

The Technical Debate: Encryption and Backdoors

The discussion around Chat Control inevitably leads to a complex technical debate centered on encryption and the potential introduction of backdoors into secure communication systems. Understanding these concepts is crucial to grasping the full implications of the proposed measures.

What Is End-to-End Encryption (E2EE)?

End-to-end encryption is a method of secure communication that prevents third parties from accessing data while it's transferred from one end system to another. In simpler terms, only the sender and the recipient can read the messages. Even the service providers operating the messaging platforms cannot decrypt the content.

• Security Assurance: E2EE ensures that sensitive information—be it personal messages, financial details, or confidential business communications—remains private.
• Widespread Use: Popular messaging apps like Signal, Session, SimpleX, Veilid, Protonmail and Tutanota (among others) rely on E2EE to protect user data.

How Chat Control Affects Encryption

Implementing Chat Control as proposed would require messaging services to scan the content of messages for illegal material. To do this on encrypted platforms, providers might have to:

• Introduce Backdoors: Create a means for third parties (including the service provider or authorities) to access encrypted messages.
• Client-Side Scanning: Install software on users' devices that scans messages before they are encrypted and sent, effectively bypassing E2EE.

The Risks of Weakening Encryption

1. Compromised Security for All Users

Introducing backdoors or client-side scanning tools can create vulnerabilities:

• Exploitable Gaps: If a backdoor exists, malicious actors might find and exploit it, leading to data breaches.
• Universal Impact: Weakening encryption doesn't just affect targeted individuals; it potentially exposes all users to increased risk.

2. Undermining Trust in Digital Services

• User Confidence: Knowing that private communications could be accessed might deter people from using digital services or push them toward unregulated platforms.
• Business Implications: Companies relying on secure communications might face increased risks, affecting economic activities.

3. Ineffectiveness Against Skilled Adversaries

• Alternative Methods: Criminals might shift to other encrypted channels or develop new ways to avoid detection.
• False Sense of Security: Weakening encryption could give the impression of increased safety while adversaries adapt and continue their activities undetected.

Signal’s Response and Stance

Signal, a leading encrypted messaging service, has been vocal in its opposition to the EU's proposals:

• Refusal to Weaken Encryption: Signal's CEO Meredith Whittaker has stated that the company would rather cease operations in the EU than compromise its encryption standards.
• Advocacy for Privacy: Signal emphasizes that strong encryption is essential for protecting human rights and freedoms in the digital age.

Understanding Backdoors

A "backdoor" in encryption is an intentional weakness inserted into a system to allow authorized access to encrypted data. While intended for legitimate use by authorities, backdoors pose several problems:

• Security Vulnerabilities: They can be discovered and exploited by unauthorized parties, including hackers and foreign governments.
• Ethical Concerns: The existence of backdoors raises questions about consent and the extent to which governments should be able to access private communications.

The Slippery Slope Argument

Privacy advocates warn that introducing backdoors or mandatory scanning sets a precedent:

• Expanded Surveillance: Once in place, these measures could be extended to monitor other types of content beyond the original scope.
• Erosion of Rights: Gradual acceptance of surveillance can lead to a significant reduction in personal freedoms over time.

Potential Technological Alternatives

Some suggest that it's possible to fight illegal content without undermining encryption:

• Metadata Analysis: Focusing on patterns of communication rather than content.
• Enhanced Reporting Mechanisms: Encouraging users to report illegal content voluntarily.
• Investing in Law Enforcement Capabilities: Strengthening traditional investigative methods without compromising digital security.

Conclusion of the Technical Debate

The technical community largely agrees that weakening encryption is not the solution:

• Consensus on Security: Strong encryption is essential for the safety and privacy of all internet users.
• Call for Dialogue: Technologists and privacy experts advocate for collaborative approaches that address security concerns without sacrificing fundamental rights.

Global Reactions and the Debate in Europe

The proposal for Chat Control has ignited a heated debate across Europe and beyond, with various stakeholders weighing in on the potential implications for privacy, security, and fundamental rights. The reactions are mixed, reflecting differing national perspectives, political priorities, and societal values.

Support for Chat Control

Some EU member states and officials support the initiative, emphasizing the need for robust measures to combat online crime and protect citizens, especially children. They argue that:

• Enhanced Security: Mandatory scanning can help law enforcement agencies detect and prevent serious crimes.
• Responsibility of Service Providers: Companies offering communication services should play an active role in preventing their platforms from being used for illegal activities.
• Public Safety Priorities: The protection of vulnerable populations justifies the implementation of such measures, even if it means compromising some aspects of privacy.

Opposition within the EU

Several countries and organizations have voiced strong opposition to Chat Control, citing concerns over privacy rights and the potential for government overreach.

Germany

• Stance: Germany has been one of the most vocal opponents of the proposed measures.
• Reasons:
• Constitutional Concerns: The German government argues that Chat Control could violate constitutional protections of privacy and confidentiality of communications.
• Security Risks: Weakening encryption is seen as a threat to cybersecurity.
• Legal Challenges: Potential conflicts with national laws protecting personal data and communication secrecy.

Netherlands

• Recent Developments: The Dutch government decided against supporting Chat Control, emphasizing the importance of encryption for security and privacy.
• Arguments:
• Effectiveness Doubts: Skepticism about the actual effectiveness of the measures in combating crime.
• Negative Impact on Privacy: Concerns about mass surveillance and the infringement of citizens' rights.

Table reference: Patrick Breyer - Chat Control in 23 September 2024

Privacy Advocacy Groups

European Digital Rights (EDRi)

• Role: A network of civil and human rights organizations working to defend rights and freedoms in the digital environment.
• Position:
• Strong Opposition: EDRi argues that Chat Control is incompatible with fundamental rights.
• Awareness Campaigns: Engaging in public campaigns to inform citizens about the potential risks.
• Policy Engagement: Lobbying policymakers to consider alternative approaches that respect privacy.

Politicians and Activists

Patrick Breyer

• Background: A Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from Germany, representing the Pirate Party.
• Actions:
• Advocacy: Actively campaigning against Chat Control through speeches, articles, and legislative efforts.
• Public Outreach: Using social media and public events to raise awareness.
• Legal Expertise: Highlighting the legal inconsistencies and potential violations of EU law.

Global Reactions

International Organizations

• Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International: These organizations have expressed concerns about the implications for human rights, urging the EU to reconsider.

Technology Companies

• Global Tech Firms: Companies like Apple and Microsoft are monitoring the situation, as EU regulations could affect their operations and user trust.
• Industry Associations: Groups representing tech companies have issued statements highlighting the risks to innovation and competitiveness.

The Broader Debate

The controversy over Chat Control reflects a broader struggle between security interests and privacy rights in the digital age. Key points in the debate include:

• Legal Precedents: How the EU's decision might influence laws and regulations in other countries.
• Digital Sovereignty: The desire of nations to control digital spaces within their borders.
• Civil Liberties: The importance of protecting freedoms in the face of technological advancements.

Public Opinion

• Diverse Views: Surveys and public forums show a range of opinions, with some citizens prioritizing security and others valuing privacy above all.
• Awareness Levels: Many people are still unaware of the potential changes, highlighting the need for public education on the issue.

Conclusion of the Debate

The EU is at a crossroads, facing the challenge of addressing legitimate security concerns without undermining the fundamental rights that are central to its values. The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for the future of digital privacy and the balance between security and freedom in society.

Possible Consequences for Messaging Services

The implementation of Chat Control could have significant implications for messaging services operating within the European Union. Both large platforms and smaller providers might need to adapt their technologies and policies to comply with the new regulations, potentially altering the landscape of digital communication.

Impact on Encrypted Messaging Services

Signal and Similar Platforms

• Compliance Challenges: Encrypted messaging services like Signal rely on end-to-end encryption to secure user communications. Complying with Chat Control could force them to weaken their encryption protocols or implement client-side scanning, conflicting with their core privacy principles.

• Operational Decisions: Some platforms may choose to limit their services in the EU or cease operations altogether rather than compromise on encryption. Signal, for instance, has indicated that it would prefer to withdraw from European markets than undermine its security features.

Potential Blocking or Limiting of Services

• Regulatory Enforcement: Messaging services that do not comply with Chat Control regulations could face fines, legal action, or even be blocked within the EU.

• Access Restrictions: Users in Europe might find certain services unavailable or limited in functionality if providers decide not to meet the regulatory requirements.

Effects on Smaller Providers

• Resource Constraints: Smaller messaging services and startups may lack the resources to implement the required scanning technologies, leading to increased operational costs or forcing them out of the market.

• Innovation Stifling: The added regulatory burden could deter new entrants, reducing competition and innovation in the messaging service sector.

User Experience and Trust

• Privacy Concerns: Users may lose trust in messaging platforms if they know their communications are subject to scanning, leading to a decline in user engagement.

• Migration to Unregulated Platforms: There is a risk that users might shift to less secure or unregulated services, including those operated outside the EU or on the dark web, potentially exposing them to greater risks.

Technical and Security Implications

• Increased Vulnerabilities: Modifying encryption protocols to comply with Chat Control could introduce security flaws, making platforms more susceptible to hacking and data breaches.

• Global Security Risks: Changes made to accommodate EU regulations might affect the global user base of these services, extending security risks beyond European borders.

Impact on Businesses and Professional Communications

• Confidentiality Issues: Businesses that rely on secure messaging for sensitive communications may face challenges in ensuring confidentiality, affecting sectors like finance, healthcare, and legal services.

• Compliance Complexity: Companies operating internationally will need to navigate a complex landscape of differing regulations, increasing administrative burdens.

Economic Consequences

• Market Fragmentation: Divergent regulations could lead to a fragmented market, with different versions of services for different regions.

• Loss of Revenue: Messaging services might experience reduced revenue due to decreased user trust and engagement or the costs associated with compliance.

Responses from Service Providers

• Legal Challenges: Companies might pursue legal action against the regulations, citing conflicts with privacy laws and user rights.

• Policy Advocacy: Service providers may increase lobbying efforts to influence policy decisions and promote alternatives to Chat Control.

Possible Adaptations

• Technological Innovation: Some providers might invest in developing new technologies that can detect illegal content without compromising encryption, though the feasibility remains uncertain.

• Transparency Measures: To maintain user trust, companies might enhance transparency about how data is handled and what measures are in place to protect privacy.

Summary of Consequences

The potential consequences of Chat Control for messaging services are profound, affecting not only the companies that provide these services but also the users who rely on them daily. The balance between complying with legal requirements and maintaining user privacy and security presents a significant challenge that could reshape the digital communication landscape.

What Happens Next? The Future of Chat Control

The future of Chat Control remains uncertain as the debate continues among EU member states, policymakers, technology companies, and civil society organizations. Several factors will influence the outcome of this contentious proposal, each carrying significant implications for digital privacy, security, and the regulatory environment within the European Union.

Current Status of Legislation

• Ongoing Negotiations: The proposed Chat Control measures are still under discussion within the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Amendments and revisions are being considered in response to the feedback from various stakeholders.

• Timeline: While there is no fixed date for the final decision, the EU aims to reach a consensus to implement effective measures against online crime without undue delay.

Key Influencing Factors

1. Legal Challenges and Compliance with EU Law

• Fundamental Rights Assessment: The proposals must be evaluated against the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, ensuring that any measures comply with rights to privacy, data protection, and freedom of expression.

• Court Scrutiny: Potential legal challenges could arise, leading to scrutiny by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which may impact the feasibility and legality of Chat Control.

2. Technological Feasibility

• Development of Privacy-Preserving Technologies: Research into methods that can detect illegal content without compromising encryption is ongoing. Advances in this area could provide alternative solutions acceptable to both privacy advocates and security agencies.

• Implementation Challenges: The practical aspects of deploying scanning technologies across various platforms and services remain complex, and technical hurdles could delay or alter the proposed measures.

3. Political Dynamics

• Member State Positions: The differing stances of EU countries, such as Germany's opposition, play a significant role in shaping the final outcome. Consensus among member states is crucial for adopting EU-wide regulations.

• Public Opinion and Advocacy: Growing awareness and activism around digital privacy can influence policymakers. Public campaigns and lobbying efforts may sway decisions in favor of stronger privacy protections.

4. Industry Responses

• Negotiations with Service Providers: Ongoing dialogues between EU authorities and technology companies may lead to compromises or collaborative efforts to address concerns without fully implementing Chat Control as initially proposed.

• Potential for Self-Regulation: Messaging services might propose self-regulatory measures to combat illegal content, aiming to demonstrate effectiveness without the need for mandatory scanning.

Possible Scenarios

Optimistic Outcome:

• Balanced Regulation: A revised proposal emerges that effectively addresses security concerns while upholding strong encryption and privacy rights, possibly through innovative technologies or targeted measures with robust oversight.

Pessimistic Outcome:

• Adoption of Strict Measures: Chat Control is implemented as initially proposed, leading to weakened encryption, reduced privacy, and potential withdrawal of services like Signal from the EU market.

Middle Ground:

• Incremental Implementation: Partial measures are adopted, focusing on voluntary cooperation with service providers and emphasizing transparency and user consent, with ongoing evaluations to assess effectiveness and impact.

How to Stay Informed and Protect Your Privacy

• Follow Reputable Sources: Keep up with news from reliable outlets, official EU communications, and statements from privacy organizations to stay informed about developments.

• Engage in the Dialogue: Participate in public consultations, sign petitions, or contact representatives to express your views on Chat Control and digital privacy.

• Utilize Secure Practices: Regardless of legislative outcomes, adopting good digital hygiene—such as using strong passwords and being cautious with personal information—can enhance your online security.

The Global Perspective

• International Implications: The EU's decision may influence global policies on encryption and surveillance, setting precedents that other countries might follow or react against.

• Collaboration Opportunities: International cooperation on developing solutions that protect both security and privacy could emerge, fostering a more unified approach to addressing online threats.

Looking Ahead

The future of Chat Control is a critical issue that underscores the challenges of governing in the digital age. Balancing the need for security with the protection of fundamental rights is a complex task that requires careful consideration, open dialogue, and collaboration among all stakeholders.

As the situation evolves, staying informed and engaged is essential. The decisions made in the coming months will shape the digital landscape for years to come, affecting how we communicate, conduct business, and exercise our rights in an increasingly connected world.

Conclusion

The debate over Chat Control highlights a fundamental challenge in our increasingly digital world: how to protect society from genuine threats without eroding the very rights and freedoms that define it. While the intention to safeguard children and prevent crime is undeniably important, the means of achieving this through intrusive surveillance measures raise critical concerns.

Privacy is not just a personal preference but a cornerstone of democratic societies. End-to-end encryption has become an essential tool for ensuring that our personal conversations, professional communications, and sensitive data remain secure from unwanted intrusion. Weakening these protections could expose individuals and organizations to risks that far outweigh the proposed benefits.

The potential consequences of implementing Chat Control are far-reaching:

• Erosion of Trust: Users may lose confidence in digital platforms, impacting how we communicate and conduct business online.
• Security Vulnerabilities: Introducing backdoors or weakening encryption can make systems more susceptible to cyberattacks.
• Stifling Innovation: Regulatory burdens may hinder technological advancement and competitiveness in the tech industry.
• Global Implications: The EU's decisions could set precedents that influence digital policies worldwide, for better or worse.

As citizens, it's crucial to stay informed about these developments. Engage in conversations, reach out to your representatives, and advocate for solutions that respect both security needs and fundamental rights. Technology and policy can evolve together to address challenges without compromising core values.

The future of Chat Control is not yet decided, and public input can make a significant difference. By promoting open dialogue, supporting privacy-preserving innovations, and emphasizing the importance of human rights in legislation, we can work towards a digital landscape that is both safe and free.

In a world where digital communication is integral to daily life, striking the right balance between security and privacy is more important than ever. The choices made today will shape the digital environment for generations to come, determining not just how we communicate, but how we live and interact in an interconnected world.

---

Thank you for reading this article. We hope it has provided you with a clear understanding of Chat Control and its potential impact on your privacy and digital rights. Stay informed, stay engaged, and let's work together towards a secure and open digital future.

Read more:

• https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/
• https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/new-eu-push-for-chat-control-will-messenger-services-be-blocked-in-europe/
• https://edri.org/our-work/dutch-decision-puts-brakes-on-chat-control/
• https://signal.org/blog/pdfs/ndss-keynote.pdf
• https://tuta.com/blog/germany-stop-chat-control
• https://cointelegraph.com/news/signal-president-slams-revised-eu-encryption-proposal
• https://mullvad.net/en/why-privacy-matters

@ f977c464:32fcbe00

Güneşin kaybolmasının üçüncü günü, saat öğlen on ikiyi yirmi geçiyordu. Trenin kalkmasına yaklaşık iki saat vardı. Hepimiz perondaydık. Valizlerimiz, kolilerimiz, renk renk ve biçimsiz çantalarımızla yan yana dizilmiş, kısa aralıklarla tepemizdeki devasa saati kontrol ediyorduk.

Ama ne kadar dik bakarsak bakalım zaman bir türlü istediğimiz hızla ilerlemiyordu. Herkes birkaç dakika sürmesi gereken alelade bir doğa olayına sıkışıp kalmış, karanlıktan sürünerek çıkmayı deniyordu.

Bekleme salonuna doğru döndüm. Nefesimden çıkan buharın arkasında, kalın taş duvarları ve camlarıyla morg kadar güvenli ve soğuk duruyordu. Cesetleri o yüzden bunun gibi yerlere taşımaya başlamışlardı. Demek insanların bütün iyiliği başkaları onları gördüğü içindi ki gündüzleri gecelerden daha karanlık olduğunda hemen birbirlerinin gırtlağına çökmüş, böğürlerinde delikler açmış, gözlerini oyup kafataslarını parçalamışlardı.

İstasyonun ışığı titrediğinde karanlığın enseme saplandığını hissettim. Eğer şimdi, böyle kalabalık bir yerde elektrik kesilse başımıza ne gelirdi?

İçerideki askerlerden biri bakışlarımı yakalayınca yeniden saate odaklanmış gibi yaptım. Sadece birkaç dakika geçmişti.

“Tarlalarım gitti. Böyle boyum kadar ayçiçeği doluydu. Ah, hepsi ölüp gidiyor. Afitap’ın çiçekleri de gi-”

“Dayı, Allah’ını seversen sus. Hepimizi yakacaksın şimdi.”

Karanlıkta durduğunda, görünmez olmayı istemeye başlıyordun. Kimse seni görmemeli, nefesini bile duymamalıydı. Kimsenin de ayağının altında dolaşmamalıydın; gelip kazayla sana çarpmamalılar, takılıp sendelememeliydiler. Yoksa aslında hedefi sen olmadığın bir öfke gürlemeye başlar, yaşadığın ilk şoku ve acıyı silerek üstünden geçerdi.

İlk konuşan, yaşlıca bir adam, kafasında kasketi, nasırlı ellerine hohluyordu. Gözleri ve burnu kızarmıştı. Güneşin kaybolması onun için kendi başına bir felaket değildi. Hayatına olan pratik yansımalarından korkuyordu olsa olsa. Bir anının kaybolması, bu yüzden çoktan kaybettiği birinin biraz daha eksilmesi. Hayatta kalmasını gerektiren sebepler azalırken, hayatta kalmasını sağlayacak kaynaklarını da kaybediyordu.

Onu susturan delikanlıysa atkısını bütün kafasına sarmış, sakalı ve yüzünün derinliklerine kaçmış gözleri dışında bedeninin bütün parçalarını gizlemeye çalışıyordu. İşte o, güneşin kaybolmasının tam olarak ne anlama geldiğini anlamamış olsa bile, dehşetini olduğu gibi hissedebilenlerdendi.

Güneşin onlardan alındıktan sonra kime verileceğini sormuyorlardı. En başta onlara verildiğinde de hiçbir soru sormamışlardı zaten.

İki saat ne zaman geçer?

Midemin üstünde, sağ tarafıma doğru keskin bir acı hissettim. Karaciğerim. Gözlerimi yumdum. Yanımda biri metal bir nesneyi yere bıraktı. Bir kafesti. İçerisindeki kartalın ıslak kokusu burnuma ulaşmadan önce bile biliyordum bunu.

“Yeniden mi?” diye sordu bana kartal. Kanatları kanlı. Zamanın her bir parçası tüylerinin üstüne çöreklenmişti. Gagası bir şey, tahminen et parçası geveliyor gibi hareket ediyordu. Eski anılar kolay unutulmazmış. Şu anda kafesinin kalın parmaklıklarının ardında olsa da bunun bir aldatmaca olduğunu bir tek ben biliyordum. Her an kanatlarını iki yana uzatıverebilir, hava bu hareketiyle dalgalanarak kafesi esneterek hepimizi içine alacak kadar genişleyebilir, parmaklıklar önce ayaklarımızın altına serilir gibi gözükebilir ama aslında hepimizin üstünde yükselerek tepemize çökebilirdi.

Aşağıya baktım. Tahtalarla zapt edilmiş, hiçbir yere gidemeyen ama her yere uzanan tren rayları. Atlayıp koşsam… Çantam çok ağırdı. Daha birkaç adım atamadan, kartal, suratını bedenime gömerdi.

“Bu sefer farklı,” diye yanıtladım onu. “Yeniden diyemezsin. Tekrarladığım bir şey değil bu. Hatta bir hata yapıyormuşum gibi tonlayamazsın da. Bu sefer, insanların hak etmediğini biliyorum.”

“O zaman daha vahim. Süzme salaksın demektir.”

“İnsanların hak etmemesi, insanlığın hak etmediği anlamına gelmez ki.”

Az önce göz göze geldiğim genççe ama çökük asker hâlâ bana bakıyordu. Bir kartalla konuştuğumu anlamamıştı şüphesiz. Yanımdakilerden biriyle konuştuğumu sanmış olmalıydı. Ama konuştuğum kişiye bakmıyordum ona göre. Çekingence kafamı eğmiştim. Bir kez daha göz göze geldiğimizde içerideki diğer iki askere bir şeyler söyledi, onlar dönüp beni süzerken dışarı çıktı.

Yanımızdaki, az önce konuşan iki adam da şaşkınlıkla bir bana bir kartala bakıyordu.

“Yalnız bu sefer kalbin de kırılacak, Prometheus,” dedi kartal, bana. “Belki son olur. Biliyorsun, bir sürü soruna neden oluyor bu yaptıkların.”

Beni koruyordu sözde. En çok kanıma dokunan buydu. Kasıklarımın üstüne oturmuş, kanlı suratının ardında gözleri parlarken attığı çığlık kulaklarımda titremeye devam ediyordu. Bu tabloda kimsenin kimseyi düşündüğü yoktu. Kartalın, yanımızdaki adamların, artık arkama kadar gelmiş olması gereken askerin, tren raylarının, geçmeyen saatlerin…

Arkamı döndüğümde, asker sahiden oradaydı. Zaten öyle olması gerekiyordu; görmüştüm bunu, biliyordum. Kehanetler… Bir şeyler söylüyordu ama ağzı oynarken sesi çıkmıyordu. Yavaşlamış, kendisini saatin akışına uydurmuştu. Havada donan tükürüğünden anlaşılıyordu, sinirliydi. Korktuğu için olduğunu biliyordum. Her seferinde korkmuşlardı. Beni unutmuş olmaları işlerini kolaylaştırmıyordu. Sadece yeni bir isim vermelerine neden oluyordu. Bu seferkiyle beni lanetleyecekleri kesinleşmişti.

Olması gerekenle olanların farklı olması ne kadar acınasıydı. Olması gerekenlerin doğasının kötücül olmasıysa bir yerde buna dayanıyordu.

“Salaksın,” dedi kartal bana. Zamanı aşan bir çığlık. Hepimizin önüne geçmişti ama kimseyi durduramıyordu.

Sonsuzluğa kaç tane iki saat sıkıştırabilirsiniz?

Ben bir tane bile sıkıştıramadım.

Çantama uzanıyordum. Asker de sırtındaki tüfeğini indiriyordu. Benim acelem yoktu, onunsa eli ayağı birbirine dolaşıyordu. Oysaki her şey tam olması gerektiği anda olacaktı. Kehanet başkasının parmaklarının ucundaydı.

Güneş, bir tüfeğin patlamasıyla yeryüzüne doğdu.

Rayların üzerine serilmiş göğsümün ortasından, bir çantanın içinden.

Not: Bu öykü ilk olarak 2021 yılında Esrarengiz Hikâyeler'de yayımlanmıştır.

@ f977c464:32fcbe00

Kendisini aynada ilk defa gördüğü o gün, diğerleri gibi olduğunu anlamıştı. Oysaki her insan biricik olmalıydı. Sözgelimi sinirlendiğinde bir kaşı diğerinden birkaç milimetre daha az çatılabilirdi veya sevindiğinde dudağı ona has bir açıyla dalgalanabilirdi. Hatta bunların hiçbiri mümkün değilse, en azından, gözlerinin içinde sadece onun sahip olabileceği bir ışık parlayabilirdi. Çok sıradan, öyle sıradan ki kimsenin fark etmediği o milyonlarca minik şeyden herhangi biri. Ne olursa.

Ama yansımasına bakarken bunların hiçbirini bulamadı ve diğer günlerden hiç de farklı başlamamış o gün, işe gitmek için vagonunun gelmesini beklediği alelade bir metro istasyonunda, içinde kaybolduğu illüzyon dağılmaya başladı.

İlk önce derisi döküldü. Tam olarak dökülmedi aslında, daha çok kıvılcımlara dönüşüp bedeninden fırlamış ve bir an sonra sönerek külleşmiş, havada dağılmıştı. Ardında da, kaybolmadan hemen önce, kısa süre için hayal meyal görülebilen, bir ruhun yok oluşuna ağıt yakan rengârenk peri cesetleri bırakmıştı. Beklenenin aksine, havaya toz kokusu yayıldı.

Dehşete düştü elbette. Dehşete düştüler. Panikle üstlerini yırtan 50 işçi. Her şeyin sebebiyse o vagon.

Saçları da döküldü. Her tel, yere varmadan önce, her santimde ikiye ayrıla ayrıla yok oldu.

Bütün yüzeylerin mat olduğu, hiçbir şeyin yansımadığı, suyun siyah aktığı ve kendine ancak kameralarla bakabildiğin bir dünyada, vagonun içine yerleştirilmiş bir aynadan ilk defa kendini görmek.

Gözlerinin akları buharlaşıp havada dağıldı, mercekleri boşalan yeri doldurmak için eriyip yayıldı. Gerçeği görmemek için yaratılmış, bu yüzden görmeye hazır olmayan ve hiç olmayacak gözler.

Her şeyin o anda sona erdiğini sanabilirdi insan. Derin bir karanlık ve ölüm. Görmenin görmek olduğu o anın bitişi.

---

Ben geldiğimde ölmüşlerdi.

Yani bozulmuşlardı demek istiyorum.

Belleklerini yeni taşıyıcılara takmam mümkün olmadı. Fiziksel olarak kusursuz durumdaydılar, olmayanları da tamir edebilirdim ama tüm o hengamede kendilerini baştan programlamış ve girdilerini modifiye etmişlerdi.

Belleklerden birini masanın üzerinden ileriye savurdu. Hınca hınç dolu bir barda oturuyorlardı. O ve arkadaşı.

Sırf şu kendisini insan sanan androidler travma geçirip delirmesin diye neler yapıyoruz, insanın aklı almıyor.

Eliyle arkasını işaret etti.

Polislerin söylediğine göre biri vagonun içerisine ayna yerleştirmiş. Bu zavallılar da kapı açılıp bir anda yansımalarını görünce kafayı kırmışlar.

Arkadaşı bunların ona ne hissettirdiğini sordu. Yani o kadar bozuk, insan olduğunu sanan androidi kendilerini parçalamış olarak yerde görmek onu sarsmamış mıydı?

Hayır, sonuçta belirli bir amaç için yaratılmış şeyler onlar. Kaliteli bir bilgisayarım bozulduğunda üzülürüm çünkü parasını ben vermişimdir. Bunlarsa devletin. Bana ne ki?

Arkadaşı anlayışla kafasını sallayıp suyundan bir yudum aldı. Kravatını biraz gevşetti.

Bira istemediğinden emin misin?

İstemediğini söyledi. Sahi, neden deliriyordu bu androidler?

Basit. Onların yapay zekâlarını kodlarken bir şeyler yazıyorlar. Yazılımcılar. Biliyorsun, ben donanımdayım. Bunlar da kendilerini insan sanıyorlar. Tiplerine bak.

Sesini alçalttı.

Arabalarda kaza testi yapılan mankenlere benziyor hepsi. Ağızları burunları bile yok ama şu geldiğimizden beri sakalını düzeltip duruyor mesela. Hayır, hepsi de diğerleri onun sakalı varmış sanıyor, o manyak bir şey.

Arkadaşı bunun delirmeleriyle bağlantısını çözemediğini söyledi. O da normal sesiyle konuşmaya devam etti.

Anlasana, aynayı falan ayırt edemiyor mercekleri. Lönk diye kendilerini görüyorlar. Böyle, olduğu gibi...

Nedenmiş peki? Ne gerek varmış?

Ne bileyim be abicim! Ahiret soruları gibi.

Birasına bakarak dalıp gitti. Sonra masaya abanarak arkadaşına iyice yaklaştı. Bulanık, bir tünelin ucundaki biri gibi, şekli şemalı belirsiz bir adam.

Ben seni nereden tanıyorum ki ulan? Kimsin sen?

Belleği makineden çıkardılar. İki kişiydiler. Soruşturmadan sorumlu memurlar.

─ Baştan mı başlıyoruz, diye sordu belleği elinde tutan ilk memur.

─ Bir kere daha deneyelim ama bu sefer direkt aynayı sorarak başla, diye cevapladı ikinci memur.

─ Bence de. Yeterince düzgün çalışıyor.

Simülasyon yüklenirken, ayakta, biraz arkada duran ve alnını kaşıyan ikinci memur sormaktan kendisini alamadı:

─ Bu androidleri niye böyle bir olay yerine göndermişler ki? Belli tost olacakları. İsraf. Gidip biz baksak aynayı kırıp delilleri mahvetmek zorunda da kalmazlar.

Diğer memur sandalyesinde hafifçe dönecek oldu, o sırada soruyu bilgisayarın hoparlöründen teknisyen cevapladı.

Hangi işimizde bir yamukluk yok ki be abi.

---

Ama bir son değildi. Üstlerindeki tüm illüzyon dağıldığında ve çıplak, cinsiyetsiz, birbirinin aynı bedenleriyle kaldıklarında sıra dünyaya gelmişti.

Yere düştüler. Elleri -bütün bedeni gibi siyah turmalinden, boğumları çelikten- yere değdiği anda, metronun zemini dağıldı.

Yerdeki karolar öncesinde beyazdı ve çok parlaktı. Tepelerindeki floresan, ışığını olduğu gibi yansıtıyor, tek bir lekenin olmadığı ve tek bir tozun uçmadığı istasyonu aydınlatıyorlardı.

Duvarlara duyurular asılmıştı. Örneğin, yarın akşam kültür merkezinde 20.00’da başlayacak bir tekno blues festivalinin cıvıl cıvıl afişi vardı. Onun yanında daha geniş, sarı puntolu harflerle yazılmış, yatay siyah kesiklerle çerçevesi çizilmiş, bir platformdan düşen çöp adamın bulunduğu “Dikkat! Sarı bandı geçmeyin!” uyarısı. Biraz ilerisinde günlük resmi gazete, onun ilerisinde bir aksiyon filminin ve başka bir romantik komedi filminin afişleri, yapılacakların ve yapılmayacakların söylendiği küçük puntolu çeşitli duyurular... Duvar uzayıp giden bir panoydu. On, on beş metrede bir tekrarlanıyordu.

Tüm istasyonun eni yüz metre kadar. Genişliği on metre civarı.

Önlerinde, açık kapısından o mendebur aynanın gözüktüğü vagon duruyordu. Metro, istasyona sığmayacak kadar uzundu. Bir kılıcın keskinliğiyle uzanıyor ama yer yer vagonların ek yerleriyle bölünüyordu.

Hiçbir vagonda pencere olmadığı için metronun içi, içlerindekiler meçhuldü.

Sonrasında karolar zerrelerine ayrılarak yükseldi. Floresanın ışığında her yeri toza boğdular ve ortalığı gri bir sisin altına gömdüler. Çok kısa bir an. Afişleri dalgalandırmadılar. Dalgalandırmaya vakitleri olmadı. Yerlerinden söküp aldılar en fazla. Işık birkaç kere sönüp yanarak direndi. Son kez söndüğünde bir daha geri gelmedi.

Yine de etraf aydınlıktı. Kırmızı, her yere eşit dağılan soluk bir ışıkla.

Yer tamamen tele dönüşmüştü. Altında çapraz hatlarla desteklenmiş demir bir iskelet. Işık birkaç metreden daha fazla aşağıya uzanamıyordu. Sonsuzluğa giden bir uçurum.

Duvarın yerini aynı teller ve demir iskelet almıştı. Arkasında, birbirine vidalarla tutturulmuş demir plakalardan oluşan, üstünden geçen boruların ek yerlerinden bazen ince buharların çıktığı ve bir süre asılı kaldıktan sonra ağır, yağlı bir havayla sürüklendiği bir koridor.

Diğer tarafta paslanmış, pencerelerindeki camlar kırıldığı için demir plakalarla kapatılmış külüstür bir metro. Kapının karşısındaki aynadan her şey olduğu gibi yansıyordu.

---

Bir konteynırın içini andıran bir evde, gerçi gayet de birbirine eklenmiş konteynırlardan oluşan bir şehirde “andıran” demek doğru olmayacağı için düpedüz bir konteynırın içinde, masaya mum görüntüsü vermek için koyulmuş, yarı katı yağ atıklarından şekillendirilmiş kütleleri yakmayı deniyordu. Kafasında hayvan kıllarından yapılmış grili siyahlı bir peruk. Aynı kıllardan kendisine gür bir bıyık da yapmıştı.

Üstünde mavi çöp poşetlerinden yapılmış, kravatlı, şık bir takım.

Masanın ayakları yerine oradan buradan çıkmış parçalar konulmuştu: bir arabanın şaft mili, üst üste konulmuş ve üstünde yazı okunamayan tenekeler, boş kitaplar, boş gazete balyaları... Hiçbir şeye yazı yazılmıyordu, gerek yoktu da zaten çünkü merkez veri bankası onları fark ettirmeden, merceklerden giren veriyi sentezleyerek insanlar için dolduruyordu. Yani, androidler için. Farklı şekilde isimlendirmek bir fark yaratacaksa.

Onların mercekleri için değil. Bağlantıları çok önceden kopmuştu.

─ Hayatım, sofra hazır, diye bağırdı yatak odasındaki karısına.

Sofrada tabak yerine düz, bardak yerine bükülmüş, çatal ve bıçak yerine sivriltilmiş plakalar.

Karısı salonun kapısında durakladı ve ancak kulaklarına kadar uzanan, kocasınınkine benzeyen, cansız, ölü hayvanların kıllarından ibaret peruğunu eliyle düzeltti. Dudağını, daha doğrusu dudağının olması gereken yeri koyu kırmızı bir yağ tabakasıyla renklendirmeyi denemişti. Biraz da yanaklarına sürmüştü.

─ Nasıl olmuş, diye sordu.

Sesi tek düzeydi ama hafif bir neşe olduğunu hissettiğinize yemin edebilirdiniz.

Üzerinde, çöp poşetlerinin içini yazısız gazete kağıtlarıyla doldurarak yaptığı iki parça giysi.

─ Çok güzelsin, diyerek kravatını düzeltti kocası.

─ Sen de öylesin, sevgilim.

Yaklaşıp kocasını öptü. Kocası da onu. Sonra nazikçe elinden tutarak, sandalyesini geriye çekerek oturmasına yardım etti.

Sofrada yemek niyetine hiçbir şey yoktu. Gerek de yoktu zaten.

Konteynırın kapısı gürültüyle tekmelenip içeri iki memur girene kadar birbirlerine öyküler anlattılar. O gün neler yaptıklarını. İşten erken çıkıp yemyeşil çimenlerde gezdiklerini, uçurtma uçurduklarını, kadının nasıl o elbiseyi bulmak için saatlerce gezip yorulduğunu, kocasının kısa süreliğine işe dönüp nasıl başarılı bir hamleyle yaşanan krizi çözdüğünü ve kadının yanına döndükten sonra, alışveriş merkezinde oturdukları yeni dondurmacının dondurmalarının ne kadar lezzetli olduğunu, boğazlarının ağrımasından korktuklarını...

Akşam film izleyebilirlerdi, televizyonda -boş ve mat bir plaka- güzel bir film oynayacaktı.

İki memur. Çıplak bedenleriyle birbirinin aynı. Ellerindeki silahları onlara doğrultmuşlardı. Mum ışığında, tertemiz bir örtünün serili olduğu masada, bardaklarında şaraplarla oturan ve henüz sofranın ortasındaki hindiye dokunmamış çifti gördüklerinde bocaladılar.

Hiç de androidlere bilinçli olarak zarar verebilecek gibi gözükmüyorlardı.

─ Sessiz kalma hakkına sahipsiniz, diye bağırdı içeri giren ikinci memur. Söylediğiniz her şey...

Cümlesini bitiremedi. Yatak odasındaki, masanın üzerinden gördüğü o şey, onunla aynı hareketleri yapan android, yoksa, bir aynadaki yansıması mıydı?

Bütün illüzyon o anda dağılmaya başladı.

Not: Bu öykü ilk olarak 2020 yılında Esrarengiz Hikâyeler'de yayımlanmıştır.

@ 8fb140b4:f948000c

Embarking on the journey of operating your own Lightning node on the Bitcoin Layer 2 network is more than just a tech-savvy endeavor; it's a step into a realm of financial autonomy and cutting-edge innovation. By running a node, you become a vital part of a revolutionary movement that's reshaping how we think about money and digital transactions. This role not only offers a unique perspective on blockchain technology but also places you at the heart of a community dedicated to decentralization and network resilience. Beyond the technicalities, it's about embracing a new era of digital finance, where you contribute directly to the network's security, efficiency, and growth, all while gaining personal satisfaction and potentially lucrative rewards.

In essence, running your own Lightning node is a powerful way to engage with the forefront of blockchain technology, assert financial independence, and contribute to a more decentralized and efficient Bitcoin network. It's an adventure that offers both personal and communal benefits, from gaining in-depth tech knowledge to earning a place in the evolving landscape of cryptocurrency.

Running your own Lightning node for the Bitcoin Layer 2 network can be an empowering and beneficial endeavor. Here are 10 reasons why you might consider taking on this task:

1. Direct Contribution to Decentralization: Operating a node is a direct action towards decentralizing the Bitcoin network, crucial for its security and resistance to control or censorship by any single entity.

2. Financial Autonomy: Owning a node gives you complete control over your financial transactions on the network, free from reliance on third-party services, which can be subject to fees, restrictions, or outages.

3. Advanced Network Participation: As a node operator, you're not just a passive participant but an active player in shaping the network, influencing its efficiency and scalability through direct involvement.

4. Potential for Higher Revenue: With strategic management and optimal channel funding, your node can become a preferred route for transactions, potentially increasing the routing fees you can earn.

5. Cutting-Edge Technological Engagement: Running a node puts you at the forefront of blockchain and bitcoin technology, offering insights into future developments and innovations.

6. Strengthened Network Security: Each new node adds to the robustness of the Bitcoin network, making it more resilient against attacks and failures, thus contributing to the overall security of the ecosystem.

7. Personalized Fee Structures: You have the flexibility to set your own fee policies, which can balance earning potential with the service you provide to the network.

8. Empowerment Through Knowledge: The process of setting up and managing a node provides deep learning opportunities, empowering you with knowledge that can be applied in various areas of blockchain and fintech.

9. Boosting Transaction Capacity: By running a node, you help to increase the overall capacity of the Lightning Network, enabling more transactions to be processed quickly and at lower costs.

10. Community Leadership and Reputation: As an active node operator, you gain recognition within the Bitcoin community, which can lead to collaborative opportunities and a position of thought leadership in the space.

These reasons demonstrate the impactful and transformative nature of running a Lightning node, appealing to those who are deeply invested in the principles of bitcoin and wish to actively shape its future. Jump aboard, and embrace the journey toward full independence. 🐶🐾🫡🚀🚀🚀

@ 8fb140b4:f948000c

Chef's notes

Serving these two dishes together will create a delightful centerpiece for your Thanksgiving meal, offering a perfect blend of traditional flavors with a homemade touch.

Details

• ⏲️ Prep time: 30 min
• 🍳 Cook time: 1 - 2 hours
• 🍽️ Servings: 4-6

Ingredients

• 1 whole turkey (about 12-14 lbs), thawed and ready to cook
• 1 cup unsalted butter, softened
• 2 tablespoons fresh thyme, chopped
• 2 tablespoons fresh rosemary, chopped
• 2 tablespoons fresh sage, chopped
• Salt and freshly ground black pepper
• 1 onion, quartered
• 1 lemon, halved
• 2-3 cloves of garlic
• Apple and Sage Stuffing
• 1 loaf of crusty bread, cut into cubes
• 2 apples, cored and chopped
• 1 onion, diced
• 2 stalks celery, diced
• 3 cloves garlic, minced
• 1/4 cup fresh sage, chopped
• 1/2 cup unsalted butter
• 2 cups chicken broth
• Salt and pepper, to taste

Directions

1. Preheat the Oven: Set your oven to 325°F (165°C).
2. Prepare the Herb Butter: Mix the softened butter with the chopped thyme, rosemary, and sage. Season with salt and pepper.
3. Prepare the Turkey: Remove any giblets from the turkey and pat it dry. Loosen the skin and spread a generous amount of herb butter under and over the skin.
4. Add Aromatics: Inside the turkey cavity, place the quartered onion, lemon halves, and garlic cloves.
5. Roast: Place the turkey in a roasting pan. Tent with aluminum foil and roast. A general guideline is about 15 minutes per pound, or until the internal temperature reaches 165°F (74°C) at the thickest part of the thigh.
6. Rest and Serve: Let the turkey rest for at least 20 minutes before carving.
7. Next: Apple and Sage Stuffing
8. Dry the Bread: Spread the bread cubes on a baking sheet and let them dry overnight, or toast them in the oven.
9. Cook the Vegetables: In a large skillet, melt the butter and cook the onion, celery, and garlic until soft.
10. Combine Ingredients: Add the apples, sage, and bread cubes to the skillet. Stir in the chicken broth until the mixture is moist. Season with salt and pepper.
11. Bake: Transfer the stuffing to a baking dish and bake at 350°F (175°C) for about 30-40 minutes, until golden brown on top.

@ 8fb140b4:f948000c

Testing a brand new YakiHonne native client for iOS. Smooth as butter (not penis butter 🤣🍆🧈) with great visual experience and intuitive navigation. Amazing work by the team behind it! * lists * work

Bold text work!

Images could have used nostr.build instead of raw S3 from us-east-1 region.

Very impressive! You can even save the draft and continue later, before posting the long-form note!

🐶🐾🤯🤯🤯🫂💜

@ 8fb140b4:f948000c

As the title states, scratch behind my ear and you get it. 🐶🐾🫡

@ 8fb140b4:f948000c

Test Bounty Note

@ 8fb140b4:f948000c

Intro

This short tutorial will help you set up your own Nostr Wallet Connect (NWC) on your own LND Node that is not using Umbrel. If you are a user of Umbrel, you should use their version of NWC.

Requirements

You need to have a working installation of LND with established channels and connectivity to the internet. NWC in itself is fairly light and will not consume a lot of resources. You will also want to ensure that you have a working installation of Docker, since we will use a docker image to run NWC.

• Working installation of LND (and all of its required components)
• Docker (with Docker compose)

Installation

For the purpose of this tutorial, we will assume that you have your lnd/bitcoind running under user bitcoin with home directory /home/bitcoin. We will also assume that you already have a running installation of Docker (or docker.io).

Prepare and verify

git version - we will need git to get the latest version of NWC. docker version - should execute successfully and show the currently installed version of Docker. docker compose version - same as before, but the version will be different. ss -tupln | grep 10009- should produce the following output: tcp LISTEN 0 4096 0.0.0.0:10009 0.0.0.0: tcp LISTEN 0 4096 [::]:10009 [::]:**

For things to work correctly, your Docker should be version 20.10.0 or later. If you have an older version, consider installing a new one using instructions here: https://docs.docker.com/engine/install/

Create folders & download NWC

In the home directory of your LND/bitcoind user, create a new folder, e.g., "nwc" mkdir /home/bitcoin/nwc. Change to that directory cd /home/bitcoin/nwc and clone the NWC repository: git clone https://github.com/getAlby/nostr-wallet-connect.git

Creating the Docker image

In this step, we will create a Docker image that you will use to run NWC.

• Change directory to nostr-wallet-connect: cd nostr-wallet-connect
• Run command to build Docker image: docker build -t nwc:$(date +'%Y%m%d%H%M') -t nwc:latest . (there is a dot at the end)
• The last line of the output (after a few minutes) should look like => => naming to docker.io/library/nwc:latest
• nwc:latest is the name of the Docker image with a tag which you should note for use later.

Creating docker-compose.yml and necessary data directories

• Let's create a directory that will hold your non-volatile data (DB): mkdir data
• Indocker-compose.ymlfile, there are fields that you want to replace (<> comments) and port “4321” that you want to make sure is open (check with ss -tupln | grep 4321which should return nothing).
• Create docker-compose.ymlfile with the following content, and make sure to update fields that have <> comment:

version: "3.8" services: nwc: image: nwc:latest volumes: - ./data:/data - ~/.lnd:/lnd:ro ports: - "4321:8080" extra_hosts: - "localhost:host-gateway" environment: NOSTR_PRIVKEY: <use "openssl rand -hex 32" to generate a fresh key and place it inside ""> LN_BACKEND_TYPE: "LND" LND_ADDRESS: localhost:10009 LND_CERT_FILE: "/lnd/tls.cert" LND_MACAROON_FILE: "/lnd/data/chain/bitcoin/mainnet/admin.macaroon" DATABASE_URI: "/data/nostr-wallet-connect.db" COOKIE_SECRET: <use "openssl rand -hex 32" to generate fresh secret and place it inside ""> PORT: 8080 restart: always stop_grace_period: 1m

Starting and testing

Now that you have everything ready, it is time to start the container and test.

• While you are in the nwcdirectory (important), execute the following command and check the log output, docker compose up
• You should see container logs while it is starting, and it should not exit if everything went well.
• At this point, you should be able to go to http://<ip of the host where nwc is running>:4321 and get to the interface of NWC
• To stop the test run of NWC, simply press Ctrl-C , and it will shut the container down.
• To start NWC permanently, you should execute docker compose up -d , “-d” tells Docker to detach from the session.
• To check currently running NWC logs, execute docker compose logs to run it in tail mode add -f to the end.
• To stop the container, execute docker compose down

That's all, just follow the instructions in the web interface to get started.

Updating

As with any software, you should expect fixes and updates that you would need to perform periodically. You could automate this, but it falls outside of the scope of this tutorial. Since we already have all of the necessary configuration in place, the update execution is fairly simple.

• Change directory to the clone of the git repository, cd /home/bitcoin/nwc/nostr-wallet-connect
• Run command to build Docker image: docker build -t nwc:$(date +'%Y%m%d%H%M') -t nwc:latest . (there is a dot at the end)
• Change directory back one level cd ..
• Restart (stop and start) the docker compose config docker compose down && docker compose up -d
• Done! Optionally you may want to check the logs: docker compose logs

@ 361d3e1e:50bc10a8

https://forex-strategy.com/2024/11/06/trump-is-back-in-the-white-house/ Trump is back in the White House The 47th president of the United States knows what to do with the deep state.

usa #trump #politics #maga #vote2024 #elections2024 #pepublicans

@ f462d21e:1390b6b1

eyJfaWQiOiI2Njk1ZmZjZDUyYTMzYTg2YTMxOGUxYzAiLCJ1c2VybmFtZSI6ImtoYWxlZCIsImZlZWRiYWNrU2NvcmUiOjAsImNyZWF0ZWRfb24iOiIyMDI0LTA3LTE2VDA1OjA2OjIxLjA0OFoiLCJ0cmFkZXMiOjEsInRyYWRpbmdQYXJ0bmVycyI6MSwicHVibGljS2V5IjoiZGI0MzViZjAzYzU4Zjk4NTEwMzZiODZkYjI4OGIxMTJkYWRkYzAzMjc5ZTQ0MzkzOTY2MzkzYzE0MDQ3OWEwYyJ9

@ f462d21e:1390b6b1

eyJfaWQiOiI2Njk1ZmZjZDUyYTMzYTg2YTMxOGUxYzAiLCJ1c2VybmFtZSI6ImtoYWxlZCIsImZlZWRiYWNrU2NvcmUiOjAsImNyZWF0ZWRfb24iOiIyMDI0LTA3LTE2VDA1OjA2OjIxLjA0OFoiLCJ0cmFkZXMiOjEsInRyYWRpbmdQYXJ0bmVycyI6MSwicHVibGljS2V5IjoiZGI0MzViZjAzYzU4Zjk4NTEwMzZiODZkYjI4OGIxMTJkYWRkYzAzMjc5ZTQ0MzkzOTY2MzkzYzE0MDQ3OWEwYyJ9

@ f462d21e:1390b6b1

eyJfaWQiOiI2Njk1ZmZjZDUyYTMzYTg2YTMxOGUxYzAiLCJ1c2VybmFtZSI6ImtoYWxlZCIsImZlZWRiYWNrU2NvcmUiOjAsImNyZWF0ZWRfb24iOiIyMDI0LTA3LTE2VDA1OjA2OjIxLjA0OFoiLCJ0cmFkZXMiOjEsInRyYWRpbmdQYXJ0bmVycyI6MSwicHVibGljS2V5IjoiZGI0MzViZjAzYzU4Zjk4NTEwMzZiODZkYjI4OGIxMTJkYWRkYzAzMjc5ZTQ0MzkzOTY2MzkzYzE0MDQ3OWEwYyJ9

@ a012dc82:6458a70d

Table Of Content

• Understanding the Bitcoin Sale

• Potential Reasons for the Sale

• Impact on the Market

• Market Response and Investor Sentiment

• Conclusion

• FAQ

The cryptocurrency market is known for its volatility and the constant fluctuations in asset prices. In 2023, a significant Bitcoin sale took place, capturing the attention of investors and enthusiasts alike. Long-term investors made a decision to sell off nearly 50,000 BTC, leading to discussions about the implications of this sale and the factors that might have influenced it.

Understanding the Bitcoin Sale

The sale of nearly 50,000 BTC by long-term investors suggests a shift in market dynamics. These investors, who had held their Bitcoin for an extended period, decided to realize their profits and exit their positions. Such large-scale sales can have a considerable impact on the market, affecting Bitcoin's price and overall market sentiment.

Potential Reasons for the Sale

Several factors might have influenced long-term investors to sell off their Bitcoin holdings:

Profit-taking

Long-term investors often accumulate Bitcoin with the intention of selling it at a higher price in the future. If they believed that the current price levels provided a satisfactory return on their investment, they may have chosen to take profits.

Market Conditions

Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile, and investors closely monitor market trends. If they perceived a potential downturn or correction in Bitcoin's price, they may have decided to sell to protect their gains or minimize potential losses.

Portfolio Diversification

Investors may have decided to rebalance their investment portfolios by reducing their exposure to Bitcoin. Diversifying their holdings across various asset classes can help manage risk and potentially enhance long-term returns.

Personal Circumstances

Individual investors may have had specific personal or financial reasons for selling their Bitcoin. These could include the need for liquidity, funding other investment opportunities, or addressing personal financial obligations.

Impact on the Market

A significant sale of Bitcoin by long-term investors can have a short-term impact on the market. Depending on the volume of the sale and the prevailing market conditions, it may lead to a temporary decline in Bitcoin's price due to increased selling pressure. However, market dynamics are complex, and the impact of such sales can vary depending on the overall market sentiment and the response of other market participants.

Market Response and Investor Sentiment

The response to this significant Bitcoin sale largely depends on investor sentiment and market perception. Some investors may interpret it as a sign of decreasing confidence in Bitcoin's long-term prospects. Others may see it as a natural occurrence in a market characterized by profit-taking and portfolio adjustments. The market's response to such events can offer insights into the overall sentiment and provide valuable information for future investment decisions.

Conclusion

The significant Bitcoin sale by long-term investors in 2023 highlights the dynamic nature of the cryptocurrency market. Investors' decisions to sell off nearly 50,000 BTC can be influenced by various factors, including profit-taking, market conditions, portfolio diversification, and personal circumstances. While such sales can impact the market in the short term, it is essential to consider them within the broader context of market dynamics and individual investment strategies.

FAQ

What is the significance of the significant Bitcoin sale by long-term investors? The significant Bitcoin sale by long-term investors indicates a shift in market dynamics and can impact Bitcoin's price and overall market sentiment.

Why did long-term investors decide to sell off nearly 50,000 BTC? There can be several reasons behind the decision to sell, including profit-taking, market conditions, portfolio diversification, and personal circumstances.

How does such a sale affect the market? A significant sale of Bitcoin can lead to a temporary decline in its price due to increased selling pressure. However, the impact on the market depends on various factors and the response of other market participants.

What does this sale suggest about investor sentiment towards Bitcoin? The response to the sale can vary among investors. Some may view it as a lack of confidence in Bitcoin's long-term prospects, while others may see it as a natural occurrence in a volatile market.

That's all for today

If you want more, be sure to follow us on:

NOSTR: croxroad@getalby.com

X: @croxroadnews

Instagram: @croxroadnews.co

Youtube: @croxroadnews

Store: https://croxroad.store

Subscribe to CROX ROAD Bitcoin Only Daily Newsletter

https://www.croxroad.co/subscribe

DISCLAIMER: None of this is financial advice. This newsletter is strictly educational and is not investment advice or a solicitation to buy or sell any assets or to make any financial decisions. Please be careful and do your own research.

@ 35f3a26c:92ddf231

@ 1123ece2:7d1e00c0

Welcome to The Refinery.

“The Christ of John’s Gospel” is the theme for the coming Sunday Morning teachings that focus on John’s unique portrayal of the Christ.

We will continue this series through to the end of the year.

Today we are discussing, When Religion Gets Sick.

John 2:15-16 NKJV

15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables.

16 And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!”

Scripture Reading

John 2:13-25 NKJV

Jesus Cleanses the Temple

13 Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

14 And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business.

15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables.

16 And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!”

17 Then His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up.”

18 So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?”

19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

20 Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”

21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body.

22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.

The Discerner of Hearts

23 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did.

24 But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men,

25 and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man.

A famous preacher once asked, “What is worse than having no religion?”

Then after a pause, he answered his own question, “Having no religion is bad, but having the wrong kind of religion is even worse.”

I believe having a sick religion may be worse than having no religion at all.

Jesus was concerned with sick religion as indicated by his driving the money changes out of the temple.

Much of Judaism had gotten sick, and the Great Physician Himself had come to bring healing.

What did Jesus see in the temple that caused such aggressive action?

The lost sense of awe and respect for God.

The Jews had lost the profound sense of awe and respect for God.

Look carefully at what Jesus observed when He visited the temple.

Many Jewish patrons were coming and going.

They had little respect for what took place in the temple, namely, communion with God.

They bought and sold animals, and they exchanged money as if the court of the Gentiles was a marketplace.

God had intended the temple to be a meeting place for human beings and Himself.

He had not intended the temple to be a den of thieves.

He wanted it to be a place of prayer.

Christians often lose their sense of awe and reverence for God as well don't they.

As people go about the routine of Bible study and church attendance, they can lose reverence for God.

The Lord, His church, and His book become rather ordinary.

Jesus’ is anger was aroused when He saw a lost sense of awe and reference for His Father.

Religion can get sick when the sense of the wonder of God departs from a person or a group of people.The lost sense of the cost of religion.

The Jews had lost sight of the cost of serving the Lord.

The presentation of the animals in temple sacrifice represented a commitment on the part of the worshippers.

God wanted the Jews to present the best animals out of their flocks.

This would mean that they gave their best to God.

When Jesus walked into the temple, He saw that religion had been made cheap.

People were told, “Leave your animals at home and buy one in the temple.”

Purchasing animals from the temple merchants cheapened the sacrificial system.

And this angered the Master.

Modern Christians have lost sight of the cost of commitment.

Following Christ and belonging to a church have become cheap.

The German Pastor, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, during World War Two, said that when Jesus calls a man to follow Him, He calls him to die to himself.

Nothing short of total commitment will satisfy the Saviour.

The lost sense of the outsider.

The Jews had lost the sense of the Gentiles’ need.

The place where the money changers and merchants did business was in the court of the Gentiles.

This was a place within the temple precinct where Gentiles, outsiders, could come and learn of the Lord.

Most of the Jews in Jesus’ time were not concerned for the Gentiles.

They were concerned about their rituals but not for the mission of being a blessing to the nations that God had given them.

Modern Christians can lose the sense of the outsider.

The church can easily become an exclusive club with a preoccupation for its membership.

Religion gets sick when people turn inward and do not look outward for the sinners.

Conclusion.

How is the health of your Christian expression?

If you do not mind, let’s have a checkup.

Is there a great thrill over the greatness and grandeur of God?

Or are you taking shortcuts?

Are you asking for the minimal requirements?

Then what about your concern for others?

Let’s keep our religion healthy and growing.

Until next time

Stay in the Blessings

I really want to encourage you to be diligent with your Bible study time, because God has so much more for us than we can get from just going to church once or twice a week and hearing someone else talk about the Word.

When you spend time with God, your life will change in amazing ways, because God is a Redeemer. Theres nothing thats too hard for Him, and He can make you whole, spirit, soul and body!

You’re important to God, and you’re important to us at The Refinery.

When it comes to prayer, we believe that God wants to meet your needs and reveal His promises to you.

So whatever you’re concerned about and need prayer for we want to be here for you! Or even if you just want to say Hi, you can contact us at www.refinerylife.org

2024 IS A YEAR OF DECISIONS AND OPEN DOORS

© www.refinerylife.org  2013-2024 All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the Australian Copyright Act 1968, no part of this Article may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, communicated or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission.

This episode is brought to you by Refinery Life Australia:

If you enjoy The Refinery Life Radio Podcast you can help support The Refinery by doing the following:

Sow an offering: Bitcoin: bc1qqh6720t2zagj72dyfj348az698tdut3hlecaj4

Online: https://www.refinerylife.org/donate/

If you do send an offering then please email us so that we can say thank you

Subscribe on iTunes | Spotify | YouTube | TuneIn | Rumble | Flare | Zap.Stream | Fountain |

Share The Refinery with your friends and family

Subscribe to the newsletter on www.refinerylife.org

Follow The Refinery on Twitter | Nostr | Instagram | Fountain |

@ 35f3a26c:92ddf231

Who is the Cult of the Dead Cow (cDc)?

A known USA based hacktivist group. According to the record in Wikipedia, it was started in 1984 at the Farm Pac slaughterhouse by Grandmaster Ratte' (aka Swamp Ratte'), Franken Gibe, Sid Vicious, and three BBS SysOps

You can check their member list in their web site

Thinks of the cDc group that I have found quite interesting

• Group member Drunkfux (Jesse Dryden) is the grand nephew of Charlie Chaplin
• In 1991, the group began distributing music in the form of cassette tape albums
• In November 1994, the group claimed responsibility for giving President Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's disease, claiming to have done so in 1986 with a blowgun
• In 1995, the group declared war on the Church of Scientology stating "We believe that El Ron Hubbard [sic] is actually none other than Heinrich Himmler of the SS, who fled to Argentina and is now responsible for the stealing of babies from hospitals and raising them as 'super-soldiers' for the purpose of overthrowing the U.S. Fed. Govt. in a bloody revolution. We fear plans for a 'Fourth Reich' to be established on our home soil under the vise-like grip of oppression known as Scientology!"
• On January 7, 1999, the group joined with an international coalition of hackers to denounce a call to cyber-war against the governments of China and Iraq
• In February 2000, the group was the subject of an 11 minute documentary short titled "Disinformation".
• In February 2000, a member of the group by the code-name Mudge briefed President Bill Clinton on "Internet security".
• In 2003 the tool created by the group by the name of Six/Four System became the first product of a hacker group to receive approval from the United States Department of Commerce for export of strong encryption
• Member by the name of "Psychedelic Warlord" is congressman Beto O'Rourke, an American politician who served as the U.S. representative for Texas's 16th congressional district from 2013 to 2019. A member of the Democratic Party, party's nominee for the U.S. Senate in 2018, candidate for the presidential nomination in 2020, and the party's nominee for the 2022 Texas gubernatorial election.

Do they have a political affiliation?

From the previous section we could at least assume that they sympathize with the USA Democratic party, they supported President Bill Clinton and claimed responsibility for doing serious harm to President Ronald Reagan, I could not find any information if the government opened an investigation about this allegation or not.

Their latest contribution?

Recently, they have developed an application framework by the name of Veilid, described as "like TOR" but for apps.

This application framework, if adopted by many developers will improve privacy by default for applications developed under that framework. The web site claim that it is open source

You can review the information and project at the web site: VEILID

In the Web site the group describe it as follows:

"Veilid allows anyone to build a distributed, private app. Veilid gives users the privacy to opt out of data collection and online tracking. Veilid is being built with user experience, privacy, and safety as our top priorities. It is open source and available to everyone to use and build upon."

"Veilid goes above and beyond existing privacy technologies and has the potential to completely change the way people use the Internet. Veilid has no profit motive, which puts us in a unique position to promote ideals without the compromise of capitalism."

Summary

Veilid seems to be exactly what is needed at the moment to bring privacy to the masses, even though TOR is doing a very good job and with the improved throughput its usage experience has improved, having a native privacy oriented FOSS application framework is paramount.

Most people is not technically savvy and therefore, not skilled in cyber security, they are constantly victims of cyber crime in many forms and shapes. eliminating one vector of attack by making the applications to opt out of data collection and online tracking from the get go is a step in the right direction, the question is, Would developers in general use the framework? Considering the ads will not be a possible source of income if the framework is used, well... Time will say...

@ 35f3a26c:92ddf231

How disappointing to observe Bitcoiners still using mainly YouTube to distribute their own content or content of interest for the community...

It would be nice if more Bitcoiners , specially the ones with channels start sharing as well in Odysee or other platforms less centralized and totalitarian...

BTC

Bitcoin

Odysee

Nostr

@ 35f3a26c:92ddf231

What is Bitaxe?

Bitaxe is an open source ASIC (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit) Bitcoin miner that has been making waves in the cryptocurrency community. This innovative project aims to empower miners at every level with powerful, efficient, and low-cost mining solutions.

It is a fully open source ASIC Bitcoin miner developed by Skot9000, an advocate for open-source innovation in the Bitcoin space.

With all software and hardware specs available on GitHub, this project aims to provide miners with a transparent and accessible platform for Bitcoin mining.

https://image.nostr.build/db35c2a028e9f740181daabe2deef4e707653fa2d82f1602086e0ac4b5ee84fd.png

Pros

1. Open Source: The Bitaxe is fully open source, allowing users to access and modify its source code, hardware designs, and build gerbers for PCB ordering.

2. Low Cost: Bitaxe offers low-cost solutions for miners, making it an attractive option for those looking to enter the world of Bitcoin mining without breaking the bank.

3. Efficient: The Bitaxe series is designed to be power-efficient, utilizing either the Bitmain BM1387 or BM1397 ASICs for SHA256 hashing.

Cons

1. Technical Complexity: Being an open-source project, users are required to be technically savvy to set up and maintain the miner, which could pose challenges for those without experience.

2. Bricking Potential: Like any complex technology, there is a risk of bricking (rendering the device unusable) the Bitaxe if not handled properly.

Summary

The Bitaxe represents an exciting development in the world of Bitcoin mining, offering a low cost, efficient, and open-source solution for miners. While it may present some challenges for users who are new to the technology or lack technical expertise, the potential benefits far outweigh these drawbacks. As the project continues to evolve and gain traction, we can expect to see further improvements in performance, accessibility, and innovation within the Bitcoin mining landscape.

Where can I get more information

Go to their Github page: https://github.com/skot/bitaxe

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/659572

@ 3c7dc2c5:805642a8

🧠Quote(s) of the week:

'If you made $500,000 per day, every single day since the Great Pyramids were built, you would have less than half of what the US Gov has borrowed since January 2024. Opt-out. Buy Bitcoin' -BitcoinTeddy

If Trump wins, you’re going to want to own Bitcoin. If Harris wins, you’re going to want to own Bitcoin.

🧡Bitcoin news🧡

Let me start this week's Weekly Recap with the upcoming election.

Whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump wins the election, it doesn't matter. The only thing we know for sure will happen is that the debt (ceiling) will grow.

The scariest thing to happen on Halloween this year? The US Treasury added a mind-boggling $105 billion to the national debt in a single day on the 3rd of November, and the total now stands at $35.95 trillion.

So with the upcoming election, everything changes, but nothing changes. They all print, print, and print. Whoever is in charge, can not resist the urge to kick the can down the road and steal from future generations.

'There is no red. There is no blue. There is the State. And there is you.' - WalkerAmerika

If Trump wins, you’re going to want to own Bitcoin. If Harris wins, you’re going to want to own Bitcoin.

On the 29th of October:

➡️Bitcoin just reached a new ATH in the Shitcoin called Euro.

➡️3.161 BTC. That's the amount of Bitcoin that didn't end up in a Pool wallet today, or a Wall Street miners wallet, or an ETF. One out of 144 blocks mined today went to a sovereign individual who constructed his or her own block using their own node and hardware.

Zero middlemen... great thread. Worth your time: https://x.com/JStefanop1/status/1851080807747551476

Vires in Numerus!

➡️Florida's Chief Financial Officer urges the State Board of Administration to add BTC to the Florida Growth Fund. The states are coming, brace yourself.

➡️+$76m Bitcoin leveraged shorts got liquidated overnight. Rekt! Don't do leverage people!

➡️Dennis Porter and his team SatoshiActFund is doing God's work: "I can confirm that for the first time in US history, a Democrat lawmaker in a Democrat trifecta state will introduce legislation to defend the rights of Bitcoiners.

This is a key move that will redefine the political movement for Bitcoin for years to come. Bitcoin is in alignment with American values like freedom and equality. Americans from both sides of the aisle deeply understand the potential of Bitcoin to provide for a more prosperous future. As we enter the 2024 election, it is more important than ever that Bitcoin maintains its position as a non-partisan technology. For the USA to greatly benefit from Bitcoin, both sides must embrace the technology which is why the news of ‘Bitcoin Rights’ making its way through a deep blue state is so important. Extreme partisan rhetoric seeks to pit Americans against Americans. Neighbors against neighbors. Bitcoin is a tool that can bridge the political divide and unite our country. The future is bright when we pursue a world where Bitcoin is used as a tool for unity and peace. More news on this will continue as we enter 2025."

➡️Just last week, Charles Schwab gave MicroStrategy the worst possible equity ranking of F.

Meanwhile, MSTR is up nearly 20% in the last 5 trading days, and MicroStrategy is over $8.4 billion in profit on its Bitcoin position.

On the 30th of October:

➡️BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF took in $599 million today as they bought 8820 Bitcoin. Madness

'BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF has surpassed $30 billion in assets in record time. The fastest-growing ETF in history' -Bitcoin Magazine

➡️MicroStrategy announces intention to raise $21b of equity and $21b of convertible debt. One word: CONVICTION!

Saylor wants to buy $42 billion in BTC over the next 3 years. At current prices, that works out to ~577,160 BTC. Only ~492,750 BTC will be issued over the next 3 years. Hello, supply shock! You have no idea how high we are going.

➡️Other companies have lettuce hands:

Reddit sold the majority of its Bitcoin before BTC started pumping in October — SEC filing.

On the 31st of October:

➡️Massive net inflows this week, US Spot ETFs now hold over 1 million.

➡️MicroStrategy is now worth $4.8 Billion more than Coinbase.

Let that sink in: MicroStrategy is a company that changed from making software to buying BlTC0lN in 2020. They own 252,220 BlTC0lN worth $17 billion, which is 1% of all Bitcoin that will ever exist.

MicroStrategy's stock has gone up 1,500% since 1999, beating Microsoft's 1,460%.

Meanwhile, look what happened to Coinbase after they announced their stock buybacks instead of buying Bitcoin as a treasury reserve asset. Classic!

➡️US Treasury releases report on how stablecoins increase the demand for US debt.

On the 1st of November:

➡️'Bitcoin up 10% in October.

When September and Oct have been green, Bitcoin has continued going up for the rest of the year about 31% on average. That would push Bitcoin to $91,000 by the end of this year.' - Bitcoin Archive

➡️The Central Bank of Argentina (BCRA) began to artistically display Bitcoin miners and other mining machines today.

It is the first Central Bank in the world to do so.

We know that at least 5 countries are mining Bitcoin with government resources. El Salvador, Bhutan, UAU, Ethiopia and Argentina.

➡️Metaplanet has been the best-performing stock year to date in Japan. I wonder why!?

➡️ Bitcoin hash rate going absolutely ballistic. Bitcoin is by far the most secure decentralized Network on planet Earth.

➡️Short-term holders panicked as $BTC dropped below $70,000, and over $2 billion was sent to exchanges at a loss, the most since the Yen carry trade unwound when Bitcoin fell to $49K. Freaking lettuce hands.

➡️Strive Asset Management, co-founded by Vivek Ramaswamy, announces it’s embracing Bitcoin in Texas. Managing $1.7B, Strive reports a core part of its business moving forward will be “integrating Bitcoin into standard portfolios of everyday Americans.”

➡️Florida holds $800 million in crypto-related investments - Florida State CFO

On the 3rd of November:

➡️'Bitcoin always dumps right before the U.S. elections. But look at what happens next' -CryptoRover

As we have seen before. The Shake phase: Push up, shake out, break out.

➡️Cartwright, a multi-billion dollar UK pension fund, just announced a 3% Bitcoin allocation. As a percentage, this is 30x higher than the Wisconsin Pension Fund's allocation, and the largest allocation of any Sovereign Fund in the world so far.

Source: https://corporate-adviser.com/cartwright-calls-on-uk-institutional-investors-to-back-bitcoin/

➡️ Europe's largest telco Deutsche/T-mobile started mining Bitcoin using surplus renewable energy! The move monetizes surplus renewable energy and helps stabilize the grid.

The convergence of energy, finance, and Bitcoin, once a theory, is now starting to play out.

Patrick Hansen: "If successful at scale, it could be a game changer for Germany's energy transition and serve as an alternative to energy storage or the conversion of excess energy to gas (both in their early days and not without their challenges).

In 2024, renewable sources accounted for around 65% of Germany's electricity generation. Challenges with surplus energy have led to negative electricity prices at times, even requiring Germany to pay other countries for excess power.

This is not a small actor chasing a headline. Deutsche Telekom is the largest telecom provider in Europe with a 40% market share in mobile services in Germany. Deutsche Telekom has been running various validator nodes for other proof-of-stake networks, and a bitcoin node for quite a while too."

On the 4th of November:

➡️$725 billion Bernstein predicts Bitcoin to hit $200,000 by 2025, regardless of the US election outcome.

➡️State of Michigan pension fund still HODLs its $7 million in Bitcoin ETFs, SEC filing reveals

💸Traditional Finance / Macro:

On the 30th of October:

👉🏽 Charlie Bilello: "1. Stocks: all-time high 2. Home Prices: all-time high 3. Gold: all-time high 4. Bitcoin: all-time high 5. National Debt: all-time high 6. Core CPI Inflation: >3% for 41 straight months, the longest period of high inflation since the early 1990s 7. Fed: cutting rates again next week"

On the 1st of November:

👉🏽Market wiped out almost $1 TRILLION from US stocks.

On the 2nd of November:

👉🏽Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway now holds a record $325.2 BILLION of cash. This cash balance alone is larger than the market cap of all but 27 public companies in the world.

🏦Banks:

On the 28th of October:

👉🏽More like $2.5 trillion worth of toxic CLO products + U.S. Treasuries that are deeply underwater.

Financelot on the 25th of October: 'The Federal Reserve's emergency BTFP dropped by $7 billion this week, with only $59 billion remaining. In 5 weeks BTFP will be $0, pulling all remaining emergency liquidity away from struggling banks. Thus completing the Federal Reserve's rug pull on the financial system.

🌎Macro/Geopolitics:

On the 28th of October:

👉🏽 'Market Interest Rates are surging as inflation expected to skyrocket again!' 'The US 10-year yield is at 4.29%... 1968 all over again where no one wants to buy U.S. Treasuries. Interest rates are about to double to 9%' - Financelot

Something to consider is the shift in de bond market. Investors are selling off long-term bonds in favor of equities or other riskier investments, resulting in bond prices falling, and yields rising. If we are going to reach that 9%, personally I don't think so. At the moment inflation isn't as extreme + the debt is way too big to let inflation run high just like in the 60's and the 70's.

👉🏽 Last week I shared how German car manufacturer Volkswagen is for the first time in its 87-year history planning to close production sites in its home market. They will close 3 manufacturing plants in the upcoming months.

'The number of state workers in Germany is going up, but with accelerating deindustrialization, the unemployment rate is also going up and reached 6%. However, 6% do not include 5,5 Million long-term unemployed on welfare payments, true unemployment rate is 18%.'

Now let's dive into the numbers. Arbeitslosenquote is 6% with ~2.79 Million people. Then you have 5.5 million people ALG II or Bürgergeld you are not in the unemployment statistics. Implied with 6% is a workforce of 46.5 Million people. Add 5.5 long term unemployed people -> 52M -> (2.79+5.5)/52 =~15.9%. Not quite the 18% as stated by Michael A. Arouret, but still quite high.

On the 29th of October:

👉🏽'The market is getting even more concentrated:

The market cap of the largest US stock is now ~750 TIMES larger than the 75th percentile stock, near the most since 1932. Over the last 8 years, this difference has TRIPLED. Furthermore, the market is currently even more concentrated than it was during the 2000 Dot-com bubble. As seen below, the largest US stock in 2000 peaked at ~6000 TIMES larger than the 75th percentile stock. The only other time that current levels of market concentration were seen was during the Great Depression.'-TKL

👉🏽'Another day, another record high for gold which is up $225 since the Fed rate cut a month ago, and just $225 away from $3000. It is also up 11 of the past 14 days.' -ZeroHedge

👉🏽Jeroen Blokland: "Many assets, including (quality) stocks, physical gold, and Bitcoin are flying this month. But not bonds! Global Government Bonds (hedged, EUR) are down nearly 2% this month, increasing this year's loss. And this is without taking inflation into account. Should you have stuck (again) to the outdated 60-40 portfolio (60% equities, 40% bonds) narrative, or something similar, your relative decline in purchasing power to investors that got rid of bonds and bought scarce assets (like gold and Bitcoin) is (again) massive! What is left to argue against diversifying beyond equities and bonds?"

Just to elaborate on the above:

👉🏽China is working on a $1.6 TRILLION debt stimulus to boost the economy - Reuters

👉🏽The US Treasury: 'We expect to buy up to $30BLN in off-the-fun securities for liquidity support.'

Something's brewing. Print money to buy your own debt. Like using your credit card to pay the same credit card bill. And that something is: FED REVERSE REPO USE FALLS TO $155B FOR FIRST TIME SINCE 2021 Down $46BN overnight. Market about to find out what real tightening is. Normally when this money market fund liquidity leaves RRP it goes into U.S. Treasuries, driving yields down. Instead, the U.S. 10-year yield rocketed to 4.365% this week.

On the 31st of October:

The pound is falling - the biggest fall in more than 18 months. On top of that:

👉🏽"Average 5-year yield since 2020 2.0%. But if you were lucky enough to buy a 5-year bond 5 years ago and kept it to maturity, your yield = return would have been 0.50%. Average inflation since 2020: 4.6%. In the case of the bond bought 5 years ago and keeping it to maturity, the cumulative inflation drag is 24%! Any bond decision in the past 5 to 10 years will result in the same result: a negative real return.' -Jeroen Blokland

On the 1st of November:

👉🏽'The US economy adds 12,000 jobs in October, BELOW expectations of 106,000. The unemployment rate was 4.1%, in line with expectations of 4.1%. This marks the lowest number of US jobs added since July 2021.

Again a DISASTROUS jobs report. And the prior two months' job gains have been REVISED DOWN BY 112,000. Manufacturing jobs loss: 46,000. Manufacturing jobs have declined in 4 out of the last 5 months by a total of 88,000.

👉🏽 'Despite talks of de-dollarisation, America remains (by far) the world's financial hegemon • US stock exchanges capture more than half of global free-float market capitalization. (hence overvalued) • US share of global stockmarket is 2.3 times its share of global GDP — the highest-ever ratio' - Agathe Demarais

On the 3rd of October:

👉🏽Germany will have the second-lowest public investment ratio of all EU countries in 2025 (EU Commission forecast).

Shouldn't addressing the underinvestment problem be of higher priority for finance minister Lindner than cutting taxes for corporations and high-income earners? Unfortunately, the Netherlands isn't far off either. The common problem of the EU is insufficient investment.

👉🏽'Federal government spending spiked 9.7% in Q3 2024 from the previous quarter, marking the largest jump since Q1 2021.

This was driven by a 14.9% jump in defense expenditures, the largest jump in 21 years. Since 2020, government expenditures have risen 30% and hit a new record of $5.04 trillion. Federal spending has been one of the largest contributors to GDP growth over the last 2 years.

The government has now contributed to economic growth for 9 consecutive quarters, with Q3 posting the largest addition over the past year. Government spending is at crisis levels.' -TKL

🎁If you have made it this far I would like to give you a little gift:

Lyn Alden's  October public newsletter is available now:

https://lynalden.com/october-2024-newsletter/…

It discusses four macro catalysts that she will be monitoring in the year or so ahead.

Four Major Macro Catalysts to Watch: 1. U.S. Election (Late 2024) 2. Debt Ceiling (Early 2025) 3. Expiring Tax Cuts (End of 2025) 4. Bank Lending Trends

Great read!

Credit: I have used multiple sources!

My savings account: Bitcoin.

The tool I recommend for setting up a Bitcoin savings plan: @Relai 🇨🇭 especially suited for beginners or people who want to invest in Bitcoin with an automated investment plan once a week or monthly. (Please only use it till the 31st of October - after that full KYC)

Hence a DCA, Dollar cost Average Strategy. Check out my tutorial post (Instagram) & video (YouTube) for more info.⠀⠀⠀ ⠀

Get your Bitcoin out of exchanges. Save them on a hardware wallet, run your own node...be your own bank. Not your keys, not your coins. It's that simple.⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀

Do you think this post is helpful to you? If so, please share it and support my work with a zap.

▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃

⭐ Many thanks⭐

Felipe - Bitcoin Friday!

▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃

@ 35f3a26c:92ddf231

What is BOLT12

Bitcoin Lightning Network protocol BOLT12 is a proposed upgrade to the existing BOLT11 protocol, designed to enable re-usable payment requests, increased receiver privacy, and better censorship resistance.

Background:

BOLT11 was the previous version of the protocol, which has been widely used since its inception. . BOLT12 aims to address some of the shortcomings of BOLT11 and provide a more streamlined experience for users.

Current Adoption:

While BOLT12 is still in the development phase, there have been some early adopters and testers who have already implemented the new protocol:

1. Phoenix Wallet

https://image.nostr.build/fd798202b6f6d7ad4e462eb5456e458a1b88b6fd882c472c3230eed378beab63.png

From version 2.3.1 (Jul 3, 2024), Phoenix Wallet has introduced support for BOLT12, a Lightning Network specification that aims to improve payment requests and receiver privacy. Offers are the Lightning equivalent to a Bitcoin address: it's a reusable, static payment request that can be used for donation use cases, or to easily pay/get paid by your friends. Since BOLT12 is not yet well supported, Phoenix keep displaying a BOLT11 invoice by default.

From version 2.3.3 (Jul 11, 2024) the wallet supports paying BIP353 DNS addresses. It allows users to have a user@domain email-like handle, which are much easier to share with friends or on social networks than a BOLT12 offer

This wallet uses very innovative features and is, IMO, best in class of all the non custodial Lighting Network wallets, from the ones new to the technology to the most advanced.

I always run the “mass adoption test” with a small sample of my family and friends that are not tech savvy and this wallet passed with flying colors, after the installation and without my assistance they managed to use the wallet to receive and send sats.

1. Zeus Wallet

https://image.nostr.build/6e8b176dec133a1b412467dee0074bf14b7e8e8ce38cbaf5ca13eee2754bb48f.png

ZEUS Wallet is a mobile Bitcoin wallet and * node management * app that offers full functionalities of a Bitcoin Lightning wallet. It enables users to make Bitcoin payments and manage their Lightning nodes from their mobile device

This wallet does not pass the “mass adoption test” , the test users were not comfortable with the user interface neither understood most of the settings.

For the advance users that manage their own nodes, this mobile wallet is best in class.

Adoption summary: The widespread adoption is still awaited, as many users and merchants are yet to upgrade to the new protocol.

PROS & CONS

https://image.nostr.build/db35c2a028e9f740181daabe2deef4e707653fa2d82f1602086e0ac4b5ee84fd.png

Pros:

1. Re-usable payment requests

2. Increased receiver privacy

3. Better censorship resistance

Cons:

1. Complexity of implementation

2. Compatibility with older nodes and applications which could lead fragmentation

Next Steps:

Many developers are working to improve and implement the protocol ensuring a smooth transition. As the protocol is refined and tested, it is expected to become more widely adopted.

Here the web addresses of few projects actively working on BOLT12:

1. https://ocean.xyz/
2. https://zeusln.com/
3. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1551/files
4. https://twelve.cash/
5. https://clams.tech/
6. https://www.roygbiv.guide/
7. https://www.ridethelightning.info/
8. https://github.com/gudnuf/bolt12-covenant-zapper
9. https://lampo.devcrew.cc/
10. https://github.com/urza/payto
11. https://strike.me/blog/bolt12-playground/ 12, https://phoenix.acinq.co/
12. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/plasma-core-lightning-wallet/id6468914352
13. https://satsto.me/
14. https://dplus.plus/offer
15. https://x.com/eltordev

For updates, specs or to get involved with BOLT12, bookmark the main website:

https://www.bolt12.org

What are your thoughts about BOLT12?

Did I missed any wallet that has implemented it already?

Which one is your favorite wallet, custodial or non custodial, supporting BIP353 DNS addresses?

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/735926

@ 35f3a26c:92ddf231

What is a Bitcoin spot ETF?

Is an asset that tracks the price of Bitcoin.

Why is it considered a game changer?

Institutional investors and wealthy individuals, using large investment firms like Blackrock, Fidelity or Ark among others, will be able to acquire the asset with low risk, since these investment firms are highly regulated. These investors have above 15 trillion dollars invested in these large firms and therefore, it is expected that these firms will allocate at least 1% of their portfolios to it. That will be mean a minimum of $150 billions into Bitcoin, which is remarkable considering the current market cap of the asset is currently $570 billion.

An injection of minimum $150 billions translates in a huge demand for Bitcoin with massive potential for price appreciation.

Current mayor players

Until now, very few large institutions have acquired Bitcoin, examples are Tesla Inc (Nasdaq: TSLA) and Microstrategy (Nasdaq: MSTR), which wrote a document labeled "A summary of some of the key considerations for corporations to keep in mind when investing in bitcoin". The link to the document:

https://www.microstrategy.com/en/bitcoin/documents/key-considerations-for-corporate-investment-in-bitcoin

Let's check the math

Amount of Bitcoins mined per day:

• Bitcoins mined per block: 6.25

• Time in minutes to mine one block (approx): 10

• Minutes in one day: 1440

• Blocks mined per day: 144 -> (1440 / 10 = 144)

• Bitcoins mined per day: 900 -> ( 144 x 6.25 = 900)

After the halving, since the Bitcoins mined per block will be reduced to 3.125, we will only have 450 mined per day.

*Bitcoins available for trading*:

• Around 4 million across exchanges
• 900 per day injected in the market

Assumptions

• Miners are selling all 900 freshly mined Bitcoins
• Financial institutions will allocate at least 1% of their portfolio into Bitcoin

Assuming Miners sell all 900 every day (which is worst case scenario), this means, that in order for the price of Bitcoin to keep the current price (around $29.4K as I write this article), $26.5 millions are needed in the market to buy those 900 fresh mined every day, $795 million per month, $9.54 billion per year.

Projections in price appreciation

Bear in mind that the projection can't be linear since there are many additional variables to factor in, specially qualitative non quantifiable ones as potential financial crisis, absurd regulations, more ETF delays, governments corruption, wars, pandemics, etc...

In terms of price appreciation, a 15X is plausible, which would rocket the price of Bitcoin to around $441K as soon as the $150 billion are deployed to acquire it.

Now, consider that this is worst case scenario and valid only until the end of this halving (the amount of mined Bitcoin per day will be reduced by half after it), next one is around the end of April 2024.

What happens with the numbers after the Halving?

After the halving, with the current amount of financial energy injected into Bitcoin ($26.5 million), the price would potentially double to around $58.8K, and if 1% of the investment companies applying for an ETF is injected, the math take the potential price of Bitcoin to $882K as soon as that 1% is deployed.

Time frame for price appreciation?

Unknown, but I would assume before the end of 2024, Why? Because the ETFs are being yet again delayed for Blackrock and Fidelity until December 2023 by the SEC (Security Exchange Commission) in USA.

But USA is not the only country where large Investment Companies are applying for ETFs, it is true that the two largest ones are in USA, but there are many more that combined across the world would add up to a massive additional amount of capital injected into Bitcoin.

The first ETF to go public will be in Europe

Jacobi Asset Management, issuer of an equity structure for digital assets in Europe with the first Bitcoin ETF, with a total portfolio of approx. $4.8 billion. Assuming 1% (worst scenario) of its portfolio will be deployed into Bitcoin, additional $48 million would be injected. The launch of this ETF was "July 2023", I will assume this capital will be injected between August and December 2023.

Professional investors can already let them know of their interest in their web site:

https://jacobiam.com/jacobi-ft-wilshire-bitcoin-etf/

Long term impact?

We can divide the long term impact into two arenas:

• Asset appreciation
• Attempts to control the asset

Long terms asset appreciation

As explained before, the more capital is deployed into the asset, and the more time passes, the more valuable and scarce it becomes (one halving every 4 years) and therefore, Bitcoin will continue to appreciate over time by "a lot".

Extrapolate the financial institutions portfolio investment to 5% of 15 trillion dollars, then to 10% and so on. Considering that Bitcoin is the best asset in terms of appreciation of the last 10 years, it is plausible that institutional investors will be eager to put more than 1% of their portfolios into Bitcoin, I would assume that 5% for the most conservative and 20% for the most aggressive will be logical.

You do the math, you will get numbers that will explain why so many financial analyst come with such a high numbers in their predictions of the future price of Bitcoin.

Attempts to control the asset in the long term

Recently I read a post from Chris Blec in X, his post was quite interesting, it reads "Pfizer convinced billions of people to inject a mysterious chemical into their body multiple times but you don't think Blackrock can convince normies that their fork is the real Bitcoin?"

A provocative post which opens the door for debate, one that I am certain is being discussed for years already close doors among the Bitcoin community.

Potential Attack vectors

• Forking Bitcoin into POS: Blackrock or a union of Investment corporations could influence with their resources some key developers and miners to fork Bitcoin into a PoS (Proof of Stake) chain, basically centralizing and controlling Bitcoin. A fork creates a new chain and the users will decide which chain is Bitcoin, users decide by changing their Node into the new chain or not, one Node, one Vote.
• Forking Bitcoin to reduce the block time to 1 minute: With the excuse to reduce the validation transaction time. This will imply many changes that will lead to mining 9000 per day instead of the 900 as of today, reducing the scarcity by increasing the offer and therefore reducing the price
• Forking Bitcoin to increase the block size: This was attempted before, Jonathan Bier in his book The Blocksize War: The battle over who controls Bitcoin’s protocol rules does a decent job explaining the depths of the attack. But in summary leads to centralization of control of the network

Countermeasures

• Education: In my opinion, education is key, those investment funds manage money from wealthy investors, if those investors understand the ethos of Bitcoin and why the asset is so scarce and valuable, they will fight back together with the individual investors for those changes not to be pedaled into the chain. At the end, greed is a very strong motivator and Satoshi understood that perfectly and therefore it is accounted for in the design.

• Awareness: A considerable percentage of the Bitcoin investors are well informed and therefore, fear can't be use as a trigger, as it was the case of the pharmaceuticals and their experimental drugs, the investment companies could use their resources to create campaigns pushing their narrative, but the community will see through that and counter it in the social networks quite fast, in my opinion, in the age of information, the legacy MSM (Main Stream Media) can't easily steer the Bitcoin ecosystem opinion as they could have done with the population up to the 90s, now is a real challenge for them. Proof of that is that they have been fighting Bitcoin with everything they got until now. They short it, talk trash it as much as they could in the legacy MSM, call it rat poison, stated that it will go to zero (while secretly buying it...) and after all that, now they are lining up to buy it and speaking highly of the asset.

• Run your own Node: Bitcoin has endured 14 years of attacks and survived thanks to the community and investors, we need to stay vigilant and protect it, run at least one Node at home, remember, one Node, one Vote.

Can you think of additional countermeasures?

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/226279

@ fd78c37f:a0ec0833

Author: Taryn Christiansen @ DoraHacks

Abstract

This article discusses the Fifth Estate and how Elon Musk’s ideas about free speech will affect crypto and the potential for network states if the Trump administration enters office.

Over the past decade, legacy media has become increasingly less influential in how people consume information. Besides those who remain obsequious to the two political parties and their respective information engines like CNN and Fox News, people have grown suspicious of any information relayed from those institutions, which is unfortunate. Not because what they distribute as information is, in fact, faithful to the truth and that people are confused, but because these institutions do at times appear to be in service to interests that do not uphold democratic norms and virtues that are necessary for a democracy’s well-being. And the worst part is that they are unwilling to admit it. It’s one thing for a business model to revolve around certain biases geared toward specific outcomes; it is another to do so and act as if one is an exemplar of journalistic integrity and a torch bearer of truth. This kind of hypocritical behavior exacerbates people’s skepticism and often leads to an excess of distrust, resulting in a complete collapse of faith in a country’s institutions. And one thing is certain: trust in one’s institutions and the belief that they act in good faith are essential to democracy. To take a current and relevant example, a complete distrust in the voting process means a democracy’s collapse. If individuals believe that the voting process they participate in is rigged and that the results are misaligned with the truth, with what people envision for the future of their country, democracy will not last long. The people will not identify with those who lead the country; they will see an administration that has unjustly stolen power and who is, therefore, against democracy. Whether or not such distrust is appropriate within the United States today is not the point here. The fact is that people do distrust the voting process, and that’s a problem.

There are institutions, then, that have to be maintained for a democracy to work. Institutions that distribute information is an example of this. Now, one reason for the current distrust in legacy media has been the inception of what is called the Fifth Estate. The notion of an ‘estate’ is derived from what has been historically referred to as the chief sources of power within a state. In the past, European societies were conceived of having three domains of power: the clergy, who controlled the religious institutions that dominated the West for centuries; the aristocracy, who owned land and status; and the people, which consisted of peasants and merchants. After the invention of the printing press, where information could be widely disseminated, and literacy rates amongst the general population grew, the press and news media arose as a fourth estate, which obtained an additional foothold in power within society. These four estates have been the traditional domains of power that control and operate a society’s institutions.

Of course, the degree of power each estate holds in competition with the others has historically shifted. The rise of news media disrupted the hierarchy of power maintained throughout the Middle Ages and up to the Enlightenment, with the Catholic Church having increasingly less influence over society. And the Fifth Estate poses the potential for another shift in power. But what is the Fifth Estate?

The Fifth Estate is made possible by the internet and consists of the prevalence of non-legacy and independent reporters, journalists, and media sources. Podcasts are an excellent example of this, especially the ones that title themselves distributors of information regarding politics, technology, and socio-cultural events. But the archetypal example is social media. On platforms like X and Facebook, communication can be held between anyone, and the power to share and promote one’s opinion is made available to everyone, regardless of whether one has a position of power. The Fifth Estate has decentralized and democratized much of what legacy media was first purposed to do, influencing the growing distrust amongst the people toward their institutions. In the 20th century, the United States committed acts abroad like the Gulf of Tonkin in the Vietnam War, supported coups that removed democratically elected leaders in foreign countries, and the Iran-contra affair, which demonstrated that the United States was not the Western hero across the globe it presented itself as. It was prone to the same corruptive blunders and self-interested behaviors that it accused its enemies of; it was just good at concealing it from the public. However, as technology advanced and power became redistributed by the internet, these kinds of occurrences, which previously were not common knowledge, came to the forefront of American consciousness. America could no longer maintain its moral mythos, and a great disillusionment occurred.

While this kind of transparency provided by the Fifth Estate is generally good because, presumptively, the truth is good, its decentralized and open-access nature can also cause problems. The other estates possess a more robust institutional infrastructure and are easier to regulate and hold responsible when they err. However, in the case of social media, how to regulate this space is more nuanced due to its unprecedented nature. For instance, people have a First Amendment right to free speech in the United States, so deplatforming those who may share bad or false information on these platforms, at least prima facie, violates their rights. On the other hand, as many argue, the First Amendment does not entitle one to promote their false and potentially harmful speech, and therefore, should not be provided a space to express their opinions. But who decides what is good and bad information? The government? The companies that own these platforms? How will it be ensured that everyone acts in good faith and for the best interest of all? Should private companies really have the power to control a platform that has recently become a direct line of communication between the people and their representatives? Or are people capable of differentiating this information for themselves? The questions are endless and complicated and involve interminable controversy because of the diverse viewpoints within the country. Left-leaning folks tend to want safer, more regulated platforms for speech. People who lean more right on the issue tend to argue for a marketplace of ideas, where better speech will out-compete the worse. And there are many more opinions in between.

Although the diversity of opinion within these novel issues is not bad in itself but can typically be good, the fall of legacy media can aggravate the degree of separation between the various sides of a given issue, leading to an excess of unshared presuppositions. Suppose no institution helps shape a shared perspective. In that case, there are less common and continuous assumptions that people view the world through and use to resolve and make compromises in collective decision-making. It becomes a network with increasingly discontinuous nodes, which are then unable to feedback to one another due to the loss of direct communication and the need to relate by more remote and irrelevant pathways. This slowly shuts off one’s ability to understand and sympathize with another person’s unfamiliar beliefs. That’s not to say it’s better to have one institution over a plurality within one domain, but having one that provides a foundation within a domain, one that’s general but cohesive enough to facilitate civil discourse on disagreements, is helpful. So, although legacy media certainly doesn’t fulfill this role anymore, if it ever did, something that would help deal with the excess of diversity within podcasts, journalism, and news media is beneficial for a collective. There needs to be a healthy balance between the two.

Whatever the best and most rational solutions to these problems are, the upcoming election presents a potential route some of these may go. Former president Donald Trump has recently gained the support of Elon Musk, and, as is widely known, Musk claims to be both a free-speech absolutist and a strong advocate of deregulation. With Trump publicly expressing that he will give Musk a role in his administration, it stands to reason that Musk’s views will have an impact on policy and may potentially influence what role the Fifth Estate plays in society, especially regarding social media, being that he is the majority shareholder of X. With a hand in both government and the Fifth Estate, his political ideas will likely be pivotal in how the United States’ future unfolds if the Trump administration enters into office. The rest of the article will be concerned with locating some potentialities that may arise from this. The first is that, since Trump has espoused a pro-crypto view, and because Musk and Trump are both for deregulation, it seems likely that if Gary Gensler decides, or is forced, to step down from the SEC chair, there may be inroads toward some crypto endeavors being seen as a matter of free speech due to ‘code is speech’ precedent. The second is that, if this is the case, some of the motivation regarding network states may be lost, and pursuing this project can become less pertinent in terms of its initial goals, like technological advancement in a more unregulated space.

Musk bought Twitter in 2022 because he believed it to be a stand for free speech, which he saw as under threat due to what he often refers to as the ‘woke mind virus.’ Whatever the specific political beliefs this virus supposedly holds, Musk sees it as silencing opposing views by enforcing certain social virtues that should outweigh considerations of free discussion, speech, and inquiry. In short, he believes this virus is a potential threat to truth, which perhaps should be the principal value of a free, democratic, liberal society. With the publication of the Twitter files, there is compiling evidence that the government pressured social media platforms to adhere to a set of ideological standards during the 2016 election and the pandemic that amounted to the de-platforming of individuals, the suppression of dissenting opinions, and, ultimately, governmental control of these novel information sources. By purchasing Twitter, Musk’s purported aim is to establish a public town square for a free exchange of ideas that is decentralized and impervious to control by the state. This expresses Musk’s belief in less regulation, especially regarding matters of free speech.

Now, because Musk is a controversial figure, many have an immediate suspicion about his claims. However, Jack Dorsey, the founder of Twitter, shares similar concerns. It is simply a fact that government sectors attempted to interfere with and regulate social media. Dorsey has expressed his worries about this, saying that social media should resist centralized control. Whether Musk or Dorsey are correct, the question of if and how social media should be regulated is something society has to wrestle with, and their opinions have good reasons to support their positions. But others have good reasons for their positions, too. People like Sam Harris and Jonathan Haidt are examples of opposing views on this. Harris says in a podcast, "I think social media has been the technology that has deranged us ... We have effectively been enrolled in a psychological experiment to which no one gave consent ... It's just been terrible. I just think it's been bad for society in almost every respect." Harris and Haidt may not necessarily advocate for direct governmental intervention in social media, but they certainly don’t hold the town square view like Musk. They believe social media produces too few beneficial consequences for it to be held in such high esteem. Whatever the solution is, real proposals to this problem will be pivotal in how the future plays out.

Before discussing how Musk’s involvement in the Trump administration may affect crypto in light of what has been stated above, as well as how this impacts the standing of network states, it’s important to flag the more philosophical nature of this question by distinguishing between a moral argument for free speech, and a legal one. Whereas a legal claim about free speech expresses a descriptive argument, which amounts to saying that, according to a system of laws that is comprised of specific legal facts, other facts follow, a moral claim about free speech says something about how free speech should be implemented within a society, which is normative. In other words, a moral claim not only says that certain facts about free speech exist, where those facts can be either socially constructed or be part of some natural order, but also that those facts are good and that society should adhere to, and its members' action should be guided by, those facts about free speech. That is, a moral claim provides further, more robust reasons that extend outside of the law for what a society should do about free speech, which also points to certain ends expressed by the underlying principles that inform the claim being made. It’s important to distinguish these two ways free speech can be justified because conflating them produces confusion that tends to cause people to talk past one another in discussions about free speech, which obstructs potential progress in how people conceive of technological progress and the actual progress itself.

So, regarding morality, what principle(s) justifies Musk’s position on this issue? For instance, does he mean absolute free speech will produce the best consequences within society, or for individuals? Or does he mean that absolute free speech respects people’s fundamental rights, independent of the consequences? A lasting contribution to the former approach comes from John Stuart Mill, who believed that free speech is the best way to get nearer to the truth by individuals challenging one another’s opinions and beliefs, which will also psychologically revitalize truth in the minds of those within the society. Free speech promotes a lively and truth-seeking population. While he believed in a limit to free speech, such as a prohibition on outright calls to violence - and I assume Musk does as well, otherwise his position is somewhat untenable in a liberal democracy - Mill did believe that both of these produced highly valuable consequences. By constant exposure to a diversity of thought and evidence for differing opinions; by not being able to take one’s views for granted, and by having to reconsider one’s position because other members of society are free to express their disagreements, the best consequences for society may be produced. A contemporary and famous proponent of this today is Joe Rogan, who has reaffirmed his position in many of his podcasts, saying that bad speech, which means speech that spreads false information, should be beaten by better speech that is aligned with truth. The state and society should not regulate speech but properly promote it by allowing individuals to express themselves freely.

But there are objections to this. Does a perpetual heightening of the quantity of speech mean that truth will somehow reveal itself? Doesn’t quality also matter, which means there should be mechanisms at play that promote ideal civil norms in rational discourse, ones that delegitimize some forms of speech? Or, more fundamentally, what is our relationship to the truth, and does absolute free speech actually present a route to it? Maybe, but it’s not obvious. Because the principle under discussion concerns consequences, an objection that claims worse consequences will ensue is a creditable counter. And if a society implements absolute free speech, whatever that precisely means, and it results in a complete distrust of one’s democratic institutions, and the society collapses, it’s not clear that free speech was actually a good in service to the group; it led to its demise.

On the other hand, Musk may mean something like rights rather than consequences. It is a fundamental right of human beings, one that respects their basic and deserved dignity, to be able to speak freely and publicly without governmental suppression. Again, this is plausible. But how far does one’s right to free speech go? Are there other rights that may outweigh it under certain conditions? These are complicated questions, and the aim is not to propose definite answers but to cast light on what may be meant when the First Amendment, and free speech more generally, is invoked because justifications about its applications can be unclear. For example, if Musk's definition of free speech merely refers to the Constitution and the First Amendment, then his claim is merely legal and not moral. This would be perfectly legitimate, and in regard to claiming free speech is a justification for crypto, this would amount to saying that the First Amendment protections extend to the technology. But that would also mean his pejorative ‘woke mind virus,’ which, when expressed, tends to have moral undertones, plays no role in any seriously proposed argument for free speech. He would always be making a legal point. But when he speaks about the issue, it seems he’s making the further claim that, as a society, we should adhere to the Constitution, which would suggest reasons for why the document possesses normative value independent of its legal worth. Given his seriousness when discussing these topics, his willingness to spend billions of dollars on a company, his commitment to developing it, and doing so for the sake of a purported principle, it’s safe to think those reasons are moral.

Nevertheless, whether he means explicitly something legal, moral, or both doesn’t necessarily make a difference in whether attempts will be made to lessen or clarify crypto’s regulation. Because Musk and Trump are both advocating for deregulation, and because crypto is often conceived by its communities as technology purposed toward decentralization, and therefore, in principle, lessens the need for governmental regulation, it stands to reason that crypto will be given more space to advance as a technology. And because Musk and Trump are taking a deregulating approach toward crypto, recent articles suggest that the Trump administration may pick Hester Peirce as Gary Gensler’s replacement as SEC chairperson. Given her libertarian leanings and statements about these issues, the First Amendment may substantially affect how crypto will be handled under Trump if she's picked. Sage D. Young writes in an article in January from Unchained that “Pierce finds the idea of government imposing a regime where developers must seek permission to write code ‘terrifying.’” And at an SEC oversight hearing in September, Peirce stated, "[The SEC has] fallen down on our duty as a regulator not to be precise.” Her general position seems to be that it should be up to consumers and developers to ultimately decide crypto’s future, and not regulators, expressing concerns about government stifling innovation and technological advancement.

Whether Peirce is picked or not, it’s clear that the Trump administration is looking for someone with these kinds of policy positions. Other regulatory agencies like the CFTC will also impact this, but as many within the crypto community will celebrate, with Gary Gensler removed, further steps can be taken to develop the technology. And legal precedents like ‘code is speech’ provide a legal avenue to argue that the First Amendment should protect crypto. Peter Van Valkenburgh, the research director at Coin Center, offers an extensive argument for why electronic cash and digital exchange should be protected under free speech laws and why they should also protected under the Fourth Amendment as well.

Interestingly, in that article, Valkenburgh also makes a moral argument that makes the claim that interprets the ends of political rights as autonomy and human dignity, which should be seen as expanding on his legal claims. Whether that further claim is correct or not, he believes there are plenty of legal precedents to argue that crypto is protected under the Constitution, especially if the technology is interpreted as expressing political and social ideas, which makes regulating it appear as suppressing free expression. Of course, there is substantial disagreement about this, and it’s not clear whose right about the issue. However, a Trump administration would make a pro-crypto legal interpretation more likely to obtain.

Now, lastly, in several previous articles posted on the Dora Research Blog, much attention was paid to network states and their development as a theory. Trump’s policy position on crypto affects this as well. It was stated above that an anti-regulatory stance on crypto impacts some of the initial motivation behind network states and, as many of Balaji’s examples of one-commandments for network states in his book would suggest, a Trump administration would address those issues and perhaps satisfy the desire for new states outside of nation-states, causing network states to lose salience. Not entirely, of course, but at least on the technology front. And if so, then it will be interesting to see how the ideas around network states interact with the potential for a more unregulated space in blockchain technology. For instance, one of the aims of network states is to present a one-premise critique of preexisting nation-states that will be used to create a network state. Any critique directed toward the obstruction of technological advancement may be resolved, and efforts can be made toward advancing the technology for preexisting nation-states rather than trying to do so in a new, independent state.

@ 0e501ec7:de5ef3a4

Vandaag stonden we op tussen de monocultuurwoestijnen, beschut door een smalle Sleedoornhaag. Onze schoenen hadden een vaag gele schijn gekregen van de wandeling in het donker gisteren, en we wisten niet of het landbouwvergif of pollen was. We stonden op met het licht, om 7. Het was koud en vochtig, de fietsen waren nat. We fietsten, met fluohes. We fietsten en we fietsten. Tim wou graag de militaire kerkhoven bezoeken, en de info lezen. Ik volgde hem. We fietsten verder, ik nam foto's. Ik nam foto's van agrifabrieken, en kerken. Ze lijken op elkaar, soms. Tegen de middag hielden we halt, ik had honger, voor het normaal middaguur. Dat zorgde even voor een akkefietje, niets groots. We bezochten ook in de namiddag eerstewereldoorlogkerkhoven, frans, duits, italiaans, van de vs. ik vroeg Tim wat hij zo interessant vond aan de oorlog, hij verdedigde zichzelf, ik probeerde duidelijk te maken dat dat niet nodig was. Mijn schrijfsels lopen nogal door elkaar vandaag (30/10). Beter dan niets, ik krijg het toch niet geordend. Wat is er zo leuk aan schrijven? Ik vind het wel ontspannend. Vandaag was ik triest over de supermarkt, de lege dorpen, de lege monocultuur velden, het verdwenen landschap, het verdwenen leven.

@ 0e501ec7:de5ef3a4

Vandaag vertrokken we uit Parijs. Ik ben blij terug op het ritme van mijn lichaam en het licht te kunnen leven, ipv laat op te blijven in de stedelijke drukte en socialiteit. Het was fijn in Parijs, eerst was ik heel overprikkeld, zo groot die stad, zo veel mensen! Onvoorsteldbaar. En moe, maar dat komt ook van te gast te zijn bij onbekende mensen denk ik. Ik moet altijd eerst een paar dagen acclimatiseren, een houding vinden. Ze waren wel heel vriendelijk en gastvrij, die familie van Tim, ik ben hun echt dankbaar dat we bij hun konden blijven. 

Maar Parijs is wel een mooie stad. Uiteindelijk zag ik, niet geheel gewenst, toch wat toeristische dingetjes (ik moest het eifeltorenplein oasseren onderweg naar het bos om in te wandelen, en op weg naar het museum passeerden we nog wat bekende pleinen en het louvre), wat eigenlijk ook wel leuk was. Veel ervan is vooral opschepperij, maar het is wel mooi gemaakt en leuk om eens te zien. 

Ik was ook zeer blij Marte gezien te hebben! Altijd leuk, een bekend gezicht. Zij was ook nog aan het wennen aan Parijs, maar al iets meer kennende dan ik, ze doet er al een maandje stage bij Unesco. Dat gaf ons de buitenkans om ook het Unescogebouw te bezoeken, dat was ook een geweldige impressie. Er was net een evenement bezig, rond de arabische week die ze houden. Een feest van culturen :). Ook wel een beetje hoogdravend en exlusief natiurlijk, maar ze doen wel coole dingen daar.

Vandaag fietsten we dus weg. Het was al laat tegen dat we vertrokken geraakten, en toen was Tim zijn jas en de kaarten ook nog vergeten in het appartement. Moesten we wachten op de shift van de vongierge om eraan te kunnen. Balen, maat het gaf ons wel de tijd om de kettingen de poetsen! Die waten enorm vuil geworden van de modderpaadjes waarop we Parijs hadden benaderd. Het was een drukke fietstocht, door wijken en grote straten, via enorm chaotische fietspaden. Het was leuk, ik ontspande, droomde weg, had inzichten en ideeën, neuriede en zong. Toen werd het donker, we fietsten verder, maar niet lang meer. Bu staan we aan de rand van wat een golfterrein lijkt te zijn, terwijl de lucht nog sterk oplicht van de Stad. Net naast ons is een grote elektriciteitspaal, die tevreden (?) zoemt. 

De blog is een beetje chaotisch aan het zijn, het is moeilijk  om consistent te zijn jn de momenten waarop ik schrijf. Vaak heb ik er eigenlijk geen zin in, dan doe ik het niet. Soms begin ik random te typen op een leeg moment, die zet ik er ook op. Ik hoop dat dat niet te verwarrend is :). Bedankt om te lezen, veel liefs! 

@ 0e501ec7:de5ef3a4

We zitten in de bus. Het is donker buiten, ik weet echt niet wat ik hier wil schrijven. Maar heb geen zin om te lezen, en geen zin om te scrollen, en geen zin om rond te kijken of rond te dolen in mijn hoofd. Na de mail van Connie en mijn geschreven antwoord, daagde het mij dat ik meer wou schrijven. Ik haal er een soort voldoening uit, ik kom er in thuis, het kost me niet te veel moeite. Dat zijn allemaal kenmerken van een goeie activiteit voor als je moe bent! En dat ben ik ook, moe. Het was weer een gevulde dag, en we zijn nog niet rond. Vanmiddag vertrokken we met de metro naar virtysurseine, om de kraak la kunda te bezoeken. Een voormalig kinderdagverblijf, waar nu 60-70 mensen wonen. De huurprijzen in parijs zijn echt enorm, het is zeer moeilijk om een woonplaats te vinden. Deze mensen vinden hier dus onderdak, en kunnen niet zo makkelijk ergens anders heen. Echter dreigt er in april volgend jaar een uitzetting te komen. Om mensen te verzamelen en awareness te vergroten, organiseerden ze deze week evenementen, ook om de buurt te betrekken. Gisteren was een filmavond rond Palestina, vandaag was er een kleine markt, met groenten, fruit, brownies en pannenkoeken, en tweedehandskleren. We voelden ons eerst wat oncomfortabel, niemand kennende en de taal niet helemaal meester is het niet zo simpel om zomaar te blenden in de groep. Om drie begon er een boxinitiatie, ik kreeg na veel aandringen mijn twee companons ook overtuigd om mee te doen. Het was zeer gelijkaardig aan de boxlessen in de Meubelfabriek in Gent, en echt tof. Het gaf ons ook de kans om wat aan de babbel te geraken achteraf. In de avond gingen we naar een ander gebeuren, ook gevonden op radar.squat, maar een helemaal andere vibe! Het heette Atelier de l'Artivisme, en het was een antipub groep die (niet-reclame)posters maakte. Wij maakten er ook eentje, en babbelden een beetje. Het vond plaats in een autonome bibliotheek, vol met boeken dus. Ik vind het altijd geweldig om door de boeken te snuisteren.

@ 45bda953:bc1e518e

Emilien stepped into the space motel's bar. The area was dimly lit and the music was unbearably loud. At least all the tables and sunken lounges each had their own lights and sound dampers. He stepped up to a table and pushed down on the receptor to reduce volume. He could not think with the noise. He looked around for Macy and inconspicuously acquainted himself with the current patrons in the establishment. He pulled his hoody further forward when he noticed the android in a wheel chair. "Not my type of company." He thought to himself. In the centre of the room a couple was having a spectacular time, an empty bottle on the table, they were specimens of myth. The guys muscles were chiselled, with tight fabric clinging to his body specifically to display every contour of his physique. His female counterpart wore loose material with translucent green tattoo's running up her body like pin stripes shining through the thin cloth hinting at a perfectly balanced pose and feminine silhouette underneath. Emilien swiped on the tables interface to call for the proprietor. He folded his arms and leaned onto the table tilting his head down slightly to keep shadow on his face. Macy entered the room through the kitchen swivel door. She was holding an empty tray and a serviette draped over her arm. She walked straight over to Emilien's table. "Good rotation sir. Welcome to Macy's. Are you a regular customer or is it your first visit to my fine establishment?" She seemed concerned and worried. The corners of Emiliens lips curved up a little. Keeping his head down teasingly. "Sir? Do we have an existing open channel?" He ignored her. "Sir, If you don't have liquidity I have no services to offer that you cannot get off your own ship." Emilien looked up with a gleam in his eye. Macie's posture relaxed with a sigh of relief. "Emile, you fuck. You freaked me out." "I'm sorry, I could not help myself." He waved a halfhearted greeting, slightly laughing. "You know I have some new rules around for you nano augmented types." His aversion to the word rules was evident only to himself. "Like what?" Macy felt apologetically obliged to explain the nature of her circumstances. "I had diplomats from the outer void regions come for a private meeting. Financial in nature. A spacer customer arrived blocks before them, I did not suspect him of anything criminal." She put the tray down and gripped the table with both hands shifting her weight. "His routine for meals were already established, he managed to spy on them through my privacy protocols and hacked their clients. He participated as a ghost during most of their stay and dealings." Emilien whistled. "That's rough, how did you handle it." "I did not do anything." Her dreads shook as she moved her head in animated frustration. "No one knew until they all had been gone for blocks. My reputation took a serious knock. They made a claim against me, I was accused of being complicit. Emilien glanced back over his shoulder when he noticed the android cart himself around his table. "Warren helped me and found all the dirty code and sequestered it. We have all the data and footage, it proves beyond a doubt that I was not involved. Thank god for the core otherwise my whole station might have been destroyed by now." Emile gave a sly look. "How do you know it was not me who stole the data?" She locked eyes with him. "You still have the same face as before bro and I know you won't fuck with me. I'll force close our channel." She joked with serious tone nudging him with her fist playfully. She was generally perceived as strict and militant because of her Shiv citizenship. Shiv military training and service was compulsory, all respected the Shiv in their traditions, their ways were isolationist and exclusionary in nature. Emilien has seen her use military style jujitsu-boxing to neutralise and boot out unruly customers. The Juel woman noticed the out of character friendly gesture Macy made. The unexpected interaction drew her attention from across the room. "So, what is this rule of yours." Macy seemed reluctant to say. "I'm sorry bud. You'll have to swallow a slipper pill every 576 blocks while you are on this station." His shoulders sagged and could not help but bounce his leg on the rail under the table. "Really?!" "Yes, really. I have to retain my customers trust and neutralising all augmented customers body gadgets was the unanimous way to go." Emilien seemed pissed. "Your customers might not know that I'm augmented. And what if I don't plan on staying that long. I just want to see Warren then I'll be off." Macy shook her head. "Warren is passed out in his ship and will probably wake up with a very bad hangover. He partied with the Jeul pair and their entourage for most of this rotation, you know how he gets." Macy waved her hand towards the couple who seemed to be looking directly at Emilien. He looked straight back at them and swiped the interface's privacy command dropping a vision distortion field around his table. Encapsulating himself and Macy. "I treat everyone the same, no compromise." Emile looked at her in a moment of rumination. "Let's get it over with." Macy removed a container from her moonbag after opening, holding it towards Emilien he took the purple capsule and swallowed it without a drink and opened his mouth wide moving his tongue around to show Macy that he did indeed swallow the prophylactic. "And what about robo-mech boy back there? He cannot eat slipper pills." Emilien sounded annoyed and regretful." Macy gave him a stern look tilting her head in annoyance. "Why do think he's in a wheelchair, you know I can't talk about my customers with my customers? Besides from the obvious." Emilien did not say anything. Macy sighed. "What can I get you sir?" "I'll just have a beer." Macy stepped out through the distortion field and became a messy disfigured indistinguishable form. Emilien pushed the music's volume up and waited for the inevitable. He sensed the actuators in his shoulders, elbows and wrists disable in sequence down his arms. His spines bit rate slowed to a crawl and the lack of connectivity to his neck port was becoming noticeable. His legs went numb instantly. "Now I am nothing more than a pathetic land crawler." He felt weak and vulnerable in his natural form. His mental state bordered on the fringes of stable and paranoid, fearful thoughts threatening to manifest in his mind. He saw a figure approach. He assumed it was his drink. The slender glowing tattooed leg of the Jeul woman pierced the veil. A bright green line that suddenly dims where her skirt begins. She stepped through the curtain with a friendly nonchalant expression. "Mind if make your acquaintance mon ami?" Emilien dropped the barrier and lowered the volume making sure that he was back on visual record of Macy's archive. "Not really, thanks, I'm good." Macy returned to place a cold beer on the table. The interface flashed a price in femto-sat and Emilien tapped his ring on it shifting 11 fSAT from a mini holographic Bob to very happy little Alice. The animation morphed into a small firework display and died. "Back to work now." Emilien grinned at Macy thankfully and took a sip. "Me and my brother we are celebrating our seventh birth block anniversary." He looked around sarcastically. "You chose a display of death above the resorts on Juel to celebrate your seventh birth block?" She stiffened her glittery lips and raised her eyebrows thoughtfully and took a seat without invitation. "It is more of a tour than a celebration, I am Maurelle Giovanni and my brother is called Lionel also Giovanni obviously. He is my twin baby brother." Emilien looked over at the guy who seemed to be occupied playing a mini game on their tables interface. She tilted her head into his line of sight forcing him to look at her. "Who are you?" "None of your concern really." She did not accept the short stated answer. "No one comes alone all the way to a dead end system just to drink a cheap beer. I am guessing you are a treasure hunter, no. Looking for artefacts of the ancient world, yes?" Emilien had assessed her body language and concluded that her whimsical imagination was one he could easily manipulate. He had enough information to realise that he was faced with a spoiled individual whose sole interest in him was simple curiosity, motivated by boredom and she had a fascination of the mysterious. She seemed like prey but his hunting instincts felt dead inside his disarmed body. His respect for and dependence on Macy also inhibited his urge to exploit it. He shifted his attitude and personality slightly, just enough to not be overbearing. "You make very good estimations, you are wrong but not far off. My name is Scott. And yes I am fascinated, not by the planet and it's relics but by the the secrets of these gates." Her eyes gleamed with amusement and intrigue. "You like secrets, huh? You must meet Warren. He knows more than the esteemed professors about the gates and their technology." Emilien nodded in agreement. "You said you are Giovanni. Like the Giovanni?" She seemed excited at the prospect of making a new friend and swiped the interface. "Hold this thought, I am going to get myself another drink you are good? No. Food maybe?" "I am good, no wait, another beer." He tipped the bottle toward her in salutation. She stood up taking his bottle with her to the bar. He looked back and was immediately aware that he did not notice that the android wheel himself out and into the conduit. He would have liked to see which of the two entrances of the tube he used to go to his ship. His feeling sorry for and pitying himself put him in a position where he let slip an opportunity to understand and predict the circumstances of his current tactical situation. Never at ease, always being prepared. He felt spite. The girl returned with a beer and a half full whiskey glass, no ice. She reclaimed her seat looking at him. "I am a direct descendant of the patriarch Maurice Giovanni, one of the four primary key holders of our people. There is nothing special about me really, ten..." Emilien cut her off in gentle tone. "Ten percent of the Juel population are descendants of the four patriarchs." Emilien finished her sentence for her. "You are an interesting man Monsieur Scott. What else do you know about me?" Emilien leaned towards her. Noticing her brother yawning across the room. "I know that you are bourgeois and I know that you receive a cyclical allowance from your great, great... How many generations?" "I am removed 133 generations from my Patriarch. He is a very good, doting grandfather. We all adore him. We are around 750 million siblings you know. Those who are from aristocracy have fewer children than the proles. We are so few so that our wealth is not diluted too much." She smiled reminiscently dragging her finger on the edge of the glass. Her brother seemed to stretch himself out he stood up and walked over. Entering the sound damper he acknowledged Emilien's presence with a curt nod. "Maurelle, I am going to sleep." He said to her. She waved at him dismissively. "Have a good dream frere." He exited the room through the right tubes door which made sense as their ship was more closely attached to it on that side of the circular docking ring. Predictable and honest Emilien thought to himself. Macy popped her head through the kitchens serving window. "Lights out and shutdown in 2 blocks. Just a friendly notice." The couple acknowledged the warning from Macy with raised glass and bottle. Emilien turned his attention back to the lady. "How do you manage to retain wealth in such a large family?" He pretended to be ignorant of the finery and detail of Juel culture. "We have closed loop channels controlled and balanced by the patriarchs. But our money is good as core stone. Anywhere in the outer void. Only recently has dispute arose between my Patriarchs and the Magarrie. They do not accept our Sats anymore since the war started. They only accept bitcoins directly from the core. I was only four cycles old when the war began so I am used to it." Emilien felt a conflicting disturbance, thinking about how his body is only two cycles active but his mind stretches back far beyond this time. Being both older and younger than his partner in discourse. "Helloo? I lost you there for a moment Scott." "What are you thinking about?" Emilien lied to her faking emotion. "I was just thinking about the tremendous loss of life that we are orbiting. The planet embedded with what it's inhabitants assumed would be it's portal to prosperity became the golem of it's demise." He was happy that Maurelle seemed to empathise and mirror his philosophic grief. "Come with me I want to tell you a secret. You like secrets." She stood up taking his hand gently tugging, compelling him to follow her. She led him to the far end of the room. She pulled a small levered switch and the wall folded in on itself to reveal a impressive window flooding sharp light into the whole of the large room as it retracted. They both squinted and lifted their hands to shield their eyes adjusting to the glare of Sol. The scene of destruction appeared even more dramatic and morbid as dark sharply defined shadows clipped with golden edges, evoking a sense of isolation and suffering. "These gates were supposed to be a gift to Earth. A hope of spreading humanity across the stars like the children of Abraham." Emilien smirked. "You believe that nonsense?" She rested her head on his shoulder still holding onto his arm. "Our patriarchs have preserved the mysteries of mankind for millennia. I said that I am going to tell you a secret don't patronise me. I do not believe anything. What I know, it is not faith. It is understanding. Knowledge, a type of knowledge that you cannot quantify with mathematics and chemistry. It is a higher science that is proven by the unmistakable coincidence of fate. It is invisible to those who are ignorant and they who despair, those who have lost all hope are blind to this promise." Emilien felt a strange remorse. "I guess I must be blind then." The lights suddenly shut down and the song stopped dead in it's track, like Macy promised. Overcome by the majesty of the scene Maurelle wiped a tear away fearing that her makeup might get ruined. "Anyone can see. They must just open their eyes voluntarily and be honest with themselves. Their true original selves. Who they were made to be." Emile felt judged and wanted to end this conversation quickly. "I am going back to my ship, you have a good night now." She grabbed tightly at his wrist almost painfully. "You do not want to know my secret?" Emelien was becoming annoyed with her insistence he removed her hand from his arm. "I don't think you know any real useful secrets, sweetheart." He sounded threatening, the real enshrouded unmistakable him breaking through the act. She looked at him unintimidated by his sudden shift in personality. "Oh, so I suppose you know why the Juela are at war for most of our lives?" He sarcastically extended his arms forward palms up in restrained but evidently mocking adoration. "Please enlighten me priestess." "They are fighting over this." She pointed at the epic scene of destruction drifting statically out of view as the stations rotation cut it off at the edge of the window. The shadows chased Sol light away sliding like a retracting blade across the room leaving it dark. Emilien burst out angrily. "They are fighting over satoshis! That is all they ever fight over! What I fight for, Damnit! Sats and the resources to gain more of it! That is the beginning and end of all things! Anyone in the universe with even the slightest lick of self worth works, fights and dies for sat!" Maurelle stared astutely at him unemotionally affected by his outburst. She obviously had experienced this exact reaction before and suddenly Emilien realised that he might be the one being manipulated by a smarter and wiser being than himself. "Are you done my love? Have you made your point or is there some other deeper understanding you wish me to internalise into my ignorant small little world?" She threw at him a spiteful sarcasm of her own. "Do you really think I do not know what it means to be seduced by wealth? Luxury?" She took a step closer to him. "Pleasure?" Emilien felt stupid and disarmed this time adding emotionally disarmed to the defeat of being inept in his own body. "I am not a fool mon cherie. The truly wealthy don't fight for wealth, they fight for power. But the noble and sincere fight a different fight with a different weapon. They use words to fight, ideas to win. They fight to gain trust with words, and they fight to retain it with consistency in their actions. Trust is a currency that makes sat seem like shit in comparison because it is real even though you do not believe what you cannot hold in your hand, like your beloved sat." She pointed at the ring on his finger. "Trust only retains value if you honour your words with your actions. Its value is fragile and can disappear in a moment of weakness like water vapour, cherished as the source of life then gone, poof, evaporated. Like magic. This type of trust if gained and retained correctly, projects you forward into the realm of immortality." Emile felt stung and hurt on a personal level, unsure if she was generalising or targeting his own specific weakness purposely. It confused him and made him feel insecure. "What are they fighting for then?" He asked slightly surrendering to the unexpected superior reasoning. Maurelle appreciated the honesty she identified as sincere. She gently took his hand again and led him back to the large convex window. They stood silently for a block, waiting on the rotation to pull the bright light of Sol back into the room. "They are fighting for the power to do that." She pointed at Earth in all it's terrible glory. "The destruction caused by the gate was a terrible cataclysm outside of humanities collective control. The core and the gates are a mystery to mankind." She looked up at Emilien, relieved to see that he was still taking her seriously. "The Maggarie have discovered a weapon that has the power to destroy a planet. The Juel think they are fighting to free Osteri captives from slavery but the real motif is hidden, our Patriarchs unadmitted fear of being inferior to the Maggarie. Most of the goods we traded with them they have stopped accepting, the Shiv and Osteri still buy our products but the Maggarie have suddenly lost the need for our produce, even raw material in it's basest forms. They are expanding somehow and the balance of interdependence has tilted out of our favor. They have no more need for us and have cast us aside like a filthy rag." She paused in thought. "Their new super weapon is the cause of this conflict monsieur Scott." Emilien shrugged. Feeling relieved at regaining the intellectual high ground he thought he had lost. "I'm sorry Maurelle. I have no data on this weapon. If this was true the forums on my bulletin board would have leaked information about it's existence epochs ago, it's been just over three cycles everyone would have known this by now. It sounds more like Jeul fearmongering or perhaps it is the daydreaming fairy tale of an innocent naive girl who worships old myths and legends of a time dead for thousands of years." He pointed at Earth. She sniffed away a hint of emotion and anger. "Well then, I have nothing more to say to you, Good night monsieur Scott." She pulled away from him pridefully and looked out at the enormous gate embedded like a knife into the earths crust. "You are a swine monsieur Scott, leave me alone with my pearl." Emilien stepped back mockingly bowing slightly. "Good night sweetheart." He walked back to his craft laughing inside himself. "Stupid woman." He muttered, although be it doubtfully.

...

scifi

@ cb20eb8e:3d031b50

''The Frequency of Life"

At first, this phrase sounded mysterious, almost abstract, as if it linked a digital currency to the very rhythm of life. Yet, over time, this concept has come to symbolize my journey of self-discovery, resilience, and transformation. For me, Bitcoin is more than just technology or investment; it’s a philosophy, a frequency that has guided me toward true freedom and helped me reimagine my life’s purpose.

Uncovering Family Secrets and Redefining My Identity

My journey began with a painful family secret that upended everything I thought I knew. The discovery that I was adopted shook my identity to the core. For years, I had felt a subtle but unrelenting control within my family, primarily from my stepfather, whose influence shaped much of my childhood. My brother later revealed the full extent of our stepfather’s control, bringing the truth into sharp focus. This revelation was both liberating and terrifying, forcing me to confront the lies and manipulations that had defined my past.

Suddenly, I found myself questioning everything. Who was I without these imposed narratives? This painful process pushed me to seek a path of honesty, autonomy, and freedom—concepts that felt foreign but increasingly vital to my well-being. Amid this struggle for identity and independence, I encountered Bitcoin, though I wouldn’t fully grasp its significance until years later.

An Unexpected Introduction to Bitcoin and Returning to the Struggles of Daily Life

In 2012, during a trip to Thailand, I met a Russian friend, Victor. Amid the colorful chaos of Bangkok, Victor spoke passionately about a strange, new digital currency called Bitcoin. Skeptical yet intrigued, I decided to buy four Bitcoin, following his encouragement. But back home, the stresses of daily life soon consumed me again, and I forgot about Bitcoin entirely. It seemed like a distant, almost irrelevant experiment.

Back in the routines of everyday life, I faced familiar struggles. I struggled to find work that felt meaningful, a job where my ideas were valued and my contributions acknowledged. The pressures to conform, to fit into a world that didn’t resonate with my true self, left me feeling trapped and restless. I felt like a slave to routines that drained my spirit. Each day felt like a battle against an invisible force that kept me from the freedom I craved. Eventually, this frustration led me down a darker path.

Falling into Darkness and Hitting a Personal Turning Point

The daily grind, coupled with unresolved pain from my family’s revelations, drove me toward unhealthy habits. I began using drugs, drinking, and letting negativity grow until it filled every corner of my life. I was slipping into a spiral, struggling to find anything that felt worthwhile. Then one Monday morning, in the depths of my struggle, I found myself under the influence of cocaine, sitting on a bench as parents walked their children to school. In that moment, the reality of my life hit me hard. I saw myself clearly, and it was devastating. I realized I was a stranger to the person I wanted to become. That was my rock bottom.

From that day forward, I vowed to make serious changes. I swore off hard drugs and began to search for something real, something that would connect me to a purpose beyond temporary escape. It was the beginning of a painful but essential transformation, a process of reclaiming my life and redefining my future. This journey of healing ultimately led me to reconnect with an old friend who would help me see Bitcoin in a way I never had before.

Reconnecting with an Old Friend and Rediscovering Bitcoin’s True Potential

As I began to focus on my growth, I reconnected with Leon Wankum, a friend from my primary school days, who, coincidentally, also knew Victor from Thailand. During our conversations, I opened up about my journey, sharing how I had changed since the darkness of my past. Our talks naturally led to Bitcoin, which I had forgotten about since my time in Thailand. Leon, however, had dedicated himself to understanding Bitcoin deeply, and he shared his insights with a passion that rekindled my own interest.

Leon’s explanations were transformative. With his philosophical perspective, he explained Bitcoin as more than a currency; he saw it as a vehicle for autonomy, a tool that could offer financial freedom and, perhaps, spiritual independence. In many ways, he became like an ancient Greek teacher, guiding me through the layers of Bitcoin’s philosophy. Under Leon’s mentorship, I began to grasp the depth of Bitcoin—not just its value as an asset, but its potential to change how we engage with power, control, and freedom. Talking to him felt like stepping into a new world, one where each principle of Bitcoin aligned with my personal journey toward independence and truth.

Finding Freedom in Bitcoin’s Decentralized Philosophy

The more I learned, the more Bitcoin resonated with me. I began to see how its principles of decentralization and transparency paralleled my own desire to break free from the control and illusions of my past. Bitcoin operated beyond the reach of traditional institutions and power structures, and I wanted my life to reflect that same freedom. Just as Bitcoin exists independently, governed only by its own transparent network, I realized I could structure my life based on my values, free from the influence of my family’s secrets.

Over time, I also discovered a deeper, almost spiritual connection to Bitcoin’s "frequency"—the steady rhythm of its time chain, the immutable records of its transactions, the stability amid volatility. This frequency mirrored my own quest for resilience and autonomy. I began to view decentralization not just as a financial principle but as a personal one, a way to root myself in my own truth, free from the dependence and darkness of my past.

Embracing New Routines and Personal Growth Through Bitcoin’s Philosophy

Inspired by Bitcoin’s principles, I started building routines that aligned with my new mindset. I took control of my finances, setting long-term goals and learning the value of patience and discipline. Bitcoin’s commitment to transparency reminded me of the importance of honesty and clarity in my relationships, while its decentralization taught me the power of autonomy and self-trust.

I also found myself letting go of anything that didn’t support my vision of a free, authentic life. My old habits faded as I built a future based on values of resilience and independence. I was no longer willing to compromise or live according to someone else’s expectations. Every aspect of my life began to reflect my dedication to freedom, transparency, and personal responsibility.

The Spiritual Connection of Bitcoin’s Frequency and Looking to the Future

As I continued my journey, I realized that Bitcoin’s "frequency" had become a guiding resonance in my life. The rhythm of Bitcoin’s timechain mirrored my own growth, teaching me to find balance and stability within myself. I felt that, just as Bitcoin’s decentralized structure allowed it to exist independently, I, too, could live in alignment with my own values and truths. This frequency of life—this resonance of freedom and authenticity—has come to define not just my journey with Bitcoin but my journey with myself.

Now, as I look back, I see Bitcoin as more than a financial tool or an investment. It’s a model of resilience, a guide for choosing light over darkness, and a symbol of life’s true rhythm. Each of us has the opportunity to find our own frequency, to create a life that resonates with who we truly are. For me, Bitcoin was the key to unlocking this understanding, helping me connect my past struggles with a future built on clarity, purpose, and freedom.

In sharing my story, I hope others can see that it’s never too late to find their own path. Whether through Bitcoin or another journey, each of us has the power to tune into what truly matters and build a life that aligns with our deepest values. It’s a journey that requires courage and resilience, but in the end, it leads us closer to our true selves.

This story is just one part of where I’m headed. There’s so much more I’m working toward, so many more lessons and connections to be made. If any of this resonates with you, maybe it’s because we’re all trying to find a little bit of freedom and authenticity in our lives. And if my journey inspires you to find your own path, that’s even better.

This is just the beginning, and I’m grateful to share it. If you’re into this, feel free to share it too. We’re all on this ride together.

Mick Henssler 🕷️🕸️

@ 015c8941:3ea77b51

the US could gain a strategic advantage over other countries that are contemplating starting a bitcoin reserve and can reinforce the US’ influence over global financial standards

@ 3584cea4:0951bbef

The understanding of a caregiver and healthcare advocate for my mom.

I have been involved in one way or another in the insurance business for a long time. I run a small insurance brokerage which primarily caters to my family and friends of friends. In that role, we perform a needs assessment with prospective clients' & family members to understand what keeps them up at night to help them build a tailor fitted protection plan for their families.

As part of that process I get a good sense of one’s financial obligations, specific cultural and family values that need to be factored and a general indication of their health status.

However, in the most recent year, I have been unexpectedly thrust into (and gladly accepted) the role of caregiver and health care advocate for my mom. As her dementia is quite severe and had been getting worse until recently. That combined with a series of strokes she experienced earlier this year, has left her unable to retain her independence and live by herself.

As such, I’ve had to understand the inner workings of aspects of the insurance industry that apply to older people that I was quite unfamiliar with.

One of the most poignant observations while on this journey for my mom’s complete recovery became clear to me about two weeks ago when we met with mom’s neurologist where we both met her for the first time after 7 months of trying to get a visit. There is a 4 month lead time to get an appointment and we missed one in June (work emergencies back home in PA). Hence, the rescheduled appointment 4 months later which was about 2 weeks ago.

Before I describe that visit, I need to explain what my experience has been working with the 6+ different medical specialists and mom’s PCP has been like for me.

The healthcare professionals I've encountered have been a mixed bag, of mostly kind, genuinely caring, overworked and underappreciated professionals. This accounts for >95% of my encounters with healthcare workers most recently.

Many of these healthcare institutions still use fax machines and mostly operate on 1990s tech. Healthcare workers are graded regularly not so much on the quality of the healthcare they provide to their patients, but how well they follow the rules that have been established by whichever governance body regulates the important incentives. If you know anyone that works in the healthcare industry and are able to follow the incentives, it doesn’t take much clicking and googling to see that it’s usually big pharma at the tail end of their incentive structure.

It’s my subjective opinion most (>95%) of the people in healthcare want to and believe they are doing the right thing. However, they are so overwhelmed, they sometimes don’t see the irony in their recommendations (a topic for another essay) or behavior that often leaves me baffled and wondering (out loud sometimes) “did they just say that”. With that said, it is of this 95% I speak of in this essay, the genuinely caring but overworked and under appreciated healthcare providers. From the physician’s assistants, to the doctors, specialists, nurses and so on.

How the visits typically play out.

We’re waiting for an hour or more to be seen (even with an appointment on the books).

Eventually, someone will come out to the waiting area to call my mom’s name and from there we are escorted to a private observation room. In the observation room we’ll sit and wait some more, sometimes just a few minutes other times longer.

After a few minutes, if we are lucky, someone else (presumably a nurse or PA) comes in to ask a few questions, checks mom’s vitals and make a few notes in her chart/records.

Sometimes moments “lay - tor” [spoken in a thick french accent] the actual doctor comes in. Other times we may be waiting an additional 30 minutes or more in the observation room.

The actual time spent with the doctor once they meet us in the observation room is usually 5-10 minutes depending on the office, then we are off to scheduling and referrals to get future appointments scheduled and on the books. The whole event from the time we walk into the office to departure is usually less than 2 hours. But, it’s OK if it ends up being a little longer as I always budget these appointments for 4 hours. Otherwise, the day’s schedule begins to fall apart, I miss meetings, calls and other demands on my time and stress ensues and I don’t like this type of stress.

Getting back to the point of this essay, mom’s neurologist.

We were waiting in the observation room by ourselves for what seemed to be a good 20 minutes, so I decided to quickly run out to the car and check on Wiggles. She had been out in the car making sure the AC was working for about an hour and a half at that point.

Sure enough the neurologist showed up while I was away. She entered the observation room to find my mom, by herself (and nonverbal). The doctor was somewhat confused and was looking around for someone to ask about my mom and get a sense of what she was supposed to be doing to/with her.

Arriving in time to see the neuro with a crayon and scratch pad in hand attempting to hand it over to my mom in hopes she would be able to say/explain herself in writing. It was more funny than anything. You have to know my mom to understand her attitude about a lot of what is going on around her. As my mom watched the neuro with crayon and paper in hand, she was likely thinking “I am old, retired, I only have to do things I want to do, and pen and paper sounds an awful lot like work. So, you can keep it and I’ll wait for my son.

Some additional context about this doctor's office. I would consider it one of the larger ones in the area, highly recommended, this is a very busy office with many employees hurriedly bustling about the hallways and bouncing from one observation room to another.

Back to the observation room. The neuro was likely alone with mom for just a moment before I returned from the doggy in the car check.

I expected this doctor visit to be like the rest and that I was going to get maybe 2 minutes with this doctor and she would be off seconds later to the next patient and observation room.

But that was not all the case. The neurologist engaged with my mom for a period, probably a good 15-20 minutes, without and prior to barely acknowledging I was even in the room. This is likely procedural, their way of making sure my mom is not a victim or being abused in some form. This was unusual, but oddly appreciated. But, most importantly my mom’s neurologist educated me on a few things regarding my mom’s health and spent almost an hour with us altogether. My mom’s neuro got more context around my mom and her lifestyle leading to this delicate state in her health. More than any other doctor my mom had been seeing. I can tell the neuro was slightly impressed or entertained (hard to tell the difference sometimes) that I understood what my mom was saying. Observing my mom and I interact as an outsider does look weird to people when in public and add to that visual a cane corso usually in a sit position right beside us. Self-admittedly, even funnier when she is scolding me about something I am doing or asking her to do.

I digress!

At the end of mom’s neuro visit, the doctor gave us her office and personal information so that I may contact her day/night/weekend for anything “you don’t have to wait for business hours if you have any questions or if any health concerns should arise.” While I have not tested those numbers to confirm their validity, I do believe she was being genuine in her gesture.

In conclusion, and all that to say, It was overall the best doctor visit I’ve had with respect to this situation I find myself in with my mom.

Don’t get me wrong, all the other doctors mean well. But the bandwidth simply isn’t there. As such, this is not a judgment on all the beautiful and caring people that have cared for my mom and countless others in the past and into the future. These are just the facts from these boots on the ground as I see it.

As for the brain damage to my mom’s left frontal lobe, it has diminished slightly and continues to shrink. It’s not all permanently damaged. But, there is no knowing at her age (86) how much repair we can expect or whether her speech will ever return. But my family and I are optimistic. As for mom’s speech or lack there of, a little peace and quiet never killed anyone. In many ways, mom is lucky because I sometimes wish I didn’t have to speak. I miss those days often. But being in Florida, especially now, is more important, so we are good with what needs to be done.

As for mom’s neurologist, I will do something nice for her. The next appointment is in February, let’s hope I don’t have to use that private number before then.

Mom’s neuro might have the initials of KBMD, but that’s just a guess.

BrainThings #LivingWithLala #caregiver #doctors #neurologist

@ b8a9df82:6ab5cbbd

Last week, I got to experience the energy of Buenos Aires—a city as lively as it is massive. My journey began with a painfully long flight (easily my worst yet), but my excitement to meet everyone face-to-face kept me going. Despite being exhausted, I couldn’t wait to explore the city, take in the sights, and feel its unique vibe.

Buenos Aires was even bigger than I’d anticipated. I’d heard it was large, but I was still surprised by the sheer size of the avenues and the steady stream of traffic. It has a European feel—somewhat like Madrid—but with a laid-back attitude that’s far different from Berlin’s intensity. One thing I didn’t expect, though, was the cost; I thought it would be more affordable, but it was closer to European prices. Still, I quickly found myself adapting to its rhythms and taking in all the city had to offer.

Then came the Airbnb situation. Our first place was a disaster—mouldy, noisy, and with a broken bathroom. After some frustrating back-and-forth with the host, we decided to find somewhere else. We ended up switching apartments and moved from a place with issues to another one with even more issues... but we made it work. This was by far the worst experience, yet somehow it became part of the adventure.

Once I settled in, I was thrilled to finally meet the local community I’d been working with remotely for weeks. There’s nothing quite like getting to hug the people you’ve only seen on a screen. The Nostr community here, known as La Crypta, was incredibly welcoming, and working from their community center made me feel like I belonged. I’ll be writing more about this wonderful group soon!

In the days leading up to the conference, my schedule was packed with last-minute prep for both the conference itself and Nostr Day. One of the biggest lessons I learned was to let go of control. In Buenos Aires, things run on a different kind of timing—schedules are flexible, and punctuality isn’t a priority. I came with a detailed plan, but I soon realised I’d need to adjust and go with the flow. Once I did, I could really enjoy each moment as it came.

The language barrier was another challenge. I don’t speak Spanish (turns out Duolingo didn’t quite prepare me!), so I often needed others to help translate, which meant that sometimes details got a little lost. Still, we made it work, and the Nostr booth turned out to be a hit. People stopped by to chat, learn, and hang out, which was exactly what we’d hoped for. We wanted to make Nostr accessible to everyone—from content creators to developers—and seeing people’s enthusiasm to join the protocol was rewarding.

One of the highlights of the week was moderating the Nostr panel on the main stage, as well as speaking on another one. I was nervous leading up to it, especially with the sound issues that made it hard to hear other panelists. But despite those hiccups, the experience turned out great. The panelists were awesome and engaging, and I left feeling inspired and grateful.

After two intense conference days spent in dark, noisy spaces, we wrapped things up with Nostr Day at La Crypta. Conferences can be draining, and I found myself missing my regular routines—morning workouts, sunlight, and a bit of peace and quiet. Originally, we had a packed agenda for Nostr Day, but after a late Halloween celebration the night before, everyone was ready for a slower pace. We adjusted and turned it into a relaxed networking day, sitting outside, sharing Mate, and soaking up the fresh air. It was the perfect way to connect at a comfortable pace.

This week in Buenos Aires showed me just how open and curious people are about Nostr. From exploring the ecosystem together to helping new users get their first taste of it, it was a week of shared learning and connection. Thank you to everyone who poured their heart and energy into making this experience unforgettable. And a special thanks to Buenos Aires for feeding me endless amounts of incredible meat! After over 20 years as a vegetarian, I recently started eating meat again, and I have to say—it felt amazing.

Next stop: SatsConf!

@ 29216785:2a636a70

One year ago I wrote the article Why Nostr resonates in Dutch and English after I visited the Bitcoin Amsterdam 2023 conference and the Nostrdam event. It got published at bitcoinfocus.nl (translated in Dutch). The main reason why I wrote that piece is that I felt that my gut feeling was telling me that Nostr is going to change many things on the web.

After the article was published, one of the first things I did was setting up this page on my website: https://sebastix.nl/nostr-research-and-development. The page contains this section (which I updated on 31-10-2024):

One metric I would like to highlight is the number of repositories on Github. Compared to a year ago, there are already more than 1130 repositories now on Github tagged with Nostr. Let's compare this number to other social media protocols and decentralized platforms (24-10-2024):

• Fediverse: 522
• ATProto: 159
• Scuttlebot: 49
• Farcaster: 202
• Mastodon: 1407
• ActivityPub: 444

Nostr is growing. FYI there are many Nostr repositories not hosted on Github, so the total number of Nostr reposities is higher. I know that many devs are using their own Git servers to host it. We're even capable of setting up Nostr native Git repositories (for example, see https://gitworkshop.dev/repos). Eventually, Nostr will make Github (and other platforms) absolute.

Let me continue summarizing my personal Nostr highlights of last year.

Organising Nostr meetups

This is me playing around with the NostrDebug tool showing how you can query data from Nostr relays. Jurjen is standing behind me. He is one of the people I've met this year who I'm sure I will have a long-term friendship with.

OpenSats grant for Nostr-PHP

In December 2023 I submitted my application for a OpenSats grant for the further development of the Nostr-PHP helper library. After some months I finally got the message that my application was approved... When I got the message I was really stoked and excited. It's a great form of appreciation for the work I had done so far and with this grant I get the opportunity to take the work to another higher level. So please check out the work done for so far:

• https://nostr-php.dev
• https://github.com/nostrver-se/nostr-php

Meeting Dries

One of my goosebumps moments I had in 2022 when I saw that the founder and tech lead of Drupal Dries Buytaert posted 'Nostr, love at first sight' on his blog. These types of moments are very rare moment where two different worlds merge where I wouldn't expect it. Later on I noticed that Dries would come to the yearly Dutch Drupal event. For me this was a perfect opportunity to meet him in person and have some Nostr talks. I admire the work he is doing for Drupal and the community. I hope we can bridge Nostr stuff in some way to Drupal. In general this applies for any FOSS project out there.
Here is my recap of that Drupal event.

Attending Nostriga

A conference where history is made and written. I felt it immediately at the first sessions I attended. I will never forget the days I had at Nostriga. I don't have the words to describe what it brought to me.

I also pushed myself out of my comfort zone by giving a keynote called 'POSSE with Nostr - how we pivot away from API's with one of Nostr superpowers'. I'm not sure if this is something I would do again, but I've learned a lot from it.
You can find the presentation here. It is recorded, but I'm not sure if and when it gets published.

Nostr billboard advertisement

This advertisment was shown on a billboard beside the A58 highway in The Netherlands from September 2nd till September 16th 2024. You can find all the assets and more footage of the billboard ad here: https://gitlab.com/sebastix-group/nostr/nostr-ads. My goal was to set an example of how we could promote Nostr in more traditional ways and inspire others to do the same. In Brazil a fundraiser was achieved to do something similar there: https://geyser.fund/project/nostrifybrazil.

Volunteering at Nostr booths growNostr

This was such a great motivating experience. Attending as a volunteer at the Nostr booth during the Bitcoin Amsterdam 2024 conference. Please read my note with all the lessons I learned here.

The other stuff

• The Nostr related blog articles I wrote past year:
  • Run a Nostr relay with your own policies (02-04-2024)
  • Why social networks should be based on commons (03-01-2024)
  • How could Drupal adopt Nostr? (30-12-2023)
  • Nostr integration for CCHS.social (21-12-2023)
• https://ccns.nostrver.se 
  CCNS stands for Community Curated Nostr Stuff. At the end of 2023 I started to build this project. I forked an existing Drupal project of mine (https://cchs.social) to create a link aggregation website inspired by stacker.news. At the beginning of 2024 I also joined the TopBuilder 2024 contest which was a productive period getting to know new people in the Bitcoin and Nostr space.
• https://nuxstr.nostrver.se 
  PHP is not my only language I use to build stuff. As a fullstack webdeveloper I also work with Javascript. Many Nostr clients are made with Javascript frameworks or other more client-side focused tools. Vuejs is currently my Javascript framework I'm the most convenient with. With Vuejs I started to tinker around with Nuxt combined with NDK and so I created a starter template for Vue / Nuxt developers.
• ZapLamp
  This is a neat DIY package from LNbits. Powered by an Arduino ESP32 dev board it was running a 24/7 livestream on zap.stream at my office. It flashes when you send a zap to the npub of the ZapLamp.
• https://nosto.re 
  Since the beginning when the Blossom spec was published by @hzrd49 and @StuartBowman I immediately took the opportunity to tinker with it. I'm also running a relay for transmitting Blossom Nostr events wss://relay.nosto.re.
• Relays I maintain
  I really enjoy to tinker with different relays implementations. Relays are the fundamental base layer to let Nostr work.

I'm still sharing my contributions on https://nostrver.se/ where I publish my weekly Nostr related stuff I worked on. This website is built with Drupal where I use the Nostr Simple Publish and Nostr long-form content NIP-23 modules to crosspost the notes and long-form content to the Nostr network (like this piece of content you're reading).

The Nostr is the people

Just like the web, the web is people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCgvkslCzTo 

the people on nostr are some of the smartest and coolest i’ve ever got to know. who cares if it doesn’t take over the world. It’s done more than i could ever ask for. - @jb55

Here are some Nostriches who I'm happy to have met and who influenced my journey in Nostr in a positive way.

• Jurjen
• Bitpopart
• Arjen
• Jeroen
• Alex Gleason
• Arnold Lubach
• Nathan Day
• Constant
• fiatjaf
• Sync

Coming year

Generally I will continue doing what I've done last year. Besides the time I spent on Nostr stuff, I'm also very busy with Drupal related work for my customers. I hope I can get the opportunity to work on a paid client project related to Nostr. It will be even better when I can combine my Drupal expertise with Nostr for projects paid by customers.

Building a new Nostr application

When I look at my Nostr backlog where I just put everything in with ideas and notes, there are quite some interesting concepts there for building new Nostr applications. Filtering out, I think these three are the most exciting ones:

• nEcho, a micro app for optimizing your reach via Nostr (NIP-65)
• Nostrides.cc platform where you can share Nostr activity events (NIP-113)
• A child-friendly video web app with parent-curated content (NIP-71)

Nostr & Drupal

When working out a new idea for a Nostr client, I'm trying to combine my expertises into one solution. That's why I also build and maintain some Nostr contrib modules for Drupal.

• Nostr Simple Publish
  Drupal module to cross-post notes from Drupal to Nostr
• Nostr long-form content NIP-23
  Drupal module to cross-post Markdown formatted content from Drupal to Nostr
• Nostr internet identifier NIP-05
  Drupal module to setup Nostr internet identifier addresses with Drupal.
• Nostr NDK
  Includes the Javascript library Nostr Dev Kit (NDK) in a Drupal project.

One of my (very) ambitious goals is to build a Drupal powered Nostr (website) package with the following main features:

• Able to login into Drupal with your Nostr keypair
• Cross-post content to the Nostr network
• Fetch your Nostr content from the Nostr content
• Serve as a content management system (CMS) for your Nostr events
• Serve as a framework to build a hybrid Nostr web application
• Run and maintain a Nostr relay with custom policies
• Usable as a feature rich progressive web app
• Use it as a remote signer

These are just some random ideas as my Nostr + Drupal backlog is way longer than this.

Nostr-PHP

With all the newly added and continues being updated NIPs in the protocol, this helper library will never be finished. As the sole maintainer of this library I would like to invite others to join as a maintainer or just be a contributor to the library. PHP is big on the web, but there are not many PHP developers active yet using Nostr. Also PHP as a programming language is really pushing forward keeping up with the latest innovations. 

Grow Nostr outside the Bitcoin community

We are working out a submission to host a Nostr stand at FOSDEM 2025. If approved, it will be the first time (as far as I know) that Nostr could be present at a conference outside the context of Bitcoin. The audience at FOSDEM is mostly technical oriented, so I'm really curious what type of feedback we will receive.

Let's finish this article with some random Nostr photos from last year. Cheers!

@ 361d3e1e:50bc10a8

https://forex-strategy.com/2024/11/05/years-of-preparation-for-the-destruction-of-the-farms-in-valencia/ Years of preparation for the destruction of the farms in Valencia Spain destroys hundreds of dams every year. In the photo, the sky over Valencia, the day before the rain.

spain #flooding #crisis #billgates #food #haarp

@ 79db13d6:e7aa15f1

Opinion about Blockchair Extension for Chrome (others)

The only portfolio that doesn't leak your balances and calculates it client-side. Respect

WalletScrutiny #nostrOpinion

Join the conversation!

@ 6871d8df:4a9396c1

Today is Election Day here in the US, and it's a big deal.

As of now, this is my bet on the vote:

For myself, as I did in 2020, I will be voting for Donald Trump.

My biggest reasons for this are as follows: 1. Dismantling the bureaucracy. 2. Financial Freedom 3. Food Freedom

There are others, but those are my top three.

For me, the fact that unelected bureaucrats essentially run our government (Joe Biden is still our President right now, though no one has seen or heard from him in months) is our largest red flag. I think it is our biggest priority to return to a place where the people we elect to run our government actually run our government.

Trump swung and missed on this in his first term, but with his commitment to RFK and having people on his side like Vivek, I do not think he will sing and miss this time.

Next is financial freedom. The Biden-Harris administration has been incredibly hostile to what I am calling financial freedom. They mostly got their policies from the Warren camp, which hates digital currencies.

Being a part of Bitcoin startups for most of the Biden admin, I have seen this first hand. Operation Chokepoint 2.0 was a real thing and it was scary living through it. Actively seeing the government try to de-bank you was something I never would have thought was possible in the 'Land of the Free.'

The fact that the gov could de-bank you at all was an even bigger catalyst of how necessary a neutral, open, digital, and global money was critical for not only freedom itself, but our future.

Trump clearly is the better candidate regarding this. Yes, he may have launched a grifting shitcoin, but he doesn't want my industry — and financial freedom itself — dead. This is a no-brainer.

Andreessen Horowitz had a great podcast summarizing this that is worth the listen. It sums up where I sit as opposed to the current administration.

Trump has also promised to free Ross, which is absolutely necessary.

Last is food freedom.

I think the US is going the absolute wrong direction when it comes to health and food. In the name of saving animals and climate, food guidelines have been captured by this horrible, anti-human ideology.

I personally think it's not only necessary but good for humans to eat lots of beef and just meat in general. So much of what we've been told about nutrition and cholesterol is blatantly wrong.

Only one side of the aisle is trying to mandate this in the name of 'science.' I think they are wrong.

There is also only one side of the aisle that is anti-seed oils. I haven't eaten seed oils for almost four years, and bringing that mainstream, I think, is incredibly important. RFK is leading the way here. Trump putting him in a position of power to 'Make America Healthy Again,' I believe, is a fantastic initiative and one that is at the forefront for me for this election.

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

We finally have an event other than soccer!

Freebitcoin is taking wagers on the Las Vegas Grand Prix.

Here's how to optimally allocate a hypothetical 2k sats on this event (according to RBOA):

| Driver | Wager | |--------|--------| | Vertappen | 486 | | Norris | 521 | | Leclerc | 456 | | Alonso | 6 | | Hamilton | 63 | | Piastri | 107 | | Tsunoda | 4 | | Perez | 12 | | Sainz | 243 | | Russell | 63 | | Stroll | 2 | | Ocon | 4 | | Ganyu | 1 | | Bottas | 2 | | Albon | 4 | | Hulkenberg | 7 | | Gasly | 4 | | Magnussen | 6 |

Enjoy your winnings

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/754549

@ e97aaffa:2ebd765d

Uma interessante discussão que aconteceu na conferência de Bitcoin nos Países Baixos deste ano. Não é algo técnico sobre bitcoin, mas sim, mais sobre economia e política monetária, mas aconselho muito a sua visualização.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoNGKUqO8Bc

Logo no início, Willem Middelkoop defende uma tese muito interessante, os bancos centrais mantém ouro como um plano de emergência, como uma medida extrema para evitar um cenário de hiperinflação, poderiam restabelecer o padrão ouro para salvar as economias.

Vamos analisar a distribuição do ouro disponível nas reservas dos centrais, inclui a quantidade de ouro em toneladas e o correspondente valor em milhões:

Na tabela também inclui o agregado monetário M2.

O EUA é o país com mais ouro, 8133 toneladas, mas apenas corresponde a 4% do seu respetivo M2.

Na tabela, os países com rácio superior a 100%, como a Venezuela, Líbano, Turquia e Rússia, tem uma característica em comum: são países com bastante ouro e estão a atravessar uma grave crise económica e monetária, fazendo com que o M2 esteja demasiado desvalorizado, ficando os valores muito enviesados, não correspondendo ao real valor da economia.

Uma surpresa (pela negativa) é o Canadá, que tem uma das maiores economias mundiais, mas não tem qualquer ouro. Na mesma situação estão Israel, Noruega, Nova Zelândia e outros de menor dimensão.

Portugal está bastante bem situado, na 13° posição, mas as reservas de ouro correspondem a 12% do M2.

Reavaliação

Na tabela, recolhi dados de 121 países, a soma dos M2, são 121 trilhões de dólares, mas o ouro é apenas 3.1 trilhões de dólares, correspondendo apenas a 2.5%.

Vamos fazer um exercício, sem qualquer rigor, se voltássemos ao padrão ouro, logo, o ouro detido pelos países teria de ter um valor aproximado às somas dos respectivos M2. Isso provocaria uma reavaliação do preço do ouro em 3900%.

É claro que este x39, é apenas teórico, na prática possivelmente seria inferior, os governos tomarem outras medidas extremas para contornar o problema, como confiscar o ouro dos cidadãos.

Se ouro valoriza-se 3900%:

Conclusão

Se isto um dia acontecer, é pouco provável mas concordo com o Willem Middelkoop: Se houver uma hiperinflação ou uma descredibilização completa da moeda FIAT, os bancos centrais terão que efectuar medidas extremas, como fizeram em Bretton Woods.

Se a medida extrema é voltar ao padrão ouro, tenho muitas dúvidas, aqueles países que tem bastante ouro até poderão optar, mas os outros, certamente irão optar por outra ou por várias commodities. Só que isto tornaria altamente complexo o comércio internacional e os câmbios entre moedas. Durante um período seria muito confuso, mas a médio prazo, inevitavelmente um padrão irá sobressair, será adotado pela generalidade dos países.

Se é bitcoin, acho pouco provável, os países vão preferir o ouro porque já têm reservas consideráveis e conseguem o controlar. Os estados nunca vão querer perder o controle da moeda.

@ 06639a38:655f8f71

• I published a blog 1 year later, why Nostr still resonates
  https://nostrver.se/blog/1-year-later-why-nostr-still-resonates 
• This blog is also cross-posted to Nostr: link here
• I'm running a promenade signer 
• I've worked out some Nostr the protocol explained sketches
   
• Did some improvements on the relay response handling in the websocket client within the Nostr-PHP library
• Worked on integrating the TLV part of NIP-19 which is a struggle in the Nostr-PHP library

@ 5a69e82d:aa41c382

Dhruv Bansal, CSO dan Co-Founder Unchained mengeksplorasi prinsip-prinsip dan sejarah yang mengarah pada penciptaan Bitcoin dan mengajukan pertanyaan: "Apa yang telah dilakukan Satoshi"?

Bitcoin sering dibandingkan dengan internet pada tahun 1990an, namun saya yakin analogi yang lebih baik adalah dengan telegraf pada tahun 1840an.[^1]

Telegraf adalah teknologi pertama yang mengirimkan data yang dikodekan dengan kecepatan mendekati cahaya dalam jarak jauh. Ini menandai lahirnya industri telekomunikasi. Internet, meskipun skalanya lebih besar, kontennya lebih kaya, dan many-to-many, bukan one-to-one, pada dasarnya masih merupakan teknologi telekomunikasi.

Baik telegraf maupun internet bergantung pada model bisnis di mana perusahaan mengerahkan modal untuk membangun jaringan fisik dan kemudian membebankan biaya kepada pengguna untuk mengirim pesan melalui jaringan ini. Jaringan AT&T secara historis mengirimkan telegram, panggilan telepon, paket TCP/IP, pesan teks, dan sekarang TikTok.

Transformasi masyarakat melalui telekomunikasi telah menghasilkan kebebasan yang lebih besar namun juga sentralisasi yang lebih besar. Internet telah meningkatkan jangkauan jutaan pembuat konten dan usaha kecil, namun juga memperkuat jangkauan perusahaan, otoritas pusat, dan lembaga lain yang memiliki posisi yang cukup baik untuk memantau dan memanipulasi aktivitas online.

Namun Bitcoin bukanlah akhir dari transformasi apa pun—ini adalah awal dari sebuah transformasi. Seperti halnya telekomunikasi, Bitcoin akan mengubah kebiasaan umat manusia dan kehidupan sehari-harinya. Memprediksi seluruh cakupan perubahan saat ini sama dengan membayangkan internet saat hidup di era telegraf.

Seri ini mencoba membayangkan masa depan dengan memulai dari masa lalu. Artikel awal ini menelusuri sejarah mata uang digital sebelum Bitcoin. Hanya dengan memahami kegagalan proyek-proyek sebelumnya, kita dapat memahami apa yang membuat Bitcoin berhasil—dan bagaimana hal itu menyarankan metodologi untuk membangun sistem desentralisasi di masa depan.

Daftar isi

1. Sistem yang Terdesentralisasi Adalah Pasar
   1. Sistem Terdistribusikan Bergantung pada Otoritas Pusat
   2. Sistem Desentralisasi Tidak Memiliki Otoritas Pusat
   3. Sistem Desentralisasi diatur Melalui Insentif
2. Pasar yang Terdesentralisasi Membutuhkan Barang yang Terdesentralisasi
   1. Komputasi Adalah Barang Terdesentralisasi yang Pertama
   2. Mata Uang Adalah Barang Terdesentralisasi yang kedua
   3. Pasar Terdesentralisasi Pertama harus Memperdagangkan Komputasi untuk Mata Uang
3. Bagaimana Sistem Desentralisasi dapat Menentukan Harga Komputasi?
   1. Gunakan Pasar Eksternal
   2. Gunakan Pasar Internal
4. Tujuan Kebijakan Moneter Satoshi Menghasilkan Bitcoin
   1. Semua Pasokan 21 Juta Bitcoin sudah Ada
   2. Bitcoin dihargai Melalui Konsensus
   3. Waktu Menutup semua Penyebaran
   4. Pesanan Terunggul Menciptakan Konsensus
5. Kesimpulan

Klaim utama dari artikel ini adalah bahwa Bitcoin dapat dianggap sebagai adaptasi dari proyek B-money Dai yang menghilangkan kebebasan untuk menciptakan uang. Hanya beberapa minggu setelah artikel ini pertama kali diterbitkan, email baru muncul di mana Satoshi mengaku tidak terbiasa dengan B-money, namun mengakui bahwa Bitcoin dimulai “tepat dari titik itu.” Mengingat bukti baru ini, kami yakin klaim utama ini, meskipun tidak akurat secara historis, masih merupakan cara yang bermakna dan bermanfaat untuk memikirkan asal usul Bitcoin.

Bagaimana Satoshi Nakamoto Memikirkan Bitcoin?

Satoshi memang cerdas, tetapi Bitcoin tidak muncul begitu saja.

Bitcoin mengulangi pekerjaan yang ada di bidang kriptografi, sistem terdistribusi, ekonomi, dan filsafat politik. Konsep proof-of-work sudah ada jauh sebelum digunakan dalam uang dan cypherpunk sebelumnya seperti Nick Szabo, Wei Dai, & Hal Finney mengantisipasi dan memengaruhi desain Bitcoin dengan proyek-proyek seperti bit gold, B-money, dan RPoW. Pertimbangkan bahwa, pada tahun 2008, ketika Satoshi menulis white paper Bitcoin[^2], banyak ide penting Bitcoin telah diusulkan dan/atau diimplementasikan:

• Mata uang digital harus berupa jaringan P2P
• Proof-of-work adalah dasar penciptaan uang
• Uang diciptakan melalui lelang
• Kunci publik kriptografi digunakan untuk menentukan kepemilikan dan transfer koin
• Transaksi dikelompokkan menjadi beberapa blok
• Blok dirangkai bersama melalui proof-of-work
• Semua blok disimpan oleh semua peserta

Bitcoin memanfaatkan semua konsep ini, tetapi Satoshi tidak menciptakan satu pun konsep tersebut. Untuk lebih memahami kontribusi Satoshi, kita harus menentukan prinsip Bitcoin mana yang tidak ada dalam daftar.

Beberapa kandidat yang jelas adalah persediaan Bitcoin yang terbatas, konsensus Nakamoto, dan algoritma penyesuaian kesulitan. Tapi apa yang mendorong Satoshi pada ide ini?

Artikel ini mengeksplorasi sejarah mata uang digital dan menyatakan bahwa fokus Satoshi pada kebijakan moneter yang sehat adalah hal yang menyebabkan Bitcoin mengatasi tantangan yang mengalahkan proyek-proyek sebelumnya seperti bit gold dan B-money.

Sistem yang Terdesentralisasi Adalah Pasar

Bitcoin sering digambarkan sebagai sistem terdesentralisasi atau terdistribusi. Sayangnya, kata “desentralisasi” dan “terdistribusi” sering kali membingungkan. Ketika diterapkan pada sistem digital, kedua istilah tersebut mengacu pada cara aplikasi monolitik dapat didekomposisi menjadi jaringan bagian-bagian yang berkomunikasi.

Untuk tujuan kita, perbedaan utama antara sistem terdesentralisasi dan terdistribusi bukanlah topologi diagram jaringannya, namun cara mereka menegakkan aturan. Kami meluangkan waktu di bagian berikut untuk membandingkan sistem terdistribusi dan desentralisasi dan memotivasi gagasan bahwa sistem desentralisasi yang kuat adalah pasar.

Sistem Terdistribusikan Bergantung pada Otoritas Pusat

Dalam hal ini, kami mengartikan “terdistribusi” sebagai sistem apa pun yang telah dipecah menjadi beberapa bagian (sering disebut sebagai "node") yang harus berkomunikasi, biasanya melalui jaringan.

Insinyur perangkat lunak semakin mahir dalam membangun sistem yang terdistribusi secara global. Internet terdiri dari sistem terdistribusi yang secara kolektif berisi miliaran node. Kita masing-masing memiliki simpul di saku kita yang berpartisipasi dan bergantung pada sistem ini.

Namun hampir semua sistem terdistribusi yang kita gunakan saat ini diatur oleh beberapa otoritas pusat, biasanya administrator sistem, perusahaan, atau pemerintah yang saling dipercaya oleh semua node dalam sistem.

Otoritas pusat memastikan semua node mematuhi aturan sistem dan menghapus, memperbaiki, atau menghukum node yang gagal mematuhinya. Mereka dipercaya untuk melakukan koordinasi, menyelesaikan konflik, dan mengalokasikan sumber daya bersama. Seiring waktu, otoritas pusat mengelola perubahan pada sistem, memperbarui atau menambahkan fitur, dan memastikan bahwa node yang berpartisipasi mematuhi perubahan tersebut.

Manfaat yang diperoleh sistem terdistribusi karena mengandalkan otoritas pusat juga disertai dengan biaya. Meskipun sistem ini kuat terhadap kegagalan node-nodenya, kegagalan otoritas pusat dapat menyebabkan sistem berhenti berfungsi secara keseluruhan. Kemampuan otoritas pusat untuk mengambil keputusan secara sepihak berarti menumbangkan atau menghilangkan otoritas pusat sudah cukup untuk mengendalikan atau menghancurkan keseluruhan sistem.

Terlepas dari adanya trade-off ini, jika ada persyaratan bahwa satu partai atau koalisi harus mempertahankan otoritas pusat, atau jika peserta dalam sistem tersebut puas dengan mengandalkan otoritas pusat, maka sistem terdistribusi tradisional adalah solusi terbaik. Tidak diperlukan blockchain, token, atau sistem desentralisasi serupa.

Secara khusus, kasus VC atau mata uang kripto yang didukung oleh pemerintah, dengan persyaratan bahwa satu pihak dapat memantau atau membatasi pembayaran dan membekukan akun, adalah kasus penggunaan yang sempurna untuk sistem terdistribusi tradisional.

Sistem Desentralisasi Tidak Memiliki Otoritas Pusat

Kami menganggap “desentralisasi” memiliki arti yang lebih kuat daripada “terdistribusi”: sistem desentralisasi adalah bagian dari sistem terdistribusi yang tidak memiliki otoritas pusat. Sinonim yang mirip dengan “desentralisasi” adalah “peer-to-peer” (P2P).

Menghapus otoritas pusat memberikan beberapa keuntungan. Sistem terdesentralisasi:

• Tumbuh dengan cepat karena tidak ada hambatan untuk masuk—siapa pun dapat mengembangkan sistem hanya dengan menjalankan node baru, dan tidak ada persyaratan untuk registrasi atau persetujuan dari otoritas pusat.
• Kuat karena tidak ada otoritas pusat yang kegagalannya dapat membahayakan berfungsinya sistem. Semua node adalah sama, jadi kegagalan bersifat lokal dan jaringan merutekan sekitar kerusakan.
• Sulit untuk ditangkap, diatur, dikenakan pajak, atau diawasi karena tidak adanya titik kendali terpusat yang dapat ditumbangkan oleh pemerintah.

Kekuatan inilah yang menjadi alasan Satoshi memilih desain Bitcoin yang terdesentralisasi dan peer-to-peer:

“Pemerintah pandai memotong… jaringan yang dikendalikan secara terpusat seperti Napster, namun jaringan P2P murni seperti Gnutella dan Tor tampaknya masih mampu bertahan.” - Satoshi Nakamoto, 2008

Namun kekuatan ini juga disertai dengan kelemahan. Sistem yang terdesentralisasi bisa menjadi kurang efisien karena setiap titik harus memikul tanggung jawab tambahan untuk koordinasi yang sebelumnya diambil alih oleh otoritas pusat.

Sistem yang terdesentralisasi juga sering dilanda perilaku yang bersifat penipuan dan bertentangan. Terlepas dari persetujuan Satoshi terhadap Gnutella, siapa pun yang menggunakan program berbagi file P2P untuk mengunduh file yang ternyata kotor atau berbahaya memahami alasan mengapa berbagi file P2P tidak pernah menjadi model utama untuk transfer data online.

Satoshi tidak menyebutkannya secara eksplisit, namun email adalah sistem terdesentralisasi lainnya yang menghindari kendali pemerintah. Dan email juga terkenal sebagai spam.

Sistem Desentralisasi diatur Melalui Insentif

Akar masalahnya, dalam semua kasus ini adalah, bahwa perilaku kejahatan (menyebarkan file buruk, mengirim email spam) tidak dihukum, dan perilaku kooperatif (menyebarkan file bagus, hanya mengirim email berguna) tidak dihargai. Sistem desentralisasi yang mengandalkan partisipannya untuk menjadi aktor yang baik gagal untuk berkembang karena sistem tersebut tidak dapat mencegah aktor jahat untuk ikut berpartisipasi.

Tanpa memaksakan otoritas pusat, satu-satunya cara untuk menyelesaikan masalah ini adalah dengan menggunakan insentif ekonomi. Aktor yang baik, menurut definisinya, bermain sesuai aturan karena mereka secara inheren termotivasi untuk melakukannya. Pelaku kejahatan, menurut definisinya, adalah orang yang egois dan licik, namun insentif ekonomi yang tepat dapat mengarahkan perilaku buruk mereka ke arah kebaikan bersama. Sistem yang terdesentralisasi melakukan hal ini dengan memastikan bahwa perilaku kooperatif menguntungkan dan perilaku kejahatan merugikan.

Cara terbaik untuk menerapkan layanan terdesentralisasi yang kuat adalah dengan menciptakan pasar di mana semua pelaku, baik dan buruk, dibayar untuk menyediakan layanan tersebut. Kurangnya hambatan masuk bagi pembeli dan penjual di pasar yang terdesentralisasi mendorong skala dan efisiensi. Jika protokol pasar dapat melindungi partisipan dari penipuan, pencurian, dan penyalahgunaan, maka pelaku kejahatan akan merasa lebih menguntungkan untuk mengikuti aturan atau menyerang sistem lain.

Pasar yang Terdesentralisasi Membutuhkan Barang yang Terdesentralisasi

Namun pasar itu rumit. Mereka harus memberi pembeli dan penjual kemampuan untuk mengirimkan penawaran dan permintaan serta menemukan, mencocokkan, dan menyelesaikan pesanan. Kebijakan tersebut harus adil, memberikan konsistensi yang kuat, dan menjaga ketersediaan meskipun terjadi masa-masa yang tidak menentu.

Pasar global saat ini sangat mumpuni dan canggih, namun menggunakan barang-barang tradisional dan jaringan pembayaran untuk menerapkan insentif di pasar yang terdesentralisasi bukanlah hal yang baru. Setiap penggabungan antara sistem desentralisasi dan uang fiat, aset tradisional, atau komoditas fisik akan menimbulkan kembali ketergantungan pada otoritas pusat yang mengontrol pemroses pembayaran, bank, dan bursa.

Sistem terdesentralisasi tidak dapat mentransfer uang tunai, mencari saldo rekening perantara, atau menentukan kepemilikan properti. Barang-barang tradisional sama sekali tidak terbaca dalam sistem desentralisasi. Hal sebaliknya tidak benar—sistem tradisional dapat berinteraksi dengan Bitcoin semudah aktor lainnya (begitu mereka memutuskan ingin melakukannya). Batasan antara sistem tradisional dan desentralisasi bukanlah sebuah tembok yang tidak dapat dilewati, melainkan sebuah membran semi-permeabel.

Ini berarti bahwa sistem yang terdesentralisasi tidak dapat melaksanakan pembayaran dalam mata uang barang tradisional apa pun. Mereka bahkan tidak dapat menentukan saldo rekening yang didominasi fiat atau kepemilikan real estat atau barang fisik. Seluruh perekonomian tradisional sama sekali tidak terbaca dalam sistem desentralisasi.

Menciptakan pasar yang terdesentralisasi membutuhkan perdagangan barang-barang baru yang terdesentralisasi yang dapat dibaca dan ditransfer dalam sistem yang terdesentralisasi.

Komputasi Adalah Barang Terdesentralisasi yang Pertama

Contoh pertama dari “barang terdesentralisasi” adalah kelas komputasi khusus yang pertama kali diusulkan pada tahun 1993 oleh Cynthia Dwork dan Moni Naor.[^3]

Karena adanya hubungan mendalam antara matematika, fisika, dan ilmu komputer, komputasi ini memerlukan energi dan sumber daya perangkat keras di dunia nyata—hal ini tidak dapat dipalsukan. Karena sumber daya di dunia nyata langka, komputasi ini juga langka.

input untuk komputasi ini dapat berupa data apa pun. Keluaran yang dihasilkan adalah “bukti” digital bahwa pengkomputasian telah dilakukan pada data input yang diberikan. Pembuktian mengandung “kesulitan” tertentu yang merupakan bukti (statistik) dari sejumlah pekerjaan komputasi tertentu. Yang terpenting, hubungan antara data input, pembuktian, dan pekerjaan komputasi asli yang dilakukan dapat diverifikasi secara independen tanpa perlu mengajukan banding ke otoritas pusat mana pun.

Gagasan untuk menyebarkan beberapa data input bersama dengan bukti digital sebagai bukti kerja komputasi dunia nyata yang dilakukan pada input tersebut sekarang disebut “proof-of-work”.[^4] Proof-of-work adalah, jika menggunakan ungkapan Nick Szabo, “biaya yang tidak dapat ditiru”. Karena proof-of-work dapat diverifikasi oleh siapa pun, maka proof-of-work merupakan sumber daya ekonomi yang dapat dibaca oleh semua peserta dalam sistem desentralisasi. Proof-of-work mengubah penghitungan data menjadi barang yang terdesentralisasi. Dwork & Naor mengusulkan penggunaan komputasi untuk membatasi penyalahgunaan sumber daya bersama dengan memaksa peserta untuk memberikan proof-of-work dengan tingkat kesulitan minimum tertentu sebelum mereka dapat mengakses sumber daya:

“Dalam makalah ini kami menyarankan pendekatan komputasi untuk memerangi penyebaran surat elektronik. Secara umum, kami telah merancang mekanisme kontrol akses yang dapat digunakan kapan pun diinginkan untuk membatasi, namun tidak melarang, akses ke sumber daya.” - Dwoak & Naor, 1993

Dalam proposal Dwork & Naor, administrator sistem email akan menetapkan tingkat kesulitan bukti kerja minimum untuk mengirimkan email. Pengguna yang ingin mengirim email perlu melakukan sejumlah komputasi yang sesuai dengan email tersebut sebagai data input. Bukti yang dihasilkan akan dikirimkan ke server bersamaan dengan permintaan pengiriman email.

Dwork & Naor menyebut kesulitan proof-of-work sebagai “fungsi penetapan harga” karena, dengan menyesuaikan kesulitan tersebut, “otoritas penetapan harga” dapat memastikan bahwa sumber daya bersama tetap murah untuk digunakan bagi pengguna yang jujur dan rata-rata, namun mahal bagi pengguna yang mencari untuk mengeksploitasinya. Di pasar pengiriman email, administrator server adalah otoritas penetapan harga; mereka harus memilih “harga” untuk pengiriman email yang cukup rendah untuk penggunaan normal namun terlalu tinggi untuk spam.

Meskipun Dwork & Naor membingkai proof-of-work sebagai disinsentif ekonomi untuk memerangi penyalahgunaan sumber daya, nomenklatur “fungsi penetapan harga” dan “otoritas penetapan harga” mendukung interpretasi yang berbeda dan berbasis pasar: pengguna membeli akses ke sumber daya dengan imbalan komputasi pada tingkat yang sama. harga yang ditetapkan oleh pengontrol sumber daya.

Dalam interpretasi ini, jaringan pengiriman email sebenarnya adalah pengiriman email perdagangan pasar yang terdesentralisasi untuk komputasi. Kesulitan minimum dari proof-of-work adalah harga yang diminta untuk pengiriman email dalam mata uang komputasi.

Mata Uang Adalah Barang Terdesentralisasi yang kedua

Namun komputasi bukanlah mata uang yang baik.

Bukti yang digunakan untuk “memperdagangkan” komputasi hanya valid untuk input yang digunakan dalam komputasi tersebut. Hubungan yang tidak dapat dipecahkan antara bukti spesifik dan input tertentu berarti bahwa proof-of-work untuk satu input tidak dapat digunakan kembali untuk input yang berbeda.

Proof-of-work awalnya diusulkan sebagai mekanisme kontrol akses untuk membatasi email spam. Pengguna diharapkan memberikan bukti kerja bersama email apa pun yang ingin mereka kirim. Mekanisme ini juga dapat dianggap sebagai pasar di mana pengguna membeli pengiriman email dengan komputasi pada harga yang dipilih oleh penyedia layanan email.

Batasan ini berguna – dapat digunakan untuk mencegah pekerjaan yang dilakukan oleh satu pembeli di pasar kemudian dibelanjakan kembali oleh pembeli lain. Misalnya, HashCash, implementasi nyata pertama dari pasar pengiriman email, menyertakan metadata seperti stempel waktu saat ini dan alamat email pengirim dalam data masukan untuk penghitungan bukti kerja. Bukti yang dihasilkan oleh pengguna tertentu untuk email tertentu, tidak dapat digunakan untuk email yang berbeda.

Namun ini juga berarti bahwa komputasi bukti kerja adalah barang yang dipesan lebih dahulu. Dana tersebut tidak dapat dipertukarkan, tidak dapat dibelanjakan kembali,[^5] dan tidak memecahkan masalah kebutuhan yang terjadi secara kebetulan. Properti moneter yang hilang ini mencegah komputasi menjadi mata uang. Terlepas dari namanya, tidak ada insentif bagi penyedia pengiriman email untuk ingin mengakumulasikan HashCash, karena akan ada uang tunai sebenarnya.

Adam Back, penemu HashCash, memahami masalah berikut:

"Hashcash tidak dapat ditransfer secara langsung karena untuk membuatnya didistribusikan, setiap penyedia layanan hanya menerima pembayaran dalam bentuk tunai yang dibuat untuk mereka. Anda mungkin dapat menyiapkan pencetakan gaya digicash (dengan chaumian ecash) dan meminta bank hanya mencetak uang tunai pada penerimaan tabrakan hash yang ditangani. Namun ini berarti Anda harus mempercayai bank untuk tidak mencetak uang dalam jumlah tak terbatas untuk digunakan sendiri." - Adam Back, 1997

Kita tidak ingin menukar komputasi yang dibuat khusus untuk setiap barang atau jasa yang dijual dalam perekonomian yang terdesentralisasi. Kita menginginkan mata uang digital serba guna yang dapat langsung digunakan untuk mengoordinasikan pertukaran nilai di pasar mana pun.

Membangun mata uang digital yang berfungsi namun tetap terdesentralisasi merupakan tantangan yang signifikan. Mata uang membutuhkan unit yang dapat dipertukarkan dengan nilai yang sama yang dapat ditransfer antar pengguna. Hal ini memerlukan model penerbitan, definisi kriptografi kepemilikan dan transfer, proses penemuan dan penyelesaian transaksi, dan buku besar historis. Infrastruktur ini tidak diperlukan ketika bukti kerja hanya dianggap sebagai “mekanisme kontrol akses”.

Terlebih lagi, sistem desentralisasi adalah pasar, jadi semua fungsi dasar mata uang ini harus disediakan melalui penyedia layanan berbayar… dalam satuan mata uang yang sedang dibuat!

Seperti mengkompilasi compiler pertama, permulaan jaringan listrik yang gelap, atau evolusi kehidupan itu sendiri, pencipta mata uang digital dihadapkan pada masalah bootstrapping: bagaimana mendefinisikan insentif ekonomi yang mendasari mata uang yang berfungsi tanpa memiliki mata uang yang berfungsi di dalamnya yang akan mendenominasikan atau membayar insentif tersebut.

Komputasi dan mata uang adalah barang pertama dan kedua di pasar yang terdesentralisasi. Proof-of-work sendiri memungkinkan pertukaran komputasi tetapi mata uang yang berfungsi memerlukan lebih banyak infrastruktur. Butuh waktu 15 tahun bagi komunitas cypherpunk untuk mengembangkan infrastruktur tersebut.

Pasar Terdesentralisasi Pertama harus Memperdagangkan Komputasi untuk Mata Uang

Kemajuan dalam masalah bootstrapping ini berasal dari penyusunan batasan yang tepat.

Sistem yang terdesentralisasi harus menjadi pasar. Pasar terdiri dari pembeli dan penjual yang saling bertukar barang. Pasar terdesentralisasi untuk mata uang digital hanya memiliki dua barang yang dapat dibaca di dalamnya:

1. Komputasi melalui proof-of-work
2. Unit mata uang yang kita coba bangun

Oleh karena itu, satu-satunya perdagangan pasar yang memungkinkan adalah antara kedua barang tersebut. Komputasi harus dijual untuk satuan mata uang atau setara dengan satuan mata uang harus dijual untuk komputasi. Menyatakan hal ini sangatlah mudah—bagian tersulitnya adalah menata pasar ini sehingga sekadar menukar mata uang untuk komputasi akan mem-bootstrap semua kemampuan mata uang itu sendiri!

Seluruh sejarah mata uang digital yang berpuncak pada white paper Satoshi tahun 2008 adalah serangkaian upaya yang semakin canggih dalam menata pasar ini. Bagian berikut mengulas proyek-proyek seperti bit gold milik Nick Szabo dan B-money milik Wei Dai. Memahami bagaimana proyek-proyek ini menyusun pasar mereka dan mengapa mereka gagal akan membantu kita memahami mengapa Satoshi dan Bitcoin berhasil.

Bagaimana Sistem Desentralisasi Dapat Menentukan Harga Komputasi?

Fungsi utama pasar adalah penemuan harga. Oleh karena itu, komputasi perdagangan pasar untuk mata uang harus menemukan harga komputasi itu sendiri, dalam satuan mata uang tersebut.

Kita biasanya tidak memberikan nilai moneter pada komputasi. Kita biasanya menghargai kapasitas untuk melakukan komputasi karena kita menghargai output dari komputasi, bukan komputasi itu sendiri. Jika keluaran yang sama dapat dilakukan dengan lebih efisien, dengan komputasi yang lebih sedikit, hal ini biasanya disebut “kemajuan”.

Proof-of-work mewakili komputasi spesifik yang keluarannya hanya berupa bukti bahwa komputasi tersebut telah dilakukan. Menghasilkan bukti yang sama dengan melakukan lebih sedikit komputasi dan lebih sedikit pekerjaan tidak akan menghasilkan kemajuan—hal ini akan menjadi bug. Oleh karena itu, komputasi yang terkait dengan Proof-of-work merupakan hal yang aneh dan baru untuk dicoba dihargai.

Ketika bukti kerja dianggap sebagai disinsentif terhadap penyalahgunaan sumber daya, maka bukti kerja tidak perlu dinilai secara tepat dan konsisten. Yang terpenting adalah penyedia layanan email menetapkan tingkat kesulitan yang cukup rendah sehingga tidak terlihat oleh pengguna yang sah, namun cukup tinggi sehingga menjadi penghalang bagi pelaku spam. Oleh karena itu, terdapat beragam “harga” yang dapat diterima dan setiap peserta bertindak sebagai otoritas penetapan harga mereka sendiri, dengan menerapkan fungsi penetapan harga lokal.

Namun satuan mata uang dimaksudkan agar dapat dipertukarkan, masing-masing memiliki nilai yang sama. Karena perubahan teknologi dari waktu ke waktu, dua unit mata uang yang dibuat dengan tingkat kesulitan proof-of-work yang sama—yang diukur dengan jumlah komputasi yang sesuai—mungkin memiliki biaya produksi yang sangat berbeda di dunia nyata, yang diukur dengan waktu, energi, dan/atau modal untuk melakukan komputasi tersebut. Ketika komputasi dijual dengan menggunakan mata uang, dan biaya produksi yang mendasarinya bervariasi, bagaimana pasar dapat memastikan harga yang konsisten?

Nick Szabo dengan jelas mengidentifikasi masalah harga ini ketika menjelaskan bit gold:

"Masalah utamanya...adalah bahwa skema pembuktian kerja bergantung pada arsitektur komputer, bukan hanya matematika abstrak yang didasarkan pada "siklus komputasi" abstrak. ...Jadi, ada kemungkinan untuk menjadi produsen berbiaya sangat rendah (dengan beberapa kali lipat besarnya) dan membanjiri pasar dengan bit gold." - Szabo, 2005

Mata uang terdesentralisasi yang diciptakan melalui proof-of-work akan mengalami kelebihan pasokan dan penurunan pasokan seiring dengan perubahan pasokan komputasi seiring waktu. Untuk mengakomodasi volatilitas ini, jaringan harus belajar menghitung harga secara dinamis.

Mata uang digital awal mencoba memberi harga pada komputasi dengan mencoba mengukur “biaya komputasi” secara kolektif. Wei Dai, misalnya, mengusulkan solusi praktis berikut dalam B-money:

"Jumlah unit moneter yang diciptakan sama dengan biaya upaya komputasi dalam sekeranjang komoditas standar. Sebagai contoh, jika sebuah masalah memerlukan waktu 100 jam untuk diselesaikan pada komputer yang dapat menyelesaikannya dengan cara yang paling ekonomis, dan diperlukan 3 keranjang standar untuk membeli 100 jam waktu komputasi pada komputer tersebut di pasar terbuka, maka setelah solusi terhadap masalah tersebut disiarkan, setiap orang mengkredit rekening penyiar sebanyak 3 unit." - Dai, 1998

Sayangnya, Dai tidak menjelaskan bagaimana pengguna dalam sistem yang seharusnya terdesentralisasi seharusnya menyetujui definisi “keranjang standar”, komputer mana yang memecahkan masalah tertentu “paling ekonomis”, atau biaya komputasi di “pasar terbuka”. Mencapai konsensus di antara semua pengguna mengenai kumpulan data bersama yang berubah-ubah terhadap waktu adalah masalah penting dalam sistem desentralisasi!

Agar adil bagi Dai, dia menyadari hal ini:

“Salah satu bagian yang lebih bermasalah dalam protokol B-money adalah penciptaan uang. Bagian dari protokol ini mengharuskan semua [pengguna] memutuskan dan menyetujui biaya perhitungan tertentu. Sayangnya karena teknologi komputasi cenderung berkembang pesat dan tidak selalu bersifat publik, informasi ini mungkin tidak tersedia, tidak akurat, atau ketinggalan jaman, yang semuanya akan menyebabkan masalah serius pada protokol." - Dai, 1998

Dai kemudian mengusulkan mekanisme penetapan harga berbasis lelang yang lebih canggih yang kemudian dikatakan Satoshi sebagai titik awal idenya. Kita akan kembali ke skema lelang di bawah ini, tapi pertama-tama mari kita beralih ke bit gold, dan pertimbangkan wawasan Szabo tentang masalahnya.

Gunakan Pasar Eksternal

Szabo mengklaim bahwa proof-of-work harus “diberi stempel waktu dengan aman”:

"Bukti kerja diberi stempel waktu yang aman. Ini harus bekerja secara terdistribusi, dengan beberapa layanan stempel waktu berbeda sehingga tidak ada layanan stempel waktu tertentu yang perlu diandalkan secara substansial." - Szabo, 2005

Szabo tertaut ke halaman sumber daya tentang protokol penandaan waktu yang aman tetapi tidak menjelaskan algoritme spesifik apa pun untuk penandaan waktu yang aman. Ungkapan “aman” dan “fesyen terdistribusi” mempunyai pengaruh yang besar di sini, sehingga dapat mengatasi kerumitan dalam mengandalkan satu (atau banyak) layanan “di luar sistem” untuk penandaan waktu.[^6]

Waktu pembuatan unit mata uang digital penting karena menghubungkan komputasi yang dilakukan dengan biaya produksi di dunia nyata.

Terlepas dari ketidakjelasan implementasi, Szabo benar—waktu pembuatan proof-of-work merupakan faktor penting dalam menentukan harga karena terkait dengan biaya komputasi:

"…Namun, karena bit gold diberi stempel waktu, waktu yang dibuat serta tingkat kesulitan matematis dari pekerjaan tersebut dapat dibuktikan secara otomatis. Dari sini, biasanya dapat disimpulkan berapa biaya produksi selama periode waktu tersebut..." - Szabo, 2005

"Menyimpulkan" biaya produksi adalah hal yang penting karena bit gold tidak memiliki mekanisme untuk membatasi penciptaan uang. Siapapun dapat membuat bit gold dengan melakukan perhitungan yang sesuai. Tanpa kemampuan untuk mengatur penerbitan, bit gold sama dengan barang koleksi:

"…Tidak seperti atom emas yang dapat dipertukarkan, tetapi seperti halnya barang-barang kolektor, pasokan dalam jumlah besar selama jangka waktu tertentu akan menurunkan nilai barang-barang tersebut. Dalam hal ini, emas kecil bertindak lebih seperti barang-barang kolektor daripada seperti emas..." - Szabo, 2005

Bit gold memerlukan proses eksternal tambahan untuk menciptakan unit mata uang yang sepadan:

“…[B]it Gold tidak dapat dipertukarkan berdasarkan fungsi sederhana, misalnya, panjang tali. Sebaliknya, untuk membuat unit yang dapat dipertukarkan, dealer harus menggabungkan potongan-potongan bit gold dengan nilai berbeda ke dalam satuan yang lebih besar kira-kira dengan nilai yang sama. Hal ini serupa dengan apa yang dilakukan banyak pedagang komoditas saat ini untuk memungkinkan pasar komoditas bekerja. Kepercayaan masih terdistribusi karena perkiraan nilai dari kumpulan tersebut dapat diverifikasi secara independen oleh banyak pihak lain dengan cara yang sebagian besar atau seluruhnya otomatis." - Szabo, 2005

Mengutip Szabo, “untuk menguji nilai… bit gold, dealer memeriksa dan memverifikasi tingkat kesulitan, masukan, dan stempel waktu”. Dealer yang mendefinisikan “unit yang lebih besar dengan nilai yang kira-kira sama” menyediakan fungsi penetapan harga yang serupa dengan “keranjang komoditas standar” Dai. Unit yang dapat dipertukarkan tidak dibuat dalam bentuk bit gold ketika bukti kerja diproduksi, hanya kemudian ketika bukti tersebut digabungkan menjadi “unit yang kira-kira bernilai sama” oleh dealer di pasar di luar jaringan.

Yang patut disyukuri, Szabo mengakui kelemahan ini:

"…Potensi kelebihan pasokan yang awalnya tersembunyi karena inovasi tersembunyi dalam arsitektur mesin adalah potensi kelemahan dalam bit gold, atau setidaknya ketidaksempurnaan yang harus diatasi oleh lelang awal dan pertukaran ex post bit gold." - Szabo, 2005

Sekali lagi, meskipun belum sampai pada (yang sekarang kita kenal sebagai) solusinya, Szabo menunjukkan solusinya: karena biaya komputasi berubah seiring waktu, jaringan harus merespons perubahan pasokan komputasi dengan menyesuaikan harga uang.

Gunakan Pasar Internal

Dealer Szabo akan menjadi pasar eksternal yang menentukan harga (bundel dari) bit gold setelah penciptaannya. Apakah mungkin menerapkan pasar ini di dalam sistem dan bukan di luar sistem?

Mari kita kembali ke Wei Dai dan B-money. Seperti disebutkan sebelumnya, Dai mengusulkan model alternatif berbasis lelang untuk pembuatan B-money. Desain Satoshi untuk Bitcoin meningkat secara langsung pada model lelang B-money[^7]:

“Jadi saya mengusulkan subprotokol penciptaan uang alternatif, di mana [pengguna]… memutuskan dan menyetujui jumlah B-money yang akan dibuat setiap periode, dengan biaya pembuatan uang tersebut ditentukan melalui lelang. Setiap periode pembuatan uang adalah dibagi menjadi empat tahap, sebagai berikut:

Planning. Para [pengguna] menghitung dan bernegosiasi satu sama lain untuk menentukan peningkatan jumlah uang beredar yang optimal untuk periode berikutnya. Apakah [jaringan] dapat mencapai konsensus atau tidak, mereka masing-masing menyiarkan kuota penciptaan uang mereka dan komputasi makroekonomi apa pun yang dilakukan untuk mendukung angka tersebut.

Bidding. Siapapun yang ingin membuat B-money menyiarkan tawaran dalam bentuk dimana x adalah banyaknya B-money yang ingin dibuatnya, dan y adalah soal yang belum terselesaikan dari kelas soal yang telah ditentukan. Setiap masalah di kelas ini harus memiliki biaya nominal (katakanlah dalam MIPS-years) yang disetujui secara publik.

Computation. Setelah melihat penawaran, pihak yang mengajukan penawaran pada tahap penawaran sekarang dapat menyelesaikan masalah dalam penawarannya dan menyiarkan solusinya. Penciptaan uang.

Money creation. Setiap [pengguna] menerima tawaran tertinggi (di antara mereka yang benar-benar menyiarkan solusi) dalam hal biaya nominal per unit B-money yang dibuat dan memberikan kredit kepada akun penawar sesuai dengan itu."
- Dai, 1998

B-money membuat kemajuan signifikan menuju struktur pasar yang tepat untuk mata uang digital. Ini berupaya untuk menghilangkan dealer eksternal Szabo dan memungkinkan pengguna untuk terlibat dalam penemuan harga dengan menawar satu sama lain secara langsung.

Namun menerapkan proposal Dai seperti yang tertulis akan menjadi sebuah tantangan:

• Dalam fase "Planning”, pengguna menanggung beban menegosiasikan “peningkatan optimal jumlah uang beredar untuk periode berikutnya”. Bagaimana “optimal” harus didefinisikan, bagaimana pengguna harus bernegosiasi satu sama lain, dan bagaimana hasil negosiasi tersebut dibagikan tidak dijelaskan.
• Terlepas dari apa yang direncanakan, fase “Bidding” memungkinkan siapa saja untuk mengajukan “tawaran” untuk membuat B-money. Tawaran mencakup jumlah B-money yang akan dibuat serta jumlah bukti kerja yang sesuai sehingga setiap penawaran adalah harga, jumlah perhitungan yang bersedia dilakukan oleh penawar tertentu untuk membeli sejumlah tertentu. dari B-money.
• Setelah penawaran diserahkan, fase “Computation” terdiri dari peserta lelang yang melakukan proof-of-work yang mereka tawarkan dan menyiarkan solusi. Tidak ada mekanisme untuk mencocokkan penawar dengan solusi yang disediakan. Yang lebih problematis adalah tidak jelasnya bagaimana pengguna dapat mengetahui bahwa semua penawaran telah diajukan – kapan fase “Bidding” berakhir dan fase “Computation” dimulai?
• Masalah-masalah ini berulang dalam fase “Money creation”. Karena sifat proof-of-work, pengguna dapat memverifikasi bahwa bukti yang mereka terima dalam solusi adalah asli. Namun bagaimana pengguna dapat secara kolektif menyepakati serangkaian “tawaran tertinggi”? Bagaimana jika pengguna yang berbeda memilih set yang berbeda, baik karena preferensi atau latensi jaringan?

Sistem yang terdesentralisasi kesulitan dalam melacak data dan membuat pilihan secara konsisten, namun B-money memerlukan pelacakan tawaran dari banyak pengguna dan membuat pilihan konsensus di antara mereka. Kompleksitas ini menghalangi penerapan B-money.

Akar dari kompleksitas ini adalah keyakinan Dai bahwa tingkat “optimal” penciptaan B-money harus berfluktuasi seiring waktu berdasarkan “perhitungan makroekonomi” penggunanya. Seperti bit gold, B-money tidak memiliki mekanisme untuk membatasi penciptaan uang. Siapapun dapat membuat unit B-money dengan menyiarkan tawaran dan kemudian melakukan proof-of-work yang sesuai.

Baik Szabo maupun Dai mengusulkan penggunaan pasar pertukaran mata uang digital untuk komputasi, namun baik bit gold maupun B-money tidak menentukan kebijakan moneter untuk mengatur pasokan mata uang di pasar ini.

Tujuan Kebijakan Moneter Satoshi Menghasilkan Bitcoin

Sebaliknya, kebijakan moneter yang sehat adalah salah satu tujuan utama Satoshi dalam proyek Bitcoin. Dalam postingan milis pertama tempat Bitcoin diumumkan, Satoshi menulis:

“Akar permasalahan mata uang konvensional adalah kepercayaan yang diperlukan agar mata uang tersebut dapat berfungsi. Bank sentral harus dipercaya untuk tidak merendahkan mata uang tersebut, namun sejarah mata uang fiat penuh dengan pelanggaran terhadap kepercayaan tersebut.” - Satoshi, 2009

Satoshi selanjutnya menjelaskan masalah lain dengan mata uang fiat seperti perbankan cadangan fraksional yang berisiko, kurangnya privasi, pencurian & penipuan yang merajalela, dan ketidakmampuan melakukan pembayaran mikro. Namun Satoshi memulai dengan isu penurunan nilai oleh bank sentral—dengan kekhawatiran mengenai kebijakan moneter.

Satoshi ingin Bitcoin pada akhirnya mencapai pasokan sirkulasi terbatas yang tidak dapat terdilusi seiring waktu. Tingkat penciptaan Bitcoin yang “optimal”, bagi Satoshi, pada akhirnya akan menjadi nol.

Tujuan kebijakan moneter ini, lebih dari karakteristik lain yang mereka miliki secara pribadi (atau kolektif!), adalah alasan Satoshi “menemukan” Bitcoin, blockchain, konsensus Nakamoto, dll. —dan bukan orang lain. Ini adalah jawaban singkat atas pertanyaan yang diajukan dalam judul artikel ini: Satoshi memikirkan Bitcoin karena mereka fokus pada penciptaan mata uang digital dengan persediaan terbatas.

Pasokan Bitcoin yang terbatas bukan hanya tujuan kebijakan moneter atau meme bagi para Bitcoiner untuk berkumpul. Penyederhanaan teknis penting inilah yang memungkinkan Satoshi membangun mata uang digital yang berfungsi sementara B-money Dai tetap menjadi postingan web yang menarik.

Bitcoin adalah B-money dengan persyaratan tambahan berupa kebijakan moneter yang telah ditentukan. Seperti banyak penyederhanaan teknis lainnya, pembatasan kebijakan moneter memungkinkan kemajuan dengan mengurangi ruang lingkup. Mari kita lihat bagaimana masing-masing fase pembuatan B-money disederhanakan dengan menerapkan batasan ini.

Semua Pasokan 21 Juta Bitcoin Sudah Ada

Dalam b-money, setiap “periode penciptaan uang” mencakup fase “Perencanaan”, di mana pengguna diharapkan untuk membagikan “perhitungan makroekonomi” mereka yang membenarkan jumlah b-money yang ingin mereka ciptakan pada saat itu. Tujuan kebijakan moneter Satoshi yaitu pasokan terbatas dan emisi nol tidak sesuai dengan kebebasan yang diberikan b-money kepada pengguna individu untuk menghasilkan uang. Oleh karena itu, langkah pertama dalam perjalanan dari bmoney ke bitcoin adalah menghilangkan kebebasan ini. Pengguna bitcoin perorangan tidak dapat membuat bitcoin. Hanya jaringan bitcoin yang dapat membuat bitcoin, dan hal ini terjadi tepat sekali, pada tahun 2009 ketika Satoshi meluncurkan proyek bitcoin.

Satoshi mampu menggantikan fase “Perencanaan” b-money yang berulang menjadi satu jadwal yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya di mana 21 juta bitcoin yang dibuat pada tahun 2009 akan dilepaskan ke peredaran. Pengguna secara sukarela mendukung kebijakan moneter Satoshi dengan mengunduh dan menjalankan perangkat lunak Bitcoin Core yang kebijakan moneternya dikodekan secara keras.

Hal ini mengubah semantik pasar bitcoin untuk komputasi. Bitcoin yang dibayarkan kepada penambang bukanlah hal baru yang diterbitkan; itu melainkan baru dirilis ke peredaran dari persediaan yang ada.

Pandangan ini sangat berbeda dari klaim naif bahwa “penambang bitcoin menciptakan bitcoin”. Penambang Bitcoin tidak menciptakan bitcoin, mereka membelinya. Bitcoin tidak berharga karena “bitcoin terbuat dari energi”—tetapi nilai bitcoin didemonstrasikan dengan dijual untuk mendapatkan energi.

Mari kita ulangi sekali lagi: bitcoin tidak dibuat melalui proof-of-work, bitcoin dibuat melalui konsensus.

Desain Satoshi menghilangkan persyaratan untuk fase “Perencanaan” yang berkelanjutan dari b-money dengan melakukan semua perencanaan terlebih dahulu. Hal ini memungkinkan Satoshi untuk membuat kebijakan moneter yang sehat namun juga menyederhanakan penerapan bitcoin.

Bitcoin dihargai Melalui Konsensus

Kebebasan yang diberikan kepada pengguna untuk menghasilkan uang menimbulkan beban yang sesuai bagi jaringan bmoney. Selama fase “Penawaran” jaringan b-money harus mengumpulkan dan membagikan “tawaran” pembuatan uang dari banyak pengguna yang berbeda.

Menghilangkan kebebasan untuk menghasilkan uang akan meringankan beban jaringan bitcoin. Karena seluruh 21 juta bitcoin sudah ada, jaringan tidak perlu mengumpulkan tawaran dari pengguna untuk menghasilkan uang, jaringan hanya perlu menjual bitcoin sesuai jadwal Satoshi yang telah ditentukan.

Jaringan bitcoin dengan demikian menawarkan konsensus harga permintaan untuk bitcoin yang dijualnya di setiap blok. Harga tunggal ini dihitung oleh setiap node secara independen menggunakan salinan blockchainnya. Jika node memiliki konsensus pada blockchain yang sama (poin yang akan kita bahas nanti) mereka semua akan menawarkan harga permintaan yang sama di setiap blok.[^8]

Bagian pertama kalkulasi harga konsensus menentukan berapa banyak bitcoin yang akan dijual. Hal ini diperbaiki oleh jadwal rilis Satoshi yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya. Semua node bitcoin di jaringan menghitung jumlah yang sama untuk blok tertentu:

$ bitcoin-cli getblockstats <block\_height> {... "subsidy": 6250000000, ... } # 6.25 BTC

Bagian kedua dari harga yang diminta secara konsensus adalah jumlah komputasi yang akan menjual subsidi saat ini. Sekali lagi, semua node bitcoin di jaringan menghitung nilai yang sama (kita akan meninjau kembali kalkulasi tingkat kesulitan ini di bagian berikutnya):

$ bitcoin-cli getdifficulty {... "result": 55621444139429.57, ... }

Bersama-sama, subsidi dan kesulitan jaringan menentukan permintaan bitcoin saat ini sebagai mata uang komputasi. Karena blockchain berada dalam konsensus, harga ini adalah harga konsensus.

Pengguna b-money juga dianggap memiliki konsensus “blockchain” yang berisi riwayat semua transaksi. Namun Dai tidak pernah memikirkan solusi sederhana berupa konsensus tunggal yang meminta harga untuk pembuatan b-money baru, yang hanya ditentukan oleh data di blockchain tersebut.

Sebaliknya, Dai berasumsi bahwa penciptaan uang harus berlangsung selamanya. Oleh karena itu, pengguna individu perlu diberdayakan untuk mempengaruhi kebijakan moneter – seperti halnya mata uang fiat. Persyaratan yang dirasakan ini membuat Dai merancang sistem penawaran yang mencegah penerapan b-money.

Kompleksitas tambahan ini dihilangkan dengan persyaratan Satoshi mengenai kebijakan moneter yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya.

Waktu Menutup Semua Penyebaran

Dalam fase “Komputasi” b-money, pengguna individu akan melakukan komputasi yang telah mereka lakukan dalam penawaran sebelumnya. Dalam bitcoin, seluruh jaringan adalah penjual – tetapi siapa pembelinya?

Di pasar pengiriman email, pembelinya adalah individu yang ingin mengirim email. Otoritas penetapan harga, penyedia layanan email, akan menetapkan harga yang dianggap murah bagi individu namun mahal bagi pelaku spam. Namun jika jumlah pengguna yang sah bertambah, harganya masih bisa tetap sama karena kekuatan komputasi masing-masing pengguna akan tetap sama.

Di b-money, setiap pengguna yang menyumbangkan tawaran untuk pembuatan uang selanjutnya harus melakukan sendiri jumlah komputasi yang sesuai. Setiap pengguna bertindak sebagai otoritas penetapan harga berdasarkan pengetahuan mereka tentang kemampuan komputasi mereka sendiri.

Jaringan bitcoin menawarkan satu harga yang diminta dalam komputasi subsidi bitcoin saat ini. Namun tidak ada penambang individu yang menemukan blok yang melakukan komputasi sebanyak ini.[^9] Blok pemenang penambang individu adalah bukti bahwa semua penambang secara kolektif melakukan jumlah komputasi yang diperlukan. Pembeli bitcoin dengan demikian adalah industri penambangan bitcoin global.

Setelah mencapai konsensus harga yang diminta, jaringan bitcoin tidak akan mengubah harga tersebut sampai lebih banyak blok diproduksi. Blok-blok ini harus berisi proof-of-work dengan harga yang diminta saat ini. Oleh karena itu, industri pertambangan tidak punya pilihan jika ingin “melakukan perdagangan” selain membayar harga yang diminta saat ini dalam komputasi.

Satu-satunya variabel yang dapat dikontrol oleh industri pertambangan adalah berapa lama waktu yang dibutuhkan untuk memproduksi blok berikutnya. Sama seperti jaringan bitcoin yang menawarkan satu harga yang diminta, industri pertambangan juga menawarkan satu penawaran—waktu yang diperlukan untuk menghasilkan blok berikutnya yang memenuhi harga yang diminta jaringan saat ini.

Untuk mengimbangi peningkatan kecepatan perangkat keras dan minat yang berbeda-beda dalam menjalankan node dari waktu ke waktu, kesulitan proof-of-work ditentukan oleh rata-rata bergerak yang menargetkan jumlah rata-rata blok per jam. Jika dihasilkan terlalu cepat, kesulitannya akan meningkat. - Nakamoto, 2008

Satoshi dengan sederhana menjelaskan algoritma penyesuaian kesulitan, yang sering disebut sebagai salah satu ide paling orisinal dalam implementasi bitcoin. Hal ini benar, namun alih-alih berfokus pada daya cipta solusi, mari kita fokus pada mengapa penyelesaian masalah sangat penting bagi Satoshi.

Proyek-proyek seperti bit gold dan b-money tidak perlu membatasi nilai tukar pada saat penciptaan uang karena mereka tidak memiliki pasokan tetap atau kebijakan moneter yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya. Periode penciptaan uang yang lebih cepat atau lebih lambat dapat dikompensasikan melalui cara lain, misalnya melalui pajak. Dealer eksternal memasukkan token bit gold ke dalam bundler yang lebih besar atau lebih kecil atau pengguna b-money mengubah tawaran mereka.

Namun tujuan kebijakan moneter Satoshi mengharuskan bitcoin memiliki tingkat pelepasan bitcoin yang telah ditentukan untuk diedarkan. Membatasi laju (statistik) produksi blok dari waktu ke waktu adalah hal yang wajar dalam bitcoin karena laju produksi blok adalah laju penjualan pasokan awal bitcoin. Menjual 21 juta bitcoin selama 140 tahun adalah proposisi yang berbeda dibandingkan membiarkannya dijual dalam 3 bulan.

Selain itu, bitcoin sebenarnya dapat menerapkan batasan ini karena blockchain adalah “protokol cap waktu aman” milik Szabo. Satoshi menggambarkan bitcoin sebagai yang pertama dan terutama sebagai “server stempel waktu terdistribusi secara peer-to-peer,” dan implementasi awal kode sumber bitcoin menggunakan “rantai waktu” dunia, bukan “blockchain” untuk menggambarkan struktur data bersama yang mengimplementasikan pasar proof-of-work bitcoin.[^10]

Tidak seperti bit gold atau b-money, token dalam bitcoin tidak mengalami kelebihan pasokan. Jaringan bitcoin menggunakan penyesuaian kesulitan untuk mengubah harga uang sebagai respons terhadap perubahan pasokan komputasi.

Algoritme penyesuaian ulang kesulitan Bitcoin memanfaatkan kemampuan ini. Blockchain konsensus digunakan oleh peserta untuk menghitung penawaran historis yang dibuat oleh industri pertambangan dan menyesuaikan kembali kesulitan agar bisa mendekati waktu blok target.

Pesanan Terunggul Menciptakan Konsensus

Rantai penyederhanaan yang disebabkan oleh tuntutan kebijakan moneter yang kuat meluas ke fase “penciptaan uang” dari b-money.

Tawaran yang diajukan pengguna di b-money mengalami masalah “tidak ada yang dipertaruhkan”. Tidak ada mekanisme untuk mencegah pengguna mengajukan tawaran dengan sejumlah besar b-money untuk pekerjaan yang sangat sedikit. Hal ini mengharuskan jaringan untuk melacak tawaran mana yang telah diselesaikan dan hanya menerima “tawaran tertinggi…dalam hal biaya nominal per unit b-money yang dibuat” untuk menghindari tawaran yang mengganggu tersebut. Setiap peserta b-money harus melacak seluruh tawaran senilai buku pesanan, mencocokkan tawaran dengan perhitungan selanjutnya, dan hanya menyelesaikan pesanan yang telah selesai dengan harga tertinggi.

Masalah ini merupakan contoh dari masalah konsensus yang lebih umum dalam sistem desentralisasi, yang juga dikenal sebagai “Byzantine generals” atau terkadang masalah “pembelanjaan ganda” dalam konteks mata uang digital. Berbagi urutan data yang identik di antara semua peserta merupakan suatu tantangan dalam jaringan yang saling bermusuhan dan terdesentralisasi. Solusi yang ada untuk masalah ini – yang disebut “algoritma konsensus Byzantine-fault tolerant (BFT)” – memerlukan koordinasi sebelumnya di antara peserta atau mayoritas (>67%) peserta agar tidak berperilaku bermusuhan.

Bitcoin tidak harus mengelola buku pesanan dalam jumlah besar karena jaringan bitcoin menawarkan harga permintaan konsensus tunggal. Ini berarti node bitcoin dapat menerima blok pertama (valid) yang mereka lihat yang memenuhi harga yang diminta jaringan saat ini—tawaran gangguan dapat dengan mudah diabaikan dan merupakan pemborosan sumber daya penambang.

Komputasi harga berdasarkan konsensus memungkinkan pencocokan pesanan beli/jual dalam bitcoin dilakukan secara antusias, dengan sistem siapa cepat dia dapat. Berbeda dengan b-money, pencocokan pesanan yang cepat ini berarti bahwa pasar bitcoin tidak memiliki fase—pasar ini beroperasi terus-menerus, dengan harga konsensus baru dihitung setelah setiap pesanan dicocokkan (blok ditemukan). Untuk menghindari percabangan yang disebabkan oleh latensi jaringan atau perilaku bertentangan, node juga harus mengikuti aturan rantai terberat. Aturan penyelesaian pesanan yang serakah ini memastikan bahwa hanya tawaran tertinggi yang diterima oleh jaringan.

Kombinasi algoritma yang antusias dan serakah ini, dimana node menerima blok valid pertama yang mereka lihat dan juga mengikuti rantai terberat, adalah algoritma BFT baru yang dengan cepat menyatu pada konsensus tentang urutan blok. Satoshi menghabiskan 25% dari white paper bitcoin untuk mendemonstrasikan klaim ini.[^11]

Kita telah menetapkan di bagian sebelumnya bahwa harga permintaan konsensus bitcoin itu sendiri bergantung pada konsensus blockchain. Namun ternyata keberadaan harga permintaan konsensus tunggal inilah yang memungkinkan perhitungan pasar untuk mencocokkan pesanan dengan penuh semangat, dan itulah yang pertama-tama mengarah pada konsensus!

Terlebih lagi, “konsensus Nakamoto” yang baru ini hanya mengharuskan 50% peserta untuk tidak bertentangan, sebuah kemajuan yang signifikan dibandingkan dengan kondisi sebelumnya. Seorang cypherpunk seperti Satoshi membuat terobosan ilmu komputer teoretis ini, dibandingkan dengan akademisi tradisional atau peneliti industri, karena fokus mereka yang sempit pada penerapan uang yang sehat, dibandingkan algoritma konsensus umum untuk komputasi terdistribusi.

Kesimpulan

B-money adalah kerangka kerja yang kuat untuk membangun mata uang digital tetapi tidak lengkap karena tidak memiliki kebijakan moneter. Membatasi b-money dengan jadwal rilis yang telah ditentukan untuk bitcoin mengurangi cakupan dan menyederhanakan implementasi dengan menghilangkan persyaratan untuk melacak dan memilih di antara tawaran pembuatan uang yang diajukan pengguna. Mempertahankan kecepatan sementara dari jadwal rilis Satoshi menghasilkan algoritma penyesuaian kesulitan dan memungkinkan konsensus Nakamoto, yang secara luas diakui sebagai salah satu aspek paling inovatif dalam implementasi bitcoin.

Ada lebih banyak hal dalam desain bitcoin daripada aspek yang dibahas sejauh ini. Kita memfokuskan artikel ini pada pasar “utama” dalam bitcoin, pasar yang mendistribusikan pasokan awal bitcoin ke dalam sirkulasi.

Artikel berikutnya dalam seri ini akan mengeksplorasi pasar penyelesaian transaksi bitcoin dan kaitannya dengan pasar pendistribusian pasokan bitcoin. Hubungan ini akan menyarankan metodologi bagaimana membangun pasar masa depan untuk layanan terdesentralisasi selain bitcoin.

Sumber artikel: HOW DID SATOSHI THINK OF BITCOIN? https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/how-did-satoshi-think-of-bitcoin

Diterjemahkan oleh: Abengkris

[^1]: Judul seri ini diambil dari pesan telegraf pertama dalam sejarah, yang dikirimkan oleh Samuel Morse pada tahun 1844: “What hath God wrought?”.

[^2]: Bitcoin: Sistem Uang Elektronik Peer-to-Peer, tersedia di: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

[^3]: Pricing via Processing or Combatting Junk Mail oleh Dwork dan Naor. tersedia di:
https://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/../../pvp.pdf

[^4]: Meskipun merupakan pencetus ide tersebut, Dwork & Naor tidak menciptakan “proof-of-work”—julukan tersebut kemudian diberikan pada tahun 1999 oleh Markus Jakobsson dan Ari Juels.

[^5]: Proyek RPoW Hal Finney adalah upaya untuk menciptakan proof-of-work yang dapat ditransfer, tetapi bitcoin tidak menggunakan konsep ini karena tidak memperlakukan komputasi sebagai mata uang. Seperti yang akan kita lihat nanti ketika kita memeriksa bit gold dan b-money, komputasi tidak dapat berupa mata uang karena nilai komputasi berubah seiring waktu sementara unit mata uang harus memiliki nilai yang sama. Bitcoin bukanlah komputasi, bitcoin adalah mata uang yang dijual untuk komputasi.

[^6]: Pada saat ini, beberapa pembaca mungkin percaya bahwa saya meremehkan kontribusi Dai atau Szabo karena kontribusi mereka tidak jelas atau tidak jelas dalam beberapa hal. Perasaan saya justru sebaliknya: Dai dan Szabo pada dasarnya benar dan fakta bahwa mereka tidak mengartikulasikan setiap detail seperti yang dilakukan Satoshi tidak mengurangi kontribusi mereka. Sebaliknya, hal ini seharusnya meningkatkan apresiasi kita terhadap hal tersebut, karena hal ini menunjukkan betapa menantangnya munculnya mata uang digital, bahkan bagi para praktisi terbaiknya.

[^7]: Postingan b-money Dai adalah referensi pertama dalam white paper Satoshi, tersedia di: http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt

[^8]: Ada dua penyederhanaan yang dilakukan di sini: 1. Jumlah bitcoin yang dijual di setiap blok juga dipengaruhi oleh biaya transaksi pasar, yang berada di luar cakupan artikel ini, namun tetap menunggu pekerjaan selanjutnya. 2. Kesulitan yang dilaporkan oleh bitcoin bukanlah jumlah perhitungan yang diharapkan; seseorang harus mengalikannya dengan faktor proporsionalitas.

[^9]: Setidaknya sejak masa lalu yang buruk ketika Satoshi adalah satu-satunya penambang di jaringan.

[^10]: Bitcoin is Time klasik dari Gigi adalah pengenalan yang bagus tentang hubungan mendalam antara bitcoin dan waktu, tersedia di: https://dergigi.com/2021/01/14/bitcoin-is-time/

[^11]: Satoshi melakukan kesalahan baik dalam analisis mereka di buku putih maupun implementasi awal bitcoin berikutnya dengan menggunakan aturan “rantai terpanjang” dan bukan aturan “rantai terberat”.

@ 5a69e82d:aa41c382

Dhruv Bansal, CSO dan Co-Founder Unchained mengeksplorasi prinsip-prinsip dan sejarah yang mengarah pada penciptaan Bitcoin dan mengajukan pertanyaan: "Apa yang telah dilakukan Satoshi"?

Bitcoin sering dibandingkan dengan internet pada tahun 1990an, namun saya yakin analogi yang lebih baik adalah dengan telegraf pada tahun 1840an.[^1]

Telegraf adalah teknologi pertama yang mengirimkan data yang dikodekan dengan kecepatan mendekati cahaya dalam jarak jauh. Ini menandai lahirnya industri telekomunikasi. Internet, meskipun skalanya lebih besar, kontennya lebih kaya, dan many-to-many, bukan one-to-one, pada dasarnya masih merupakan teknologi telekomunikasi.

Baik telegraf maupun internet bergantung pada model bisnis di mana perusahaan mengerahkan modal untuk membangun jaringan fisik dan kemudian membebankan biaya kepada pengguna untuk mengirim pesan melalui jaringan ini. Jaringan AT&T secara historis mengirimkan telegram, panggilan telepon, paket TCP/IP, pesan teks, dan sekarang TikTok.

Transformasi masyarakat melalui telekomunikasi telah menghasilkan kebebasan yang lebih besar namun juga sentralisasi yang lebih besar. Internet telah meningkatkan jangkauan jutaan pembuat konten dan usaha kecil, namun juga memperkuat jangkauan perusahaan, otoritas pusat, dan lembaga lain yang memiliki posisi yang cukup baik untuk memantau dan memanipulasi aktivitas online.

Namun Bitcoin bukanlah akhir dari transformasi apa pun—ini adalah awal dari sebuah transformasi. Seperti halnya telekomunikasi, Bitcoin akan mengubah kebiasaan umat manusia dan kehidupan sehari-harinya. Memprediksi seluruh cakupan perubahan saat ini sama dengan membayangkan internet saat hidup di era telegraf.

Seri ini mencoba membayangkan masa depan dengan memulai dari masa lalu. Artikel awal ini menelusuri sejarah mata uang digital sebelum Bitcoin. Hanya dengan memahami kegagalan proyek-proyek sebelumnya, kita dapat memahami apa yang membuat Bitcoin berhasil—dan bagaimana hal itu menyarankan metodologi untuk membangun sistem desentralisasi di masa depan.

Daftar isi

1. Sistem yang Terdesentralisasi Adalah Pasar
   1. Sistem Terdistribusikan Bergantung pada Otoritas Pusat
   2. Sistem Desentralisasi Tidak Memiliki Otoritas Pusat
   3. Sistem Desentralisasi diatur Melalui Insentif
2. Pasar yang Terdesentralisasi Membutuhkan Barang yang Terdesentralisasi
   1. Komputasi Adalah Barang Terdesentralisasi yang Pertama
   2. Mata Uang Adalah Barang Terdesentralisasi yang kedua
   3. Pasar Terdesentralisasi Pertama harus Memperdagangkan Komputasi untuk Mata Uang
3. Bagaimana Sistem Desentralisasi dapat Menentukan Harga Komputasi?
   1. Gunakan Pasar Eksternal
   2. Gunakan Pasar Internal
4. Tujuan Kebijakan Moneter Satoshi Menghasilkan Bitcoin
   1. Semua Pasokan 21 Juta Bitcoin sudah Ada
   2. Bitcoin dihargai Melalui Konsensus
   3. Waktu Menutup semua Penyebaran
   4. Pesanan Terunggul Menciptakan Konsensus
5. Kesimpulan

Klaim utama dari artikel ini adalah bahwa Bitcoin dapat dianggap sebagai adaptasi dari proyek B-money Dai yang menghilangkan kebebasan untuk menciptakan uang. Hanya beberapa minggu setelah artikel ini pertama kali diterbitkan, email baru muncul di mana Satoshi mengaku tidak terbiasa dengan B-money, namun mengakui bahwa Bitcoin dimulai “tepat dari titik itu.” Mengingat bukti baru ini, kami yakin klaim utama ini, meskipun tidak akurat secara historis, masih merupakan cara yang bermakna dan bermanfaat untuk memikirkan asal usul Bitcoin.

Bagaimana Satoshi Nakamoto Memikirkan Bitcoin?

Satoshi memang cerdas, tetapi Bitcoin tidak muncul begitu saja.

Bitcoin mengulangi pekerjaan yang ada di bidang kriptografi, sistem terdistribusi, ekonomi, dan filsafat politik. Konsep proof-of-work sudah ada jauh sebelum digunakan dalam uang dan cypherpunk sebelumnya seperti Nick Szabo, Wei Dai, & Hal Finney mengantisipasi dan memengaruhi desain Bitcoin dengan proyek-proyek seperti bit gold, B-money, dan RPoW. Pertimbangkan bahwa, pada tahun 2008, ketika Satoshi menulis white paper Bitcoin[^2], banyak ide penting Bitcoin telah diusulkan dan/atau diimplementasikan:

• Mata uang digital harus berupa jaringan P2P
• Proof-of-work adalah dasar penciptaan uang
• Uang diciptakan melalui lelang
• Kunci publik kriptografi digunakan untuk menentukan kepemilikan dan transfer koin
• Transaksi dikelompokkan menjadi beberapa blok
• Blok dirangkai bersama melalui proof-of-work
• Semua blok disimpan oleh semua peserta

Bitcoin memanfaatkan semua konsep ini, tetapi Satoshi tidak menciptakan satu pun konsep tersebut. Untuk lebih memahami kontribusi Satoshi, kita harus menentukan prinsip Bitcoin mana yang tidak ada dalam daftar.

Beberapa kandidat yang jelas adalah persediaan Bitcoin yang terbatas, konsensus Nakamoto, dan algoritma penyesuaian kesulitan. Tapi apa yang mendorong Satoshi pada ide ini?

Artikel ini mengeksplorasi sejarah mata uang digital dan menyatakan bahwa fokus Satoshi pada kebijakan moneter yang sehat adalah hal yang menyebabkan Bitcoin mengatasi tantangan yang mengalahkan proyek-proyek sebelumnya seperti bit gold dan B-money.

Sistem yang Terdesentralisasi Adalah Pasar

Bitcoin sering digambarkan sebagai sistem terdesentralisasi atau terdistribusi. Sayangnya, kata “desentralisasi” dan “terdistribusi” sering kali membingungkan. Ketika diterapkan pada sistem digital, kedua istilah tersebut mengacu pada cara aplikasi monolitik dapat didekomposisi menjadi jaringan bagian-bagian yang berkomunikasi.

Untuk tujuan kita, perbedaan utama antara sistem terdesentralisasi dan terdistribusi bukanlah topologi diagram jaringannya, namun cara mereka menegakkan aturan. Kami meluangkan waktu di bagian berikut untuk membandingkan sistem terdistribusi dan desentralisasi dan memotivasi gagasan bahwa sistem desentralisasi yang kuat adalah pasar.

Sistem Terdistribusikan Bergantung pada Otoritas Pusat

Dalam hal ini, kami mengartikan “terdistribusi” sebagai sistem apa pun yang telah dipecah menjadi beberapa bagian (sering disebut sebagai "node") yang harus berkomunikasi, biasanya melalui jaringan.

Insinyur perangkat lunak semakin mahir dalam membangun sistem yang terdistribusi secara global. Internet terdiri dari sistem terdistribusi yang secara kolektif berisi miliaran node. Kita masing-masing memiliki simpul di saku kita yang berpartisipasi dan bergantung pada sistem ini.

Namun hampir semua sistem terdistribusi yang kita gunakan saat ini diatur oleh beberapa otoritas pusat, biasanya administrator sistem, perusahaan, atau pemerintah yang saling dipercaya oleh semua node dalam sistem.

Otoritas pusat memastikan semua node mematuhi aturan sistem dan menghapus, memperbaiki, atau menghukum node yang gagal mematuhinya. Mereka dipercaya untuk melakukan koordinasi, menyelesaikan konflik, dan mengalokasikan sumber daya bersama. Seiring waktu, otoritas pusat mengelola perubahan pada sistem, memperbarui atau menambahkan fitur, dan memastikan bahwa node yang berpartisipasi mematuhi perubahan tersebut.

Manfaat yang diperoleh sistem terdistribusi karena mengandalkan otoritas pusat juga disertai dengan biaya. Meskipun sistem ini kuat terhadap kegagalan node-nodenya, kegagalan otoritas pusat dapat menyebabkan sistem berhenti berfungsi secara keseluruhan. Kemampuan otoritas pusat untuk mengambil keputusan secara sepihak berarti menumbangkan atau menghilangkan otoritas pusat sudah cukup untuk mengendalikan atau menghancurkan keseluruhan sistem.

Terlepas dari adanya trade-off ini, jika ada persyaratan bahwa satu partai atau koalisi harus mempertahankan otoritas pusat, atau jika peserta dalam sistem tersebut puas dengan mengandalkan otoritas pusat, maka sistem terdistribusi tradisional adalah solusi terbaik. Tidak diperlukan blockchain, token, atau sistem desentralisasi serupa.

Secara khusus, kasus VC atau mata uang kripto yang didukung oleh pemerintah, dengan persyaratan bahwa satu pihak dapat memantau atau membatasi pembayaran dan membekukan akun, adalah kasus penggunaan yang sempurna untuk sistem terdistribusi tradisional.

Sistem Desentralisasi Tidak Memiliki Otoritas Pusat

Kami menganggap “desentralisasi” memiliki arti yang lebih kuat daripada “terdistribusi”: sistem desentralisasi adalah bagian dari sistem terdistribusi yang tidak memiliki otoritas pusat. Sinonim yang mirip dengan “desentralisasi” adalah “peer-to-peer” (P2P).

Menghapus otoritas pusat memberikan beberapa keuntungan. Sistem terdesentralisasi:

• Tumbuh dengan cepat karena tidak ada hambatan untuk masuk—siapa pun dapat mengembangkan sistem hanya dengan menjalankan node baru, dan tidak ada persyaratan untuk registrasi atau persetujuan dari otoritas pusat.
• Kuat karena tidak ada otoritas pusat yang kegagalannya dapat membahayakan berfungsinya sistem. Semua node adalah sama, jadi kegagalan bersifat lokal dan jaringan merutekan sekitar kerusakan.
• Sulit untuk ditangkap, diatur, dikenakan pajak, atau diawasi karena tidak adanya titik kendali terpusat yang dapat ditumbangkan oleh pemerintah.

Kekuatan inilah yang menjadi alasan Satoshi memilih desain Bitcoin yang terdesentralisasi dan peer-to-peer:

“Pemerintah pandai memotong… jaringan yang dikendalikan secara terpusat seperti Napster, namun jaringan P2P murni seperti Gnutella dan Tor tampaknya masih mampu bertahan.” - Satoshi Nakamoto, 2008

Namun kekuatan ini juga disertai dengan kelemahan. Sistem yang terdesentralisasi bisa menjadi kurang efisien karena setiap titik harus memikul tanggung jawab tambahan untuk koordinasi yang sebelumnya diambil alih oleh otoritas pusat.

Sistem yang terdesentralisasi juga sering dilanda perilaku yang bersifat penipuan dan bertentangan. Terlepas dari persetujuan Satoshi terhadap Gnutella, siapa pun yang menggunakan program berbagi file P2P untuk mengunduh file yang ternyata kotor atau berbahaya memahami alasan mengapa berbagi file P2P tidak pernah menjadi model utama untuk transfer data online.

Satoshi tidak menyebutkannya secara eksplisit, namun email adalah sistem terdesentralisasi lainnya yang menghindari kendali pemerintah. Dan email juga terkenal sebagai spam.

Sistem Desentralisasi diatur Melalui Insentif

Akar masalahnya, dalam semua kasus ini adalah, bahwa perilaku kejahatan (menyebarkan file buruk, mengirim email spam) tidak dihukum, dan perilaku kooperatif (menyebarkan file bagus, hanya mengirim email berguna) tidak dihargai. Sistem desentralisasi yang mengandalkan partisipannya untuk menjadi aktor yang baik gagal untuk berkembang karena sistem tersebut tidak dapat mencegah aktor jahat untuk ikut berpartisipasi.

Tanpa memaksakan otoritas pusat, satu-satunya cara untuk menyelesaikan masalah ini adalah dengan menggunakan insentif ekonomi. Aktor yang baik, menurut definisinya, bermain sesuai aturan karena mereka secara inheren termotivasi untuk melakukannya. Pelaku kejahatan, menurut definisinya, adalah orang yang egois dan licik, namun insentif ekonomi yang tepat dapat mengarahkan perilaku buruk mereka ke arah kebaikan bersama. Sistem yang terdesentralisasi melakukan hal ini dengan memastikan bahwa perilaku kooperatif menguntungkan dan perilaku kejahatan merugikan.

Cara terbaik untuk menerapkan layanan terdesentralisasi yang kuat adalah dengan menciptakan pasar di mana semua pelaku, baik dan buruk, dibayar untuk menyediakan layanan tersebut. Kurangnya hambatan masuk bagi pembeli dan penjual di pasar yang terdesentralisasi mendorong skala dan efisiensi. Jika protokol pasar dapat melindungi partisipan dari penipuan, pencurian, dan penyalahgunaan, maka pelaku kejahatan akan merasa lebih menguntungkan untuk mengikuti aturan atau menyerang sistem lain.

Pasar yang Terdesentralisasi Membutuhkan Barang yang Terdesentralisasi

Namun pasar itu rumit. Mereka harus memberi pembeli dan penjual kemampuan untuk mengirimkan penawaran dan permintaan serta menemukan, mencocokkan, dan menyelesaikan pesanan. Kebijakan tersebut harus adil, memberikan konsistensi yang kuat, dan menjaga ketersediaan meskipun terjadi masa-masa yang tidak menentu.

Pasar global saat ini sangat mumpuni dan canggih, namun menggunakan barang-barang tradisional dan jaringan pembayaran untuk menerapkan insentif di pasar yang terdesentralisasi bukanlah hal yang baru. Setiap penggabungan antara sistem desentralisasi dan uang fiat, aset tradisional, atau komoditas fisik akan menimbulkan kembali ketergantungan pada otoritas pusat yang mengontrol pemroses pembayaran, bank, dan bursa.

Sistem terdesentralisasi tidak dapat mentransfer uang tunai, mencari saldo rekening perantara, atau menentukan kepemilikan properti. Barang-barang tradisional sama sekali tidak terbaca dalam sistem desentralisasi. Hal sebaliknya tidak benar—sistem tradisional dapat berinteraksi dengan Bitcoin semudah aktor lainnya (begitu mereka memutuskan ingin melakukannya). Batasan antara sistem tradisional dan desentralisasi bukanlah sebuah tembok yang tidak dapat dilewati, melainkan sebuah membran semi-permeabel.

Ini berarti bahwa sistem yang terdesentralisasi tidak dapat melaksanakan pembayaran dalam mata uang barang tradisional apa pun. Mereka bahkan tidak dapat menentukan saldo rekening yang didominasi fiat atau kepemilikan real estat atau barang fisik. Seluruh perekonomian tradisional sama sekali tidak terbaca dalam sistem desentralisasi.

Menciptakan pasar yang terdesentralisasi membutuhkan perdagangan barang-barang baru yang terdesentralisasi yang dapat dibaca dan ditransfer dalam sistem yang terdesentralisasi.

Komputasi Adalah Barang Terdesentralisasi yang Pertama

Contoh pertama dari “barang terdesentralisasi” adalah kelas komputasi khusus yang pertama kali diusulkan pada tahun 1993 oleh Cynthia Dwork dan Moni Naor.[^3]

Karena adanya hubungan mendalam antara matematika, fisika, dan ilmu komputer, komputasi ini memerlukan energi dan sumber daya perangkat keras di dunia nyata—hal ini tidak dapat dipalsukan. Karena sumber daya di dunia nyata langka, komputasi ini juga langka.

input untuk komputasi ini dapat berupa data apa pun. Keluaran yang dihasilkan adalah “bukti” digital bahwa pengkomputasian telah dilakukan pada data input yang diberikan. Pembuktian mengandung “kesulitan” tertentu yang merupakan bukti (statistik) dari sejumlah pekerjaan komputasi tertentu. Yang terpenting, hubungan antara data input, pembuktian, dan pekerjaan komputasi asli yang dilakukan dapat diverifikasi secara independen tanpa perlu mengajukan banding ke otoritas pusat mana pun.

Gagasan untuk menyebarkan beberapa data input bersama dengan bukti digital sebagai bukti kerja komputasi dunia nyata yang dilakukan pada input tersebut sekarang disebut “proof-of-work”.[^4] Proof-of-work adalah, jika menggunakan ungkapan Nick Szabo, “biaya yang tidak dapat ditiru”. Karena proof-of-work dapat diverifikasi oleh siapa pun, maka proof-of-work merupakan sumber daya ekonomi yang dapat dibaca oleh semua peserta dalam sistem desentralisasi. Proof-of-work mengubah penghitungan data menjadi barang yang terdesentralisasi. Dwork & Naor mengusulkan penggunaan komputasi untuk membatasi penyalahgunaan sumber daya bersama dengan memaksa peserta untuk memberikan proof-of-work dengan tingkat kesulitan minimum tertentu sebelum mereka dapat mengakses sumber daya:

“Dalam makalah ini kami menyarankan pendekatan komputasi untuk memerangi penyebaran surat elektronik. Secara umum, kami telah merancang mekanisme kontrol akses yang dapat digunakan kapan pun diinginkan untuk membatasi, namun tidak melarang, akses ke sumber daya.” - Dwoak & Naor, 1993

Dalam proposal Dwork & Naor, administrator sistem email akan menetapkan tingkat kesulitan bukti kerja minimum untuk mengirimkan email. Pengguna yang ingin mengirim email perlu melakukan sejumlah komputasi yang sesuai dengan email tersebut sebagai data input. Bukti yang dihasilkan akan dikirimkan ke server bersamaan dengan permintaan pengiriman email.

Dwork & Naor menyebut kesulitan proof-of-work sebagai “fungsi penetapan harga” karena, dengan menyesuaikan kesulitan tersebut, “otoritas penetapan harga” dapat memastikan bahwa sumber daya bersama tetap murah untuk digunakan bagi pengguna yang jujur dan rata-rata, namun mahal bagi pengguna yang mencari untuk mengeksploitasinya. Di pasar pengiriman email, administrator server adalah otoritas penetapan harga; mereka harus memilih “harga” untuk pengiriman email yang cukup rendah untuk penggunaan normal namun terlalu tinggi untuk spam.

Meskipun Dwork & Naor membingkai proof-of-work sebagai disinsentif ekonomi untuk memerangi penyalahgunaan sumber daya, nomenklatur “fungsi penetapan harga” dan “otoritas penetapan harga” mendukung interpretasi yang berbeda dan berbasis pasar: pengguna membeli akses ke sumber daya dengan imbalan komputasi pada tingkat yang sama. harga yang ditetapkan oleh pengontrol sumber daya.

Dalam interpretasi ini, jaringan pengiriman email sebenarnya adalah pengiriman email perdagangan pasar yang terdesentralisasi untuk komputasi. Kesulitan minimum dari proof-of-work adalah harga yang diminta untuk pengiriman email dalam mata uang komputasi.

Mata Uang Adalah Barang Terdesentralisasi yang kedua

Namun komputasi bukanlah mata uang yang baik.

Bukti yang digunakan untuk “memperdagangkan” komputasi hanya valid untuk input yang digunakan dalam komputasi tersebut. Hubungan yang tidak dapat dipecahkan antara bukti spesifik dan input tertentu berarti bahwa proof-of-work untuk satu input tidak dapat digunakan kembali untuk input yang berbeda.

Proof-of-work awalnya diusulkan sebagai mekanisme kontrol akses untuk membatasi email spam. Pengguna diharapkan memberikan bukti kerja bersama email apa pun yang ingin mereka kirim. Mekanisme ini juga dapat dianggap sebagai pasar di mana pengguna membeli pengiriman email dengan komputasi pada harga yang dipilih oleh penyedia layanan email.

Batasan ini berguna – dapat digunakan untuk mencegah pekerjaan yang dilakukan oleh satu pembeli di pasar kemudian dibelanjakan kembali oleh pembeli lain. Misalnya, HashCash, implementasi nyata pertama dari pasar pengiriman email, menyertakan metadata seperti stempel waktu saat ini dan alamat email pengirim dalam data masukan untuk penghitungan bukti kerja. Bukti yang dihasilkan oleh pengguna tertentu untuk email tertentu, tidak dapat digunakan untuk email yang berbeda.

Namun ini juga berarti bahwa komputasi bukti kerja adalah barang yang dipesan lebih dahulu. Dana tersebut tidak dapat dipertukarkan, tidak dapat dibelanjakan kembali,[^5] dan tidak memecahkan masalah kebutuhan yang terjadi secara kebetulan. Properti moneter yang hilang ini mencegah komputasi menjadi mata uang. Terlepas dari namanya, tidak ada insentif bagi penyedia pengiriman email untuk ingin mengakumulasikan HashCash, karena akan ada uang tunai sebenarnya.

Adam Back, penemu HashCash, memahami masalah berikut:

"Hashcash tidak dapat ditransfer secara langsung karena untuk membuatnya didistribusikan, setiap penyedia layanan hanya menerima pembayaran dalam bentuk tunai yang dibuat untuk mereka. Anda mungkin dapat menyiapkan pencetakan gaya digicash (dengan chaumian ecash) dan meminta bank hanya mencetak uang tunai pada penerimaan tabrakan hash yang ditangani. Namun ini berarti Anda harus mempercayai bank untuk tidak mencetak uang dalam jumlah tak terbatas untuk digunakan sendiri." - Adam Back, 1997

Kita tidak ingin menukar komputasi yang dibuat khusus untuk setiap barang atau jasa yang dijual dalam perekonomian yang terdesentralisasi. Kita menginginkan mata uang digital serba guna yang dapat langsung digunakan untuk mengoordinasikan pertukaran nilai di pasar mana pun.

Membangun mata uang digital yang berfungsi namun tetap terdesentralisasi merupakan tantangan yang signifikan. Mata uang membutuhkan unit yang dapat dipertukarkan dengan nilai yang sama yang dapat ditransfer antar pengguna. Hal ini memerlukan model penerbitan, definisi kriptografi kepemilikan dan transfer, proses penemuan dan penyelesaian transaksi, dan buku besar historis. Infrastruktur ini tidak diperlukan ketika bukti kerja hanya dianggap sebagai “mekanisme kontrol akses”.

Terlebih lagi, sistem desentralisasi adalah pasar, jadi semua fungsi dasar mata uang ini harus disediakan melalui penyedia layanan berbayar… dalam satuan mata uang yang sedang dibuat!

Seperti mengkompilasi compiler pertama, permulaan jaringan listrik yang gelap, atau evolusi kehidupan itu sendiri, pencipta mata uang digital dihadapkan pada masalah bootstrapping: bagaimana mendefinisikan insentif ekonomi yang mendasari mata uang yang berfungsi tanpa memiliki mata uang yang berfungsi di dalamnya yang akan mendenominasikan atau membayar insentif tersebut.

Komputasi dan mata uang adalah barang pertama dan kedua di pasar yang terdesentralisasi. Proof-of-work sendiri memungkinkan pertukaran komputasi tetapi mata uang yang berfungsi memerlukan lebih banyak infrastruktur. Butuh waktu 15 tahun bagi komunitas cypherpunk untuk mengembangkan infrastruktur tersebut.

Pasar Terdesentralisasi Pertama harus Memperdagangkan Komputasi untuk Mata Uang

Kemajuan dalam masalah bootstrapping ini berasal dari penyusunan batasan yang tepat.

Sistem yang terdesentralisasi harus menjadi pasar. Pasar terdiri dari pembeli dan penjual yang saling bertukar barang. Pasar terdesentralisasi untuk mata uang digital hanya memiliki dua barang yang dapat dibaca di dalamnya:

1. Komputasi melalui proof-of-work
2. Unit mata uang yang kita coba bangun

Oleh karena itu, satu-satunya perdagangan pasar yang memungkinkan adalah antara kedua barang tersebut. Komputasi harus dijual untuk satuan mata uang atau setara dengan satuan mata uang harus dijual untuk komputasi. Menyatakan hal ini sangatlah mudah—bagian tersulitnya adalah menata pasar ini sehingga sekadar menukar mata uang untuk komputasi akan mem-bootstrap semua kemampuan mata uang itu sendiri!

Seluruh sejarah mata uang digital yang berpuncak pada white paper Satoshi tahun 2008 adalah serangkaian upaya yang semakin canggih dalam menata pasar ini. Bagian berikut mengulas proyek-proyek seperti bit gold milik Nick Szabo dan B-money milik Wei Dai. Memahami bagaimana proyek-proyek ini menyusun pasar mereka dan mengapa mereka gagal akan membantu kita memahami mengapa Satoshi dan Bitcoin berhasil.

Bagaimana Sistem Desentralisasi Dapat Menentukan Harga Komputasi?

Fungsi utama pasar adalah penemuan harga. Oleh karena itu, komputasi perdagangan pasar untuk mata uang harus menemukan harga komputasi itu sendiri, dalam satuan mata uang tersebut.

Kita biasanya tidak memberikan nilai moneter pada komputasi. Kita biasanya menghargai kapasitas untuk melakukan komputasi karena kita menghargai output dari komputasi, bukan komputasi itu sendiri. Jika keluaran yang sama dapat dilakukan dengan lebih efisien, dengan komputasi yang lebih sedikit, hal ini biasanya disebut “kemajuan”.

Proof-of-work mewakili komputasi spesifik yang keluarannya hanya berupa bukti bahwa komputasi tersebut telah dilakukan. Menghasilkan bukti yang sama dengan melakukan lebih sedikit komputasi dan lebih sedikit pekerjaan tidak akan menghasilkan kemajuan—hal ini akan menjadi bug. Oleh karena itu, komputasi yang terkait dengan Proof-of-work merupakan hal yang aneh dan baru untuk dicoba dihargai.

Ketika bukti kerja dianggap sebagai disinsentif terhadap penyalahgunaan sumber daya, maka bukti kerja tidak perlu dinilai secara tepat dan konsisten. Yang terpenting adalah penyedia layanan email menetapkan tingkat kesulitan yang cukup rendah sehingga tidak terlihat oleh pengguna yang sah, namun cukup tinggi sehingga menjadi penghalang bagi pelaku spam. Oleh karena itu, terdapat beragam “harga” yang dapat diterima dan setiap peserta bertindak sebagai otoritas penetapan harga mereka sendiri, dengan menerapkan fungsi penetapan harga lokal.

Namun satuan mata uang dimaksudkan agar dapat dipertukarkan, masing-masing memiliki nilai yang sama. Karena perubahan teknologi dari waktu ke waktu, dua unit mata uang yang dibuat dengan tingkat kesulitan proof-of-work yang sama—yang diukur dengan jumlah komputasi yang sesuai—mungkin memiliki biaya produksi yang sangat berbeda di dunia nyata, yang diukur dengan waktu, energi, dan/atau modal untuk melakukan komputasi tersebut. Ketika komputasi dijual dengan menggunakan mata uang, dan biaya produksi yang mendasarinya bervariasi, bagaimana pasar dapat memastikan harga yang konsisten?

Nick Szabo dengan jelas mengidentifikasi masalah harga ini ketika menjelaskan bit gold:

"Masalah utamanya...adalah bahwa skema pembuktian kerja bergantung pada arsitektur komputer, bukan hanya matematika abstrak yang didasarkan pada "siklus komputasi" abstrak. ...Jadi, ada kemungkinan untuk menjadi produsen berbiaya sangat rendah (dengan beberapa kali lipat besarnya) dan membanjiri pasar dengan bit gold." - Szabo, 2005

Mata uang terdesentralisasi yang diciptakan melalui proof-of-work akan mengalami kelebihan pasokan dan penurunan pasokan seiring dengan perubahan pasokan komputasi seiring waktu. Untuk mengakomodasi volatilitas ini, jaringan harus belajar menghitung harga secara dinamis.

Mata uang digital awal mencoba memberi harga pada komputasi dengan mencoba mengukur “biaya komputasi” secara kolektif. Wei Dai, misalnya, mengusulkan solusi praktis berikut dalam B-money:

"Jumlah unit moneter yang diciptakan sama dengan biaya upaya komputasi dalam sekeranjang komoditas standar. Sebagai contoh, jika sebuah masalah memerlukan waktu 100 jam untuk diselesaikan pada komputer yang dapat menyelesaikannya dengan cara yang paling ekonomis, dan diperlukan 3 keranjang standar untuk membeli 100 jam waktu komputasi pada komputer tersebut di pasar terbuka, maka setelah solusi terhadap masalah tersebut disiarkan, setiap orang mengkredit rekening penyiar sebanyak 3 unit." - Dai, 1998

Sayangnya, Dai tidak menjelaskan bagaimana pengguna dalam sistem yang seharusnya terdesentralisasi seharusnya menyetujui definisi “keranjang standar”, komputer mana yang memecahkan masalah tertentu “paling ekonomis”, atau biaya komputasi di “pasar terbuka”. Mencapai konsensus di antara semua pengguna mengenai kumpulan data bersama yang berubah-ubah terhadap waktu adalah masalah penting dalam sistem desentralisasi!

Agar adil bagi Dai, dia menyadari hal ini:

“Salah satu bagian yang lebih bermasalah dalam protokol B-money adalah penciptaan uang. Bagian dari protokol ini mengharuskan semua [pengguna] memutuskan dan menyetujui biaya perhitungan tertentu. Sayangnya karena teknologi komputasi cenderung berkembang pesat dan tidak selalu bersifat publik, informasi ini mungkin tidak tersedia, tidak akurat, atau ketinggalan jaman, yang semuanya akan menyebabkan masalah serius pada protokol." - Dai, 1998

Dai kemudian mengusulkan mekanisme penetapan harga berbasis lelang yang lebih canggih yang kemudian dikatakan Satoshi sebagai titik awal idenya. Kita akan kembali ke skema lelang di bawah ini, tapi pertama-tama mari kita beralih ke bit gold, dan pertimbangkan wawasan Szabo tentang masalahnya.

Gunakan Pasar Eksternal

Szabo mengklaim bahwa proof-of-work harus “diberi stempel waktu dengan aman”:

"Bukti kerja diberi stempel waktu yang aman. Ini harus bekerja secara terdistribusi, dengan beberapa layanan stempel waktu berbeda sehingga tidak ada layanan stempel waktu tertentu yang perlu diandalkan secara substansial." - Szabo, 2005

Szabo tertaut ke halaman sumber daya tentang protokol penandaan waktu yang aman tetapi tidak menjelaskan algoritme spesifik apa pun untuk penandaan waktu yang aman. Ungkapan “aman” dan “fesyen terdistribusi” mempunyai pengaruh yang besar di sini, sehingga dapat mengatasi kerumitan dalam mengandalkan satu (atau banyak) layanan “di luar sistem” untuk penandaan waktu.[^6]

Waktu pembuatan unit mata uang digital penting karena menghubungkan komputasi yang dilakukan dengan biaya produksi di dunia nyata.

Terlepas dari ketidakjelasan implementasi, Szabo benar—waktu pembuatan proof-of-work merupakan faktor penting dalam menentukan harga karena terkait dengan biaya komputasi:

"…Namun, karena bit gold diberi stempel waktu, waktu yang dibuat serta tingkat kesulitan matematis dari pekerjaan tersebut dapat dibuktikan secara otomatis. Dari sini, biasanya dapat disimpulkan berapa biaya produksi selama periode waktu tersebut..." - Szabo, 2005

"Menyimpulkan" biaya produksi adalah hal yang penting karena bit gold tidak memiliki mekanisme untuk membatasi penciptaan uang. Siapapun dapat membuat bit gold dengan melakukan perhitungan yang sesuai. Tanpa kemampuan untuk mengatur penerbitan, bit gold sama dengan barang koleksi:

"…Tidak seperti atom emas yang dapat dipertukarkan, tetapi seperti halnya barang-barang kolektor, pasokan dalam jumlah besar selama jangka waktu tertentu akan menurunkan nilai barang-barang tersebut. Dalam hal ini, emas kecil bertindak lebih seperti barang-barang kolektor daripada seperti emas..." - Szabo, 2005

Bit gold memerlukan proses eksternal tambahan untuk menciptakan unit mata uang yang sepadan:

“…[B]it Gold tidak dapat dipertukarkan berdasarkan fungsi sederhana, misalnya, panjang tali. Sebaliknya, untuk membuat unit yang dapat dipertukarkan, dealer harus menggabungkan potongan-potongan bit gold dengan nilai berbeda ke dalam satuan yang lebih besar kira-kira dengan nilai yang sama. Hal ini serupa dengan apa yang dilakukan banyak pedagang komoditas saat ini untuk memungkinkan pasar komoditas bekerja. Kepercayaan masih terdistribusi karena perkiraan nilai dari kumpulan tersebut dapat diverifikasi secara independen oleh banyak pihak lain dengan cara yang sebagian besar atau seluruhnya otomatis." - Szabo, 2005

Mengutip Szabo, “untuk menguji nilai… bit gold, dealer memeriksa dan memverifikasi tingkat kesulitan, masukan, dan stempel waktu”. Dealer yang mendefinisikan “unit yang lebih besar dengan nilai yang kira-kira sama” menyediakan fungsi penetapan harga yang serupa dengan “keranjang komoditas standar” Dai. Unit yang dapat dipertukarkan tidak dibuat dalam bentuk bit gold ketika bukti kerja diproduksi, hanya kemudian ketika bukti tersebut digabungkan menjadi “unit yang kira-kira bernilai sama” oleh dealer di pasar di luar jaringan.

Yang patut disyukuri, Szabo mengakui kelemahan ini:

"…Potensi kelebihan pasokan yang awalnya tersembunyi karena inovasi tersembunyi dalam arsitektur mesin adalah potensi kelemahan dalam bit gold, atau setidaknya ketidaksempurnaan yang harus diatasi oleh lelang awal dan pertukaran ex post bit gold." - Szabo, 2005

Sekali lagi, meskipun belum sampai pada (yang sekarang kita kenal sebagai) solusinya, Szabo menunjukkan solusinya: karena biaya komputasi berubah seiring waktu, jaringan harus merespons perubahan pasokan komputasi dengan menyesuaikan harga uang.

Gunakan Pasar Internal

Dealer Szabo akan menjadi pasar eksternal yang menentukan harga (bundel dari) bit gold setelah penciptaannya. Apakah mungkin menerapkan pasar ini di dalam sistem dan bukan di luar sistem?

Mari kita kembali ke Wei Dai dan B-money. Seperti disebutkan sebelumnya, Dai mengusulkan model alternatif berbasis lelang untuk pembuatan B-money. Desain Satoshi untuk Bitcoin meningkat secara langsung pada model lelang B-money[^7]:

“Jadi saya mengusulkan subprotokol penciptaan uang alternatif, di mana [pengguna]… memutuskan dan menyetujui jumlah B-money yang akan dibuat setiap periode, dengan biaya pembuatan uang tersebut ditentukan melalui lelang. Setiap periode pembuatan uang adalah dibagi menjadi empat tahap, sebagai berikut:

Planning. Para [pengguna] menghitung dan bernegosiasi satu sama lain untuk menentukan peningkatan jumlah uang beredar yang optimal untuk periode berikutnya. Apakah [jaringan] dapat mencapai konsensus atau tidak, mereka masing-masing menyiarkan kuota penciptaan uang mereka dan komputasi makroekonomi apa pun yang dilakukan untuk mendukung angka tersebut.

Bidding. Siapapun yang ingin membuat B-money menyiarkan tawaran dalam bentuk dimana x adalah banyaknya B-money yang ingin dibuatnya, dan y adalah soal yang belum terselesaikan dari kelas soal yang telah ditentukan. Setiap masalah di kelas ini harus memiliki biaya nominal (katakanlah dalam MIPS-years) yang disetujui secara publik.

Computation. Setelah melihat penawaran, pihak yang mengajukan penawaran pada tahap penawaran sekarang dapat menyelesaikan masalah dalam penawarannya dan menyiarkan solusinya. Penciptaan uang.

Money creation. Setiap [pengguna] menerima tawaran tertinggi (di antara mereka yang benar-benar menyiarkan solusi) dalam hal biaya nominal per unit B-money yang dibuat dan memberikan kredit kepada akun penawar sesuai dengan itu."
- Dai, 1998

B-money membuat kemajuan signifikan menuju struktur pasar yang tepat untuk mata uang digital. Ini berupaya untuk menghilangkan dealer eksternal Szabo dan memungkinkan pengguna untuk terlibat dalam penemuan harga dengan menawar satu sama lain secara langsung.

Namun menerapkan proposal Dai seperti yang tertulis akan menjadi sebuah tantangan:

• Dalam fase "Planning”, pengguna menanggung beban menegosiasikan “peningkatan optimal jumlah uang beredar untuk periode berikutnya”. Bagaimana “optimal” harus didefinisikan, bagaimana pengguna harus bernegosiasi satu sama lain, dan bagaimana hasil negosiasi tersebut dibagikan tidak dijelaskan.
• Terlepas dari apa yang direncanakan, fase “Bidding” memungkinkan siapa saja untuk mengajukan “tawaran” untuk membuat B-money. Tawaran mencakup jumlah B-money yang akan dibuat serta jumlah bukti kerja yang sesuai sehingga setiap penawaran adalah harga, jumlah perhitungan yang bersedia dilakukan oleh penawar tertentu untuk membeli sejumlah tertentu. dari B-money.
• Setelah penawaran diserahkan, fase “Computation” terdiri dari peserta lelang yang melakukan proof-of-work yang mereka tawarkan dan menyiarkan solusi. Tidak ada mekanisme untuk mencocokkan penawar dengan solusi yang disediakan. Yang lebih problematis adalah tidak jelasnya bagaimana pengguna dapat mengetahui bahwa semua penawaran telah diajukan – kapan fase “Bidding” berakhir dan fase “Computation” dimulai?
• Masalah-masalah ini berulang dalam fase “Money creation”. Karena sifat proof-of-work, pengguna dapat memverifikasi bahwa bukti yang mereka terima dalam solusi adalah asli. Namun bagaimana pengguna dapat secara kolektif menyepakati serangkaian “tawaran tertinggi”? Bagaimana jika pengguna yang berbeda memilih set yang berbeda, baik karena preferensi atau latensi jaringan?

Sistem yang terdesentralisasi kesulitan dalam melacak data dan membuat pilihan secara konsisten, namun B-money memerlukan pelacakan tawaran dari banyak pengguna dan membuat pilihan konsensus di antara mereka. Kompleksitas ini menghalangi penerapan B-money.

Akar dari kompleksitas ini adalah keyakinan Dai bahwa tingkat “optimal” penciptaan B-money harus berfluktuasi seiring waktu berdasarkan “perhitungan makroekonomi” penggunanya. Seperti bit gold, B-money tidak memiliki mekanisme untuk membatasi penciptaan uang. Siapapun dapat membuat unit B-money dengan menyiarkan tawaran dan kemudian melakukan proof-of-work yang sesuai.

Baik Szabo maupun Dai mengusulkan penggunaan pasar pertukaran mata uang digital untuk komputasi, namun baik bit gold maupun B-money tidak menentukan kebijakan moneter untuk mengatur pasokan mata uang di pasar ini.

Tujuan Kebijakan Moneter Satoshi Menghasilkan Bitcoin

Sebaliknya, kebijakan moneter yang sehat adalah salah satu tujuan utama Satoshi dalam proyek Bitcoin. Dalam postingan milis pertama tempat Bitcoin diumumkan, Satoshi menulis:

“Akar permasalahan mata uang konvensional adalah kepercayaan yang diperlukan agar mata uang tersebut dapat berfungsi. Bank sentral harus dipercaya untuk tidak merendahkan mata uang tersebut, namun sejarah mata uang fiat penuh dengan pelanggaran terhadap kepercayaan tersebut.” - Satoshi, 2009

Satoshi selanjutnya menjelaskan masalah lain dengan mata uang fiat seperti perbankan cadangan fraksional yang berisiko, kurangnya privasi, pencurian & penipuan yang merajalela, dan ketidakmampuan melakukan pembayaran mikro. Namun Satoshi memulai dengan isu penurunan nilai oleh bank sentral—dengan kekhawatiran mengenai kebijakan moneter.

Satoshi ingin Bitcoin pada akhirnya mencapai pasokan sirkulasi terbatas yang tidak dapat terdilusi seiring waktu. Tingkat penciptaan Bitcoin yang “optimal”, bagi Satoshi, pada akhirnya akan menjadi nol.

Tujuan kebijakan moneter ini, lebih dari karakteristik lain yang mereka miliki secara pribadi (atau kolektif!), adalah alasan Satoshi “menemukan” Bitcoin, blockchain, konsensus Nakamoto, dll. —dan bukan orang lain. Ini adalah jawaban singkat atas pertanyaan yang diajukan dalam judul artikel ini: Satoshi memikirkan Bitcoin karena mereka fokus pada penciptaan mata uang digital dengan persediaan terbatas.

Pasokan Bitcoin yang terbatas bukan hanya tujuan kebijakan moneter atau meme bagi para Bitcoiner untuk berkumpul. Penyederhanaan teknis penting inilah yang memungkinkan Satoshi membangun mata uang digital yang berfungsi sementara B-money Dai tetap menjadi postingan web yang menarik.

Bitcoin adalah B-money dengan persyaratan tambahan berupa kebijakan moneter yang telah ditentukan. Seperti banyak penyederhanaan teknis lainnya, pembatasan kebijakan moneter memungkinkan kemajuan dengan mengurangi ruang lingkup. Mari kita lihat bagaimana masing-masing fase pembuatan B-money disederhanakan dengan menerapkan batasan ini.

Semua Pasokan 21 Juta Bitcoin Sudah Ada

Dalam b-money, setiap “periode penciptaan uang” mencakup fase “Perencanaan”, di mana pengguna diharapkan untuk membagikan “perhitungan makroekonomi” mereka yang membenarkan jumlah b-money yang ingin mereka ciptakan pada saat itu. Tujuan kebijakan moneter Satoshi yaitu pasokan terbatas dan emisi nol tidak sesuai dengan kebebasan yang diberikan b-money kepada pengguna individu untuk menghasilkan uang. Oleh karena itu, langkah pertama dalam perjalanan dari bmoney ke bitcoin adalah menghilangkan kebebasan ini. Pengguna bitcoin perorangan tidak dapat membuat bitcoin. Hanya jaringan bitcoin yang dapat membuat bitcoin, dan hal ini terjadi tepat sekali, pada tahun 2009 ketika Satoshi meluncurkan proyek bitcoin.

Satoshi mampu menggantikan fase “Perencanaan” b-money yang berulang menjadi satu jadwal yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya di mana 21 juta bitcoin yang dibuat pada tahun 2009 akan dilepaskan ke peredaran. Pengguna secara sukarela mendukung kebijakan moneter Satoshi dengan mengunduh dan menjalankan perangkat lunak Bitcoin Core yang kebijakan moneternya dikodekan secara keras.

Hal ini mengubah semantik pasar bitcoin untuk komputasi. Bitcoin yang dibayarkan kepada penambang bukanlah hal baru yang diterbitkan; itu melainkan baru dirilis ke peredaran dari persediaan yang ada.

Pandangan ini sangat berbeda dari klaim naif bahwa “penambang bitcoin menciptakan bitcoin”. Penambang Bitcoin tidak menciptakan bitcoin, mereka membelinya. Bitcoin tidak berharga karena “bitcoin terbuat dari energi”—tetapi nilai bitcoin didemonstrasikan dengan dijual untuk mendapatkan energi.

Mari kita ulangi sekali lagi: bitcoin tidak dibuat melalui proof-of-work, bitcoin dibuat melalui konsensus.

Desain Satoshi menghilangkan persyaratan untuk fase “Perencanaan” yang berkelanjutan dari b-money dengan melakukan semua perencanaan terlebih dahulu. Hal ini memungkinkan Satoshi untuk membuat kebijakan moneter yang sehat namun juga menyederhanakan penerapan bitcoin.

Bitcoin dihargai Melalui Konsensus

Kebebasan yang diberikan kepada pengguna untuk menghasilkan uang menimbulkan beban yang sesuai bagi jaringan bmoney. Selama fase “Penawaran” jaringan b-money harus mengumpulkan dan membagikan “tawaran” pembuatan uang dari banyak pengguna yang berbeda.

Menghilangkan kebebasan untuk menghasilkan uang akan meringankan beban jaringan bitcoin. Karena seluruh 21 juta bitcoin sudah ada, jaringan tidak perlu mengumpulkan tawaran dari pengguna untuk menghasilkan uang, jaringan hanya perlu menjual bitcoin sesuai jadwal Satoshi yang telah ditentukan.

Jaringan bitcoin dengan demikian menawarkan konsensus harga permintaan untuk bitcoin yang dijualnya di setiap blok. Harga tunggal ini dihitung oleh setiap node secara independen menggunakan salinan blockchainnya. Jika node memiliki konsensus pada blockchain yang sama (poin yang akan kita bahas nanti) mereka semua akan menawarkan harga permintaan yang sama di setiap blok.[^8]

Bagian pertama kalkulasi harga konsensus menentukan berapa banyak bitcoin yang akan dijual. Hal ini diperbaiki oleh jadwal rilis Satoshi yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya. Semua node bitcoin di jaringan menghitung jumlah yang sama untuk blok tertentu:

$ bitcoin-cli getblockstats <block\_height> {... "subsidy": 6250000000, ... } # 6.25 BTC

Bagian kedua dari harga yang diminta secara konsensus adalah jumlah komputasi yang akan menjual subsidi saat ini. Sekali lagi, semua node bitcoin di jaringan menghitung nilai yang sama (kita akan meninjau kembali kalkulasi tingkat kesulitan ini di bagian berikutnya):

$ bitcoin-cli getdifficulty {... "result": 55621444139429.57, ... }

Bersama-sama, subsidi dan kesulitan jaringan menentukan permintaan bitcoin saat ini sebagai mata uang komputasi. Karena blockchain berada dalam konsensus, harga ini adalah harga konsensus.

Pengguna b-money juga dianggap memiliki konsensus “blockchain” yang berisi riwayat semua transaksi. Namun Dai tidak pernah memikirkan solusi sederhana berupa konsensus tunggal yang meminta harga untuk pembuatan b-money baru, yang hanya ditentukan oleh data di blockchain tersebut.

Sebaliknya, Dai berasumsi bahwa penciptaan uang harus berlangsung selamanya. Oleh karena itu, pengguna individu perlu diberdayakan untuk mempengaruhi kebijakan moneter – seperti halnya mata uang fiat. Persyaratan yang dirasakan ini membuat Dai merancang sistem penawaran yang mencegah penerapan b-money.

Kompleksitas tambahan ini dihilangkan dengan persyaratan Satoshi mengenai kebijakan moneter yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya.

Waktu Menutup Semua Penyebaran

Dalam fase “Komputasi” b-money, pengguna individu akan melakukan komputasi yang telah mereka lakukan dalam penawaran sebelumnya. Dalam bitcoin, seluruh jaringan adalah penjual – tetapi siapa pembelinya?

Di pasar pengiriman email, pembelinya adalah individu yang ingin mengirim email. Otoritas penetapan harga, penyedia layanan email, akan menetapkan harga yang dianggap murah bagi individu namun mahal bagi pelaku spam. Namun jika jumlah pengguna yang sah bertambah, harganya masih bisa tetap sama karena kekuatan komputasi masing-masing pengguna akan tetap sama.

Di b-money, setiap pengguna yang menyumbangkan tawaran untuk pembuatan uang selanjutnya harus melakukan sendiri jumlah komputasi yang sesuai. Setiap pengguna bertindak sebagai otoritas penetapan harga berdasarkan pengetahuan mereka tentang kemampuan komputasi mereka sendiri.

Jaringan bitcoin menawarkan satu harga yang diminta dalam komputasi subsidi bitcoin saat ini. Namun tidak ada penambang individu yang menemukan blok yang melakukan komputasi sebanyak ini.[^9] Blok pemenang penambang individu adalah bukti bahwa semua penambang secara kolektif melakukan jumlah komputasi yang diperlukan. Pembeli bitcoin dengan demikian adalah industri penambangan bitcoin global.

Setelah mencapai konsensus harga yang diminta, jaringan bitcoin tidak akan mengubah harga tersebut sampai lebih banyak blok diproduksi. Blok-blok ini harus berisi proof-of-work dengan harga yang diminta saat ini. Oleh karena itu, industri pertambangan tidak punya pilihan jika ingin “melakukan perdagangan” selain membayar harga yang diminta saat ini dalam komputasi.

Satu-satunya variabel yang dapat dikontrol oleh industri pertambangan adalah berapa lama waktu yang dibutuhkan untuk memproduksi blok berikutnya. Sama seperti jaringan bitcoin yang menawarkan satu harga yang diminta, industri pertambangan juga menawarkan satu penawaran—waktu yang diperlukan untuk menghasilkan blok berikutnya yang memenuhi harga yang diminta jaringan saat ini.

Untuk mengimbangi peningkatan kecepatan perangkat keras dan minat yang berbeda-beda dalam menjalankan node dari waktu ke waktu, kesulitan proof-of-work ditentukan oleh rata-rata bergerak yang menargetkan jumlah rata-rata blok per jam. Jika dihasilkan terlalu cepat, kesulitannya akan meningkat. - Nakamoto, 2008

Satoshi dengan sederhana menjelaskan algoritma penyesuaian kesulitan, yang sering disebut sebagai salah satu ide paling orisinal dalam implementasi bitcoin. Hal ini benar, namun alih-alih berfokus pada daya cipta solusi, mari kita fokus pada mengapa penyelesaian masalah sangat penting bagi Satoshi.

Proyek-proyek seperti bit gold dan b-money tidak perlu membatasi nilai tukar pada saat penciptaan uang karena mereka tidak memiliki pasokan tetap atau kebijakan moneter yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya. Periode penciptaan uang yang lebih cepat atau lebih lambat dapat dikompensasikan melalui cara lain, misalnya melalui pajak. Dealer eksternal memasukkan token bit gold ke dalam bundler yang lebih besar atau lebih kecil atau pengguna b-money mengubah tawaran mereka.

Namun tujuan kebijakan moneter Satoshi mengharuskan bitcoin memiliki tingkat pelepasan bitcoin yang telah ditentukan untuk diedarkan. Membatasi laju (statistik) produksi blok dari waktu ke waktu adalah hal yang wajar dalam bitcoin karena laju produksi blok adalah laju penjualan pasokan awal bitcoin. Menjual 21 juta bitcoin selama 140 tahun adalah proposisi yang berbeda dibandingkan membiarkannya dijual dalam 3 bulan.

Selain itu, bitcoin sebenarnya dapat menerapkan batasan ini karena blockchain adalah “protokol cap waktu aman” milik Szabo. Satoshi menggambarkan bitcoin sebagai yang pertama dan terutama sebagai “server stempel waktu terdistribusi secara peer-to-peer,” dan implementasi awal kode sumber bitcoin menggunakan “rantai waktu” dunia, bukan “blockchain” untuk menggambarkan struktur data bersama yang mengimplementasikan pasar proof-of-work bitcoin.[^10]

Tidak seperti bit gold atau b-money, token dalam bitcoin tidak mengalami kelebihan pasokan. Jaringan bitcoin menggunakan penyesuaian kesulitan untuk mengubah harga uang sebagai respons terhadap perubahan pasokan komputasi.

Algoritme penyesuaian ulang kesulitan Bitcoin memanfaatkan kemampuan ini. Blockchain konsensus digunakan oleh peserta untuk menghitung penawaran historis yang dibuat oleh industri pertambangan dan menyesuaikan kembali kesulitan agar bisa mendekati waktu blok target.

Pesanan Terunggul Menciptakan Konsensus

Rantai penyederhanaan yang disebabkan oleh tuntutan kebijakan moneter yang kuat meluas ke fase “penciptaan uang” dari b-money.

Tawaran yang diajukan pengguna di b-money mengalami masalah “tidak ada yang dipertaruhkan”. Tidak ada mekanisme untuk mencegah pengguna mengajukan tawaran dengan sejumlah besar b-money untuk pekerjaan yang sangat sedikit. Hal ini mengharuskan jaringan untuk melacak tawaran mana yang telah diselesaikan dan hanya menerima “tawaran tertinggi…dalam hal biaya nominal per unit b-money yang dibuat” untuk menghindari tawaran yang mengganggu tersebut. Setiap peserta b-money harus melacak seluruh tawaran senilai buku pesanan, mencocokkan tawaran dengan perhitungan selanjutnya, dan hanya menyelesaikan pesanan yang telah selesai dengan harga tertinggi.

Masalah ini merupakan contoh dari masalah konsensus yang lebih umum dalam sistem desentralisasi, yang juga dikenal sebagai “Byzantine generals” atau terkadang masalah “pembelanjaan ganda” dalam konteks mata uang digital. Berbagi urutan data yang identik di antara semua peserta merupakan suatu tantangan dalam jaringan yang saling bermusuhan dan terdesentralisasi. Solusi yang ada untuk masalah ini – yang disebut “algoritma konsensus Byzantine-fault tolerant (BFT)” – memerlukan koordinasi sebelumnya di antara peserta atau mayoritas (>67%) peserta agar tidak berperilaku bermusuhan.

Bitcoin tidak harus mengelola buku pesanan dalam jumlah besar karena jaringan bitcoin menawarkan harga permintaan konsensus tunggal. Ini berarti node bitcoin dapat menerima blok pertama (valid) yang mereka lihat yang memenuhi harga yang diminta jaringan saat ini—tawaran gangguan dapat dengan mudah diabaikan dan merupakan pemborosan sumber daya penambang.

Komputasi harga berdasarkan konsensus memungkinkan pencocokan pesanan beli/jual dalam bitcoin dilakukan secara antusias, dengan sistem siapa cepat dia dapat. Berbeda dengan b-money, pencocokan pesanan yang cepat ini berarti bahwa pasar bitcoin tidak memiliki fase—pasar ini beroperasi terus-menerus, dengan harga konsensus baru dihitung setelah setiap pesanan dicocokkan (blok ditemukan). Untuk menghindari percabangan yang disebabkan oleh latensi jaringan atau perilaku bertentangan, node juga harus mengikuti aturan rantai terberat. Aturan penyelesaian pesanan yang serakah ini memastikan bahwa hanya tawaran tertinggi yang diterima oleh jaringan.

Kombinasi algoritma yang antusias dan serakah ini, dimana node menerima blok valid pertama yang mereka lihat dan juga mengikuti rantai terberat, adalah algoritma BFT baru yang dengan cepat menyatu pada konsensus tentang urutan blok. Satoshi menghabiskan 25% dari white paper bitcoin untuk mendemonstrasikan klaim ini.[^11]

Kita telah menetapkan di bagian sebelumnya bahwa harga permintaan konsensus bitcoin itu sendiri bergantung pada konsensus blockchain. Namun ternyata keberadaan harga permintaan konsensus tunggal inilah yang memungkinkan perhitungan pasar untuk mencocokkan pesanan dengan penuh semangat, dan itulah yang pertama-tama mengarah pada konsensus!

Terlebih lagi, “konsensus Nakamoto” yang baru ini hanya mengharuskan 50% peserta untuk tidak bertentangan, sebuah kemajuan yang signifikan dibandingkan dengan kondisi sebelumnya. Seorang cypherpunk seperti Satoshi membuat terobosan ilmu komputer teoretis ini, dibandingkan dengan akademisi tradisional atau peneliti industri, karena fokus mereka yang sempit pada penerapan uang yang sehat, dibandingkan algoritma konsensus umum untuk komputasi terdistribusi.

Kesimpulan

B-money adalah kerangka kerja yang kuat untuk membangun mata uang digital tetapi tidak lengkap karena tidak memiliki kebijakan moneter. Membatasi b-money dengan jadwal rilis yang telah ditentukan untuk bitcoin mengurangi cakupan dan menyederhanakan implementasi dengan menghilangkan persyaratan untuk melacak dan memilih di antara tawaran pembuatan uang yang diajukan pengguna. Mempertahankan kecepatan sementara dari jadwal rilis Satoshi menghasilkan algoritma penyesuaian kesulitan dan memungkinkan konsensus Nakamoto, yang secara luas diakui sebagai salah satu aspek paling inovatif dalam implementasi bitcoin.

Ada lebih banyak hal dalam desain bitcoin daripada aspek yang dibahas sejauh ini. Kita memfokuskan artikel ini pada pasar “utama” dalam bitcoin, pasar yang mendistribusikan pasokan awal bitcoin ke dalam sirkulasi.

Artikel berikutnya dalam seri ini akan mengeksplorasi pasar penyelesaian transaksi bitcoin dan kaitannya dengan pasar pendistribusian pasokan bitcoin. Hubungan ini akan menyarankan metodologi bagaimana membangun pasar masa depan untuk layanan terdesentralisasi selain bitcoin.

Sumber artikel: HOW DID SATOSHI THINK OF BITCOIN? https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/how-did-satoshi-think-of-bitcoin

Diterjemahkan oleh: Abengkris

[^1]: Judul seri ini diambil dari pesan telegraf pertama dalam sejarah, yang dikirimkan oleh Samuel Morse pada tahun 1844: “What hath God wrought?”.

[^2]: Bitcoin: Sistem Uang Elektronik Peer-to-Peer, tersedia di: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

[^3]: Pricing via Processing or Combatting Junk Mail oleh Dwork dan Naor. tersedia di:
https://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/../../pvp.pdf

[^4]: Meskipun merupakan pencetus ide tersebut, Dwork & Naor tidak menciptakan “proof-of-work”—julukan tersebut kemudian diberikan pada tahun 1999 oleh Markus Jakobsson dan Ari Juels.

[^5]: Proyek RPoW Hal Finney adalah upaya untuk menciptakan proof-of-work yang dapat ditransfer, tetapi bitcoin tidak menggunakan konsep ini karena tidak memperlakukan komputasi sebagai mata uang. Seperti yang akan kita lihat nanti ketika kita memeriksa bit gold dan b-money, komputasi tidak dapat berupa mata uang karena nilai komputasi berubah seiring waktu sementara unit mata uang harus memiliki nilai yang sama. Bitcoin bukanlah komputasi, bitcoin adalah mata uang yang dijual untuk komputasi.

[^6]: Pada saat ini, beberapa pembaca mungkin percaya bahwa saya meremehkan kontribusi Dai atau Szabo karena kontribusi mereka tidak jelas atau tidak jelas dalam beberapa hal. Perasaan saya justru sebaliknya: Dai dan Szabo pada dasarnya benar dan fakta bahwa mereka tidak mengartikulasikan setiap detail seperti yang dilakukan Satoshi tidak mengurangi kontribusi mereka. Sebaliknya, hal ini seharusnya meningkatkan apresiasi kita terhadap hal tersebut, karena hal ini menunjukkan betapa menantangnya munculnya mata uang digital, bahkan bagi para praktisi terbaiknya.

[^7]: Postingan b-money Dai adalah referensi pertama dalam white paper Satoshi, tersedia di: http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt

[^8]: Ada dua penyederhanaan yang dilakukan di sini: 1. Jumlah bitcoin yang dijual di setiap blok juga dipengaruhi oleh biaya transaksi pasar, yang berada di luar cakupan artikel ini, namun tetap menunggu pekerjaan selanjutnya. 2. Kesulitan yang dilaporkan oleh bitcoin bukanlah jumlah perhitungan yang diharapkan; seseorang harus mengalikannya dengan faktor proporsionalitas.

[^9]: Setidaknya sejak masa lalu yang buruk ketika Satoshi adalah satu-satunya penambang di jaringan.

[^10]: Bitcoin is Time klasik dari Gigi adalah pengenalan yang bagus tentang hubungan mendalam antara bitcoin dan waktu, tersedia di: https://dergigi.com/2021/01/14/bitcoin-is-time/

[^11]: Satoshi melakukan kesalahan baik dalam analisis mereka di buku putih maupun implementasi awal bitcoin berikutnya dengan menggunakan aturan “rantai terpanjang” dan bukan aturan “rantai terberat”.

@ 5a69e82d:aa41c382

Dhruv Bansal, CSO dan Co-Founder Unchained mengeksplorasi prinsip-prinsip dan sejarah yang mengarah pada penciptaan Bitcoin dan mengajukan pertanyaan: "Apa yang telah dilakukan Satoshi"?

Bitcoin sering dibandingkan dengan internet pada tahun 1990an, namun saya yakin analogi yang lebih baik adalah dengan telegraf pada tahun 1840an.[^1]

Telegraf adalah teknologi pertama yang mengirimkan data yang dikodekan dengan kecepatan mendekati cahaya dalam jarak jauh. Ini menandai lahirnya industri telekomunikasi. Internet, meskipun skalanya lebih besar, kontennya lebih kaya, dan many-to-many, bukan one-to-one, pada dasarnya masih merupakan teknologi telekomunikasi.

Baik telegraf maupun internet bergantung pada model bisnis di mana perusahaan mengerahkan modal untuk membangun jaringan fisik dan kemudian membebankan biaya kepada pengguna untuk mengirim pesan melalui jaringan ini. Jaringan AT&T secara historis mengirimkan telegram, panggilan telepon, paket TCP/IP, pesan teks, dan sekarang TikTok.

Transformasi masyarakat melalui telekomunikasi telah menghasilkan kebebasan yang lebih besar namun juga sentralisasi yang lebih besar. Internet telah meningkatkan jangkauan jutaan pembuat konten dan usaha kecil, namun juga memperkuat jangkauan perusahaan, otoritas pusat, dan lembaga lain yang memiliki posisi yang cukup baik untuk memantau dan memanipulasi aktivitas online.

Namun Bitcoin bukanlah akhir dari transformasi apa pun—ini adalah awal dari sebuah transformasi. Seperti halnya telekomunikasi, Bitcoin akan mengubah kebiasaan umat manusia dan kehidupan sehari-harinya. Memprediksi seluruh cakupan perubahan saat ini sama dengan membayangkan internet saat hidup di era telegraf.

Seri ini mencoba membayangkan masa depan dengan memulai dari masa lalu. Artikel awal ini menelusuri sejarah mata uang digital sebelum Bitcoin. Hanya dengan memahami kegagalan proyek-proyek sebelumnya, kita dapat memahami apa yang membuat Bitcoin berhasil—dan bagaimana hal itu menyarankan metodologi untuk membangun sistem desentralisasi di masa depan.

Daftar isi

1. Sistem yang Terdesentralisasi Adalah Pasar
   1. Sistem Terdistribusikan Bergantung pada Otoritas Pusat
   2. Sistem Desentralisasi Tidak Memiliki Otoritas Pusat
   3. Sistem Desentralisasi diatur Melalui Insentif
2. Pasar yang Terdesentralisasi Membutuhkan Barang yang Terdesentralisasi
   1. Komputasi Adalah Barang Terdesentralisasi yang Pertama
   2. Mata Uang Adalah Barang Terdesentralisasi yang kedua
   3. Pasar Terdesentralisasi Pertama harus Memperdagangkan Komputasi untuk Mata Uang
3. Bagaimana Sistem Desentralisasi dapat Menentukan Harga Komputasi?
   1. Gunakan Pasar Eksternal
   2. Gunakan Pasar Internal
4. Tujuan Kebijakan Moneter Satoshi Menghasilkan Bitcoin
   1. Semua Pasokan 21 Juta Bitcoin sudah Ada
   2. Bitcoin dihargai Melalui Konsensus
   3. Waktu Menutup semua Penyebaran
   4. Pesanan Terunggul Menciptakan Konsensus
5. Kesimpulan

Klaim utama dari artikel ini adalah bahwa Bitcoin dapat dianggap sebagai adaptasi dari proyek B-money Dai yang menghilangkan kebebasan untuk menciptakan uang. Hanya beberapa minggu setelah artikel ini pertama kali diterbitkan, email baru muncul di mana Satoshi mengaku tidak terbiasa dengan B-money, namun mengakui bahwa Bitcoin dimulai “tepat dari titik itu.” Mengingat bukti baru ini, kami yakin klaim utama ini, meskipun tidak akurat secara historis, masih merupakan cara yang bermakna dan bermanfaat untuk memikirkan asal usul Bitcoin.

Bagaimana Satoshi Nakamoto Memikirkan Bitcoin?

Satoshi memang cerdas, tetapi Bitcoin tidak muncul begitu saja.

Bitcoin mengulangi pekerjaan yang ada di bidang kriptografi, sistem terdistribusi, ekonomi, dan filsafat politik. Konsep proof-of-work sudah ada jauh sebelum digunakan dalam uang dan cypherpunk sebelumnya seperti Nick Szabo, Wei Dai, & Hal Finney mengantisipasi dan memengaruhi desain Bitcoin dengan proyek-proyek seperti bit gold, B-money, dan RPoW. Pertimbangkan bahwa, pada tahun 2008, ketika Satoshi menulis white paper Bitcoin[^2], banyak ide penting Bitcoin telah diusulkan dan/atau diimplementasikan:

• Mata uang digital harus berupa jaringan P2P
• Proof-of-work adalah dasar penciptaan uang
• Uang diciptakan melalui lelang
• Kunci publik kriptografi digunakan untuk menentukan kepemilikan dan transfer koin
• Transaksi dikelompokkan menjadi beberapa blok
• Blok dirangkai bersama melalui proof-of-work
• Semua blok disimpan oleh semua peserta

Bitcoin memanfaatkan semua konsep ini, tetapi Satoshi tidak menciptakan satu pun konsep tersebut. Untuk lebih memahami kontribusi Satoshi, kita harus menentukan prinsip Bitcoin mana yang tidak ada dalam daftar.

Beberapa kandidat yang jelas adalah persediaan Bitcoin yang terbatas, konsensus Nakamoto, dan algoritma penyesuaian kesulitan. Tapi apa yang mendorong Satoshi pada ide ini?

Artikel ini mengeksplorasi sejarah mata uang digital dan menyatakan bahwa fokus Satoshi pada kebijakan moneter yang sehat adalah hal yang menyebabkan Bitcoin mengatasi tantangan yang mengalahkan proyek-proyek sebelumnya seperti bit gold dan B-money.

Sistem yang Terdesentralisasi Adalah Pasar

Bitcoin sering digambarkan sebagai sistem terdesentralisasi atau terdistribusi. Sayangnya, kata “desentralisasi” dan “terdistribusi” sering kali membingungkan. Ketika diterapkan pada sistem digital, kedua istilah tersebut mengacu pada cara aplikasi monolitik dapat didekomposisi menjadi jaringan bagian-bagian yang berkomunikasi.

Untuk tujuan kita, perbedaan utama antara sistem terdesentralisasi dan terdistribusi bukanlah topologi diagram jaringannya, namun cara mereka menegakkan aturan. Kami meluangkan waktu di bagian berikut untuk membandingkan sistem terdistribusi dan desentralisasi dan memotivasi gagasan bahwa sistem desentralisasi yang kuat adalah pasar.

Sistem Terdistribusikan Bergantung pada Otoritas Pusat

Dalam hal ini, kami mengartikan “terdistribusi” sebagai sistem apa pun yang telah dipecah menjadi beberapa bagian (sering disebut sebagai "node") yang harus berkomunikasi, biasanya melalui jaringan.

Insinyur perangkat lunak semakin mahir dalam membangun sistem yang terdistribusi secara global. Internet terdiri dari sistem terdistribusi yang secara kolektif berisi miliaran node. Kita masing-masing memiliki simpul di saku kita yang berpartisipasi dan bergantung pada sistem ini.

Namun hampir semua sistem terdistribusi yang kita gunakan saat ini diatur oleh beberapa otoritas pusat, biasanya administrator sistem, perusahaan, atau pemerintah yang saling dipercaya oleh semua node dalam sistem.

Otoritas pusat memastikan semua node mematuhi aturan sistem dan menghapus, memperbaiki, atau menghukum node yang gagal mematuhinya. Mereka dipercaya untuk melakukan koordinasi, menyelesaikan konflik, dan mengalokasikan sumber daya bersama. Seiring waktu, otoritas pusat mengelola perubahan pada sistem, memperbarui atau menambahkan fitur, dan memastikan bahwa node yang berpartisipasi mematuhi perubahan tersebut.

Manfaat yang diperoleh sistem terdistribusi karena mengandalkan otoritas pusat juga disertai dengan biaya. Meskipun sistem ini kuat terhadap kegagalan node-nodenya, kegagalan otoritas pusat dapat menyebabkan sistem berhenti berfungsi secara keseluruhan. Kemampuan otoritas pusat untuk mengambil keputusan secara sepihak berarti menumbangkan atau menghilangkan otoritas pusat sudah cukup untuk mengendalikan atau menghancurkan keseluruhan sistem.

Terlepas dari adanya trade-off ini, jika ada persyaratan bahwa satu partai atau koalisi harus mempertahankan otoritas pusat, atau jika peserta dalam sistem tersebut puas dengan mengandalkan otoritas pusat, maka sistem terdistribusi tradisional adalah solusi terbaik. Tidak diperlukan blockchain, token, atau sistem desentralisasi serupa.

Secara khusus, kasus VC atau mata uang kripto yang didukung oleh pemerintah, dengan persyaratan bahwa satu pihak dapat memantau atau membatasi pembayaran dan membekukan akun, adalah kasus penggunaan yang sempurna untuk sistem terdistribusi tradisional.

Sistem Desentralisasi Tidak Memiliki Otoritas Pusat

Kami menganggap “desentralisasi” memiliki arti yang lebih kuat daripada “terdistribusi”: sistem desentralisasi adalah bagian dari sistem terdistribusi yang tidak memiliki otoritas pusat. Sinonim yang mirip dengan “desentralisasi” adalah “peer-to-peer” (P2P).

Menghapus otoritas pusat memberikan beberapa keuntungan. Sistem terdesentralisasi:

• Tumbuh dengan cepat karena tidak ada hambatan untuk masuk—siapa pun dapat mengembangkan sistem hanya dengan menjalankan node baru, dan tidak ada persyaratan untuk registrasi atau persetujuan dari otoritas pusat.
• Kuat karena tidak ada otoritas pusat yang kegagalannya dapat membahayakan berfungsinya sistem. Semua node adalah sama, jadi kegagalan bersifat lokal dan jaringan merutekan sekitar kerusakan.
• Sulit untuk ditangkap, diatur, dikenakan pajak, atau diawasi karena tidak adanya titik kendali terpusat yang dapat ditumbangkan oleh pemerintah.

Kekuatan inilah yang menjadi alasan Satoshi memilih desain Bitcoin yang terdesentralisasi dan peer-to-peer:

“Pemerintah pandai memotong… jaringan yang dikendalikan secara terpusat seperti Napster, namun jaringan P2P murni seperti Gnutella dan Tor tampaknya masih mampu bertahan.” - Satoshi Nakamoto, 2008

Namun kekuatan ini juga disertai dengan kelemahan. Sistem yang terdesentralisasi bisa menjadi kurang efisien karena setiap titik harus memikul tanggung jawab tambahan untuk koordinasi yang sebelumnya diambil alih oleh otoritas pusat.

Sistem yang terdesentralisasi juga sering dilanda perilaku yang bersifat penipuan dan bertentangan. Terlepas dari persetujuan Satoshi terhadap Gnutella, siapa pun yang menggunakan program berbagi file P2P untuk mengunduh file yang ternyata kotor atau berbahaya memahami alasan mengapa berbagi file P2P tidak pernah menjadi model utama untuk transfer data online.

Satoshi tidak menyebutkannya secara eksplisit, namun email adalah sistem terdesentralisasi lainnya yang menghindari kendali pemerintah. Dan email juga terkenal sebagai spam.

Sistem Desentralisasi diatur Melalui Insentif

Akar masalahnya, dalam semua kasus ini adalah, bahwa perilaku kejahatan (menyebarkan file buruk, mengirim email spam) tidak dihukum, dan perilaku kooperatif (menyebarkan file bagus, hanya mengirim email berguna) tidak dihargai. Sistem desentralisasi yang mengandalkan partisipannya untuk menjadi aktor yang baik gagal untuk berkembang karena sistem tersebut tidak dapat mencegah aktor jahat untuk ikut berpartisipasi.

Tanpa memaksakan otoritas pusat, satu-satunya cara untuk menyelesaikan masalah ini adalah dengan menggunakan insentif ekonomi. Aktor yang baik, menurut definisinya, bermain sesuai aturan karena mereka secara inheren termotivasi untuk melakukannya. Pelaku kejahatan, menurut definisinya, adalah orang yang egois dan licik, namun insentif ekonomi yang tepat dapat mengarahkan perilaku buruk mereka ke arah kebaikan bersama. Sistem yang terdesentralisasi melakukan hal ini dengan memastikan bahwa perilaku kooperatif menguntungkan dan perilaku kejahatan merugikan.

Cara terbaik untuk menerapkan layanan terdesentralisasi yang kuat adalah dengan menciptakan pasar di mana semua pelaku, baik dan buruk, dibayar untuk menyediakan layanan tersebut. Kurangnya hambatan masuk bagi pembeli dan penjual di pasar yang terdesentralisasi mendorong skala dan efisiensi. Jika protokol pasar dapat melindungi partisipan dari penipuan, pencurian, dan penyalahgunaan, maka pelaku kejahatan akan merasa lebih menguntungkan untuk mengikuti aturan atau menyerang sistem lain.

Pasar yang Terdesentralisasi Membutuhkan Barang yang Terdesentralisasi

Namun pasar itu rumit. Mereka harus memberi pembeli dan penjual kemampuan untuk mengirimkan penawaran dan permintaan serta menemukan, mencocokkan, dan menyelesaikan pesanan. Kebijakan tersebut harus adil, memberikan konsistensi yang kuat, dan menjaga ketersediaan meskipun terjadi masa-masa yang tidak menentu.

Pasar global saat ini sangat mumpuni dan canggih, namun menggunakan barang-barang tradisional dan jaringan pembayaran untuk menerapkan insentif di pasar yang terdesentralisasi bukanlah hal yang baru. Setiap penggabungan antara sistem desentralisasi dan uang fiat, aset tradisional, atau komoditas fisik akan menimbulkan kembali ketergantungan pada otoritas pusat yang mengontrol pemroses pembayaran, bank, dan bursa.

Sistem terdesentralisasi tidak dapat mentransfer uang tunai, mencari saldo rekening perantara, atau menentukan kepemilikan properti. Barang-barang tradisional sama sekali tidak terbaca dalam sistem desentralisasi. Hal sebaliknya tidak benar—sistem tradisional dapat berinteraksi dengan Bitcoin semudah aktor lainnya (begitu mereka memutuskan ingin melakukannya). Batasan antara sistem tradisional dan desentralisasi bukanlah sebuah tembok yang tidak dapat dilewati, melainkan sebuah membran semi-permeabel.

Ini berarti bahwa sistem yang terdesentralisasi tidak dapat melaksanakan pembayaran dalam mata uang barang tradisional apa pun. Mereka bahkan tidak dapat menentukan saldo rekening yang didominasi fiat atau kepemilikan real estat atau barang fisik. Seluruh perekonomian tradisional sama sekali tidak terbaca dalam sistem desentralisasi.

Menciptakan pasar yang terdesentralisasi membutuhkan perdagangan barang-barang baru yang terdesentralisasi yang dapat dibaca dan ditransfer dalam sistem yang terdesentralisasi.

Komputasi Adalah Barang Terdesentralisasi yang Pertama

Contoh pertama dari “barang terdesentralisasi” adalah kelas komputasi khusus yang pertama kali diusulkan pada tahun 1993 oleh Cynthia Dwork dan Moni Naor.[^3]

Karena adanya hubungan mendalam antara matematika, fisika, dan ilmu komputer, komputasi ini memerlukan energi dan sumber daya perangkat keras di dunia nyata—hal ini tidak dapat dipalsukan. Karena sumber daya di dunia nyata langka, komputasi ini juga langka.

input untuk komputasi ini dapat berupa data apa pun. Keluaran yang dihasilkan adalah “bukti” digital bahwa pengkomputasian telah dilakukan pada data input yang diberikan. Pembuktian mengandung “kesulitan” tertentu yang merupakan bukti (statistik) dari sejumlah pekerjaan komputasi tertentu. Yang terpenting, hubungan antara data input, pembuktian, dan pekerjaan komputasi asli yang dilakukan dapat diverifikasi secara independen tanpa perlu mengajukan banding ke otoritas pusat mana pun.

Gagasan untuk menyebarkan beberapa data input bersama dengan bukti digital sebagai bukti kerja komputasi dunia nyata yang dilakukan pada input tersebut sekarang disebut “proof-of-work”.[^4] Proof-of-work adalah, jika menggunakan ungkapan Nick Szabo, “biaya yang tidak dapat ditiru”. Karena proof-of-work dapat diverifikasi oleh siapa pun, maka proof-of-work merupakan sumber daya ekonomi yang dapat dibaca oleh semua peserta dalam sistem desentralisasi. Proof-of-work mengubah penghitungan data menjadi barang yang terdesentralisasi. Dwork & Naor mengusulkan penggunaan komputasi untuk membatasi penyalahgunaan sumber daya bersama dengan memaksa peserta untuk memberikan proof-of-work dengan tingkat kesulitan minimum tertentu sebelum mereka dapat mengakses sumber daya:

“Dalam makalah ini kami menyarankan pendekatan komputasi untuk memerangi penyebaran surat elektronik. Secara umum, kami telah merancang mekanisme kontrol akses yang dapat digunakan kapan pun diinginkan untuk membatasi, namun tidak melarang, akses ke sumber daya.” - Dwoak & Naor, 1993

Dalam proposal Dwork & Naor, administrator sistem email akan menetapkan tingkat kesulitan bukti kerja minimum untuk mengirimkan email. Pengguna yang ingin mengirim email perlu melakukan sejumlah komputasi yang sesuai dengan email tersebut sebagai data input. Bukti yang dihasilkan akan dikirimkan ke server bersamaan dengan permintaan pengiriman email.

Dwork & Naor menyebut kesulitan proof-of-work sebagai “fungsi penetapan harga” karena, dengan menyesuaikan kesulitan tersebut, “otoritas penetapan harga” dapat memastikan bahwa sumber daya bersama tetap murah untuk digunakan bagi pengguna yang jujur dan rata-rata, namun mahal bagi pengguna yang mencari untuk mengeksploitasinya. Di pasar pengiriman email, administrator server adalah otoritas penetapan harga; mereka harus memilih “harga” untuk pengiriman email yang cukup rendah untuk penggunaan normal namun terlalu tinggi untuk spam.

Meskipun Dwork & Naor membingkai proof-of-work sebagai disinsentif ekonomi untuk memerangi penyalahgunaan sumber daya, nomenklatur “fungsi penetapan harga” dan “otoritas penetapan harga” mendukung interpretasi yang berbeda dan berbasis pasar: pengguna membeli akses ke sumber daya dengan imbalan komputasi pada tingkat yang sama. harga yang ditetapkan oleh pengontrol sumber daya.

Dalam interpretasi ini, jaringan pengiriman email sebenarnya adalah pengiriman email perdagangan pasar yang terdesentralisasi untuk komputasi. Kesulitan minimum dari proof-of-work adalah harga yang diminta untuk pengiriman email dalam mata uang komputasi.

Mata Uang Adalah Barang Terdesentralisasi yang kedua

Namun komputasi bukanlah mata uang yang baik.

Bukti yang digunakan untuk “memperdagangkan” komputasi hanya valid untuk input yang digunakan dalam komputasi tersebut. Hubungan yang tidak dapat dipecahkan antara bukti spesifik dan input tertentu berarti bahwa proof-of-work untuk satu input tidak dapat digunakan kembali untuk input yang berbeda.

Proof-of-work awalnya diusulkan sebagai mekanisme kontrol akses untuk membatasi email spam. Pengguna diharapkan memberikan bukti kerja bersama email apa pun yang ingin mereka kirim. Mekanisme ini juga dapat dianggap sebagai pasar di mana pengguna membeli pengiriman email dengan komputasi pada harga yang dipilih oleh penyedia layanan email.

Batasan ini berguna – dapat digunakan untuk mencegah pekerjaan yang dilakukan oleh satu pembeli di pasar kemudian dibelanjakan kembali oleh pembeli lain. Misalnya, HashCash, implementasi nyata pertama dari pasar pengiriman email, menyertakan metadata seperti stempel waktu saat ini dan alamat email pengirim dalam data masukan untuk penghitungan bukti kerja. Bukti yang dihasilkan oleh pengguna tertentu untuk email tertentu, tidak dapat digunakan untuk email yang berbeda.

Namun ini juga berarti bahwa komputasi bukti kerja adalah barang yang dipesan lebih dahulu. Dana tersebut tidak dapat dipertukarkan, tidak dapat dibelanjakan kembali,[^5] dan tidak memecahkan masalah kebutuhan yang terjadi secara kebetulan. Properti moneter yang hilang ini mencegah komputasi menjadi mata uang. Terlepas dari namanya, tidak ada insentif bagi penyedia pengiriman email untuk ingin mengakumulasikan HashCash, karena akan ada uang tunai sebenarnya.

Adam Back, penemu HashCash, memahami masalah berikut:

"Hashcash tidak dapat ditransfer secara langsung karena untuk membuatnya didistribusikan, setiap penyedia layanan hanya menerima pembayaran dalam bentuk tunai yang dibuat untuk mereka. Anda mungkin dapat menyiapkan pencetakan gaya digicash (dengan chaumian ecash) dan meminta bank hanya mencetak uang tunai pada penerimaan tabrakan hash yang ditangani. Namun ini berarti Anda harus mempercayai bank untuk tidak mencetak uang dalam jumlah tak terbatas untuk digunakan sendiri." - Adam Back, 1997

Kita tidak ingin menukar komputasi yang dibuat khusus untuk setiap barang atau jasa yang dijual dalam perekonomian yang terdesentralisasi. Kita menginginkan mata uang digital serba guna yang dapat langsung digunakan untuk mengoordinasikan pertukaran nilai di pasar mana pun.

Membangun mata uang digital yang berfungsi namun tetap terdesentralisasi merupakan tantangan yang signifikan. Mata uang membutuhkan unit yang dapat dipertukarkan dengan nilai yang sama yang dapat ditransfer antar pengguna. Hal ini memerlukan model penerbitan, definisi kriptografi kepemilikan dan transfer, proses penemuan dan penyelesaian transaksi, dan buku besar historis. Infrastruktur ini tidak diperlukan ketika bukti kerja hanya dianggap sebagai “mekanisme kontrol akses”.

Terlebih lagi, sistem desentralisasi adalah pasar, jadi semua fungsi dasar mata uang ini harus disediakan melalui penyedia layanan berbayar… dalam satuan mata uang yang sedang dibuat!

Seperti mengkompilasi compiler pertama, permulaan jaringan listrik yang gelap, atau evolusi kehidupan itu sendiri, pencipta mata uang digital dihadapkan pada masalah bootstrapping: bagaimana mendefinisikan insentif ekonomi yang mendasari mata uang yang berfungsi tanpa memiliki mata uang yang berfungsi di dalamnya yang akan mendenominasikan atau membayar insentif tersebut.

Komputasi dan mata uang adalah barang pertama dan kedua di pasar yang terdesentralisasi. Proof-of-work sendiri memungkinkan pertukaran komputasi tetapi mata uang yang berfungsi memerlukan lebih banyak infrastruktur. Butuh waktu 15 tahun bagi komunitas cypherpunk untuk mengembangkan infrastruktur tersebut.

Pasar Terdesentralisasi Pertama harus Memperdagangkan Komputasi untuk Mata Uang

Kemajuan dalam masalah bootstrapping ini berasal dari penyusunan batasan yang tepat.

Sistem yang terdesentralisasi harus menjadi pasar. Pasar terdiri dari pembeli dan penjual yang saling bertukar barang. Pasar terdesentralisasi untuk mata uang digital hanya memiliki dua barang yang dapat dibaca di dalamnya:

1. Komputasi melalui proof-of-work
2. Unit mata uang yang kita coba bangun

Oleh karena itu, satu-satunya perdagangan pasar yang memungkinkan adalah antara kedua barang tersebut. Komputasi harus dijual untuk satuan mata uang atau setara dengan satuan mata uang harus dijual untuk komputasi. Menyatakan hal ini sangatlah mudah—bagian tersulitnya adalah menata pasar ini sehingga sekadar menukar mata uang untuk komputasi akan mem-bootstrap semua kemampuan mata uang itu sendiri!

Seluruh sejarah mata uang digital yang berpuncak pada white paper Satoshi tahun 2008 adalah serangkaian upaya yang semakin canggih dalam menata pasar ini. Bagian berikut mengulas proyek-proyek seperti bit gold milik Nick Szabo dan B-money milik Wei Dai. Memahami bagaimana proyek-proyek ini menyusun pasar mereka dan mengapa mereka gagal akan membantu kita memahami mengapa Satoshi dan Bitcoin berhasil.

Bagaimana Sistem Desentralisasi Dapat Menentukan Harga Komputasi?

Fungsi utama pasar adalah penemuan harga. Oleh karena itu, komputasi perdagangan pasar untuk mata uang harus menemukan harga komputasi itu sendiri, dalam satuan mata uang tersebut.

Kita biasanya tidak memberikan nilai moneter pada komputasi. Kita biasanya menghargai kapasitas untuk melakukan komputasi karena kita menghargai output dari komputasi, bukan komputasi itu sendiri. Jika keluaran yang sama dapat dilakukan dengan lebih efisien, dengan komputasi yang lebih sedikit, hal ini biasanya disebut “kemajuan”.

Proof-of-work mewakili komputasi spesifik yang keluarannya hanya berupa bukti bahwa komputasi tersebut telah dilakukan. Menghasilkan bukti yang sama dengan melakukan lebih sedikit komputasi dan lebih sedikit pekerjaan tidak akan menghasilkan kemajuan—hal ini akan menjadi bug. Oleh karena itu, komputasi yang terkait dengan Proof-of-work merupakan hal yang aneh dan baru untuk dicoba dihargai.

Ketika bukti kerja dianggap sebagai disinsentif terhadap penyalahgunaan sumber daya, maka bukti kerja tidak perlu dinilai secara tepat dan konsisten. Yang terpenting adalah penyedia layanan email menetapkan tingkat kesulitan yang cukup rendah sehingga tidak terlihat oleh pengguna yang sah, namun cukup tinggi sehingga menjadi penghalang bagi pelaku spam. Oleh karena itu, terdapat beragam “harga” yang dapat diterima dan setiap peserta bertindak sebagai otoritas penetapan harga mereka sendiri, dengan menerapkan fungsi penetapan harga lokal.

Namun satuan mata uang dimaksudkan agar dapat dipertukarkan, masing-masing memiliki nilai yang sama. Karena perubahan teknologi dari waktu ke waktu, dua unit mata uang yang dibuat dengan tingkat kesulitan proof-of-work yang sama—yang diukur dengan jumlah komputasi yang sesuai—mungkin memiliki biaya produksi yang sangat berbeda di dunia nyata, yang diukur dengan waktu, energi, dan/atau modal untuk melakukan komputasi tersebut. Ketika komputasi dijual dengan menggunakan mata uang, dan biaya produksi yang mendasarinya bervariasi, bagaimana pasar dapat memastikan harga yang konsisten?

Nick Szabo dengan jelas mengidentifikasi masalah harga ini ketika menjelaskan bit gold:

"Masalah utamanya...adalah bahwa skema pembuktian kerja bergantung pada arsitektur komputer, bukan hanya matematika abstrak yang didasarkan pada "siklus komputasi" abstrak. ...Jadi, ada kemungkinan untuk menjadi produsen berbiaya sangat rendah (dengan beberapa kali lipat besarnya) dan membanjiri pasar dengan bit gold." - Szabo, 2005

Mata uang terdesentralisasi yang diciptakan melalui proof-of-work akan mengalami kelebihan pasokan dan penurunan pasokan seiring dengan perubahan pasokan komputasi seiring waktu. Untuk mengakomodasi volatilitas ini, jaringan harus belajar menghitung harga secara dinamis.

Mata uang digital awal mencoba memberi harga pada komputasi dengan mencoba mengukur “biaya komputasi” secara kolektif. Wei Dai, misalnya, mengusulkan solusi praktis berikut dalam B-money:

"Jumlah unit moneter yang diciptakan sama dengan biaya upaya komputasi dalam sekeranjang komoditas standar. Sebagai contoh, jika sebuah masalah memerlukan waktu 100 jam untuk diselesaikan pada komputer yang dapat menyelesaikannya dengan cara yang paling ekonomis, dan diperlukan 3 keranjang standar untuk membeli 100 jam waktu komputasi pada komputer tersebut di pasar terbuka, maka setelah solusi terhadap masalah tersebut disiarkan, setiap orang mengkredit rekening penyiar sebanyak 3 unit." - Dai, 1998

Sayangnya, Dai tidak menjelaskan bagaimana pengguna dalam sistem yang seharusnya terdesentralisasi seharusnya menyetujui definisi “keranjang standar”, komputer mana yang memecahkan masalah tertentu “paling ekonomis”, atau biaya komputasi di “pasar terbuka”. Mencapai konsensus di antara semua pengguna mengenai kumpulan data bersama yang berubah-ubah terhadap waktu adalah masalah penting dalam sistem desentralisasi!

Agar adil bagi Dai, dia menyadari hal ini:

“Salah satu bagian yang lebih bermasalah dalam protokol B-money adalah penciptaan uang. Bagian dari protokol ini mengharuskan semua [pengguna] memutuskan dan menyetujui biaya perhitungan tertentu. Sayangnya karena teknologi komputasi cenderung berkembang pesat dan tidak selalu bersifat publik, informasi ini mungkin tidak tersedia, tidak akurat, atau ketinggalan jaman, yang semuanya akan menyebabkan masalah serius pada protokol." - Dai, 1998

Dai kemudian mengusulkan mekanisme penetapan harga berbasis lelang yang lebih canggih yang kemudian dikatakan Satoshi sebagai titik awal idenya. Kita akan kembali ke skema lelang di bawah ini, tapi pertama-tama mari kita beralih ke bit gold, dan pertimbangkan wawasan Szabo tentang masalahnya.

Gunakan Pasar Eksternal

Szabo mengklaim bahwa proof-of-work harus “diberi stempel waktu dengan aman”:

"Bukti kerja diberi stempel waktu yang aman. Ini harus bekerja secara terdistribusi, dengan beberapa layanan stempel waktu berbeda sehingga tidak ada layanan stempel waktu tertentu yang perlu diandalkan secara substansial." - Szabo, 2005

Szabo tertaut ke halaman sumber daya tentang protokol penandaan waktu yang aman tetapi tidak menjelaskan algoritme spesifik apa pun untuk penandaan waktu yang aman. Ungkapan “aman” dan “fesyen terdistribusi” mempunyai pengaruh yang besar di sini, sehingga dapat mengatasi kerumitan dalam mengandalkan satu (atau banyak) layanan “di luar sistem” untuk penandaan waktu.[^6]

Waktu pembuatan unit mata uang digital penting karena menghubungkan komputasi yang dilakukan dengan biaya produksi di dunia nyata.

Terlepas dari ketidakjelasan implementasi, Szabo benar—waktu pembuatan proof-of-work merupakan faktor penting dalam menentukan harga karena terkait dengan biaya komputasi:

"…Namun, karena bit gold diberi stempel waktu, waktu yang dibuat serta tingkat kesulitan matematis dari pekerjaan tersebut dapat dibuktikan secara otomatis. Dari sini, biasanya dapat disimpulkan berapa biaya produksi selama periode waktu tersebut..." - Szabo, 2005

"Menyimpulkan" biaya produksi adalah hal yang penting karena bit gold tidak memiliki mekanisme untuk membatasi penciptaan uang. Siapapun dapat membuat bit gold dengan melakukan perhitungan yang sesuai. Tanpa kemampuan untuk mengatur penerbitan, bit gold sama dengan barang koleksi:

"…Tidak seperti atom emas yang dapat dipertukarkan, tetapi seperti halnya barang-barang kolektor, pasokan dalam jumlah besar selama jangka waktu tertentu akan menurunkan nilai barang-barang tersebut. Dalam hal ini, emas kecil bertindak lebih seperti barang-barang kolektor daripada seperti emas..." - Szabo, 2005

Bit gold memerlukan proses eksternal tambahan untuk menciptakan unit mata uang yang sepadan:

“…[B]it Gold tidak dapat dipertukarkan berdasarkan fungsi sederhana, misalnya, panjang tali. Sebaliknya, untuk membuat unit yang dapat dipertukarkan, dealer harus menggabungkan potongan-potongan bit gold dengan nilai berbeda ke dalam satuan yang lebih besar kira-kira dengan nilai yang sama. Hal ini serupa dengan apa yang dilakukan banyak pedagang komoditas saat ini untuk memungkinkan pasar komoditas bekerja. Kepercayaan masih terdistribusi karena perkiraan nilai dari kumpulan tersebut dapat diverifikasi secara independen oleh banyak pihak lain dengan cara yang sebagian besar atau seluruhnya otomatis." - Szabo, 2005

Mengutip Szabo, “untuk menguji nilai… bit gold, dealer memeriksa dan memverifikasi tingkat kesulitan, masukan, dan stempel waktu”. Dealer yang mendefinisikan “unit yang lebih besar dengan nilai yang kira-kira sama” menyediakan fungsi penetapan harga yang serupa dengan “keranjang komoditas standar” Dai. Unit yang dapat dipertukarkan tidak dibuat dalam bentuk bit gold ketika bukti kerja diproduksi, hanya kemudian ketika bukti tersebut digabungkan menjadi “unit yang kira-kira bernilai sama” oleh dealer di pasar di luar jaringan.

Yang patut disyukuri, Szabo mengakui kelemahan ini:

"…Potensi kelebihan pasokan yang awalnya tersembunyi karena inovasi tersembunyi dalam arsitektur mesin adalah potensi kelemahan dalam bit gold, atau setidaknya ketidaksempurnaan yang harus diatasi oleh lelang awal dan pertukaran ex post bit gold." - Szabo, 2005

Sekali lagi, meskipun belum sampai pada (yang sekarang kita kenal sebagai) solusinya, Szabo menunjukkan solusinya: karena biaya komputasi berubah seiring waktu, jaringan harus merespons perubahan pasokan komputasi dengan menyesuaikan harga uang.

Gunakan Pasar Internal

Dealer Szabo akan menjadi pasar eksternal yang menentukan harga (bundel dari) bit gold setelah penciptaannya. Apakah mungkin menerapkan pasar ini di dalam sistem dan bukan di luar sistem?

Mari kita kembali ke Wei Dai dan B-money. Seperti disebutkan sebelumnya, Dai mengusulkan model alternatif berbasis lelang untuk pembuatan B-money. Desain Satoshi untuk Bitcoin meningkat secara langsung pada model lelang B-money[^7]:

“Jadi saya mengusulkan subprotokol penciptaan uang alternatif, di mana [pengguna]… memutuskan dan menyetujui jumlah B-money yang akan dibuat setiap periode, dengan biaya pembuatan uang tersebut ditentukan melalui lelang. Setiap periode pembuatan uang adalah dibagi menjadi empat tahap, sebagai berikut:

Planning. Para [pengguna] menghitung dan bernegosiasi satu sama lain untuk menentukan peningkatan jumlah uang beredar yang optimal untuk periode berikutnya. Apakah [jaringan] dapat mencapai konsensus atau tidak, mereka masing-masing menyiarkan kuota penciptaan uang mereka dan komputasi makroekonomi apa pun yang dilakukan untuk mendukung angka tersebut.

Bidding. Siapapun yang ingin membuat B-money menyiarkan tawaran dalam bentuk dimana x adalah banyaknya B-money yang ingin dibuatnya, dan y adalah soal yang belum terselesaikan dari kelas soal yang telah ditentukan. Setiap masalah di kelas ini harus memiliki biaya nominal (katakanlah dalam MIPS-years) yang disetujui secara publik.

Computation. Setelah melihat penawaran, pihak yang mengajukan penawaran pada tahap penawaran sekarang dapat menyelesaikan masalah dalam penawarannya dan menyiarkan solusinya. Penciptaan uang.

Money creation. Setiap [pengguna] menerima tawaran tertinggi (di antara mereka yang benar-benar menyiarkan solusi) dalam hal biaya nominal per unit B-money yang dibuat dan memberikan kredit kepada akun penawar sesuai dengan itu."
- Dai, 1998

B-money membuat kemajuan signifikan menuju struktur pasar yang tepat untuk mata uang digital. Ini berupaya untuk menghilangkan dealer eksternal Szabo dan memungkinkan pengguna untuk terlibat dalam penemuan harga dengan menawar satu sama lain secara langsung.

Namun menerapkan proposal Dai seperti yang tertulis akan menjadi sebuah tantangan:

• Dalam fase "Planning”, pengguna menanggung beban menegosiasikan “peningkatan optimal jumlah uang beredar untuk periode berikutnya”. Bagaimana “optimal” harus didefinisikan, bagaimana pengguna harus bernegosiasi satu sama lain, dan bagaimana hasil negosiasi tersebut dibagikan tidak dijelaskan.
• Terlepas dari apa yang direncanakan, fase “Bidding” memungkinkan siapa saja untuk mengajukan “tawaran” untuk membuat B-money. Tawaran mencakup jumlah B-money yang akan dibuat serta jumlah bukti kerja yang sesuai sehingga setiap penawaran adalah harga, jumlah perhitungan yang bersedia dilakukan oleh penawar tertentu untuk membeli sejumlah tertentu. dari B-money.
• Setelah penawaran diserahkan, fase “Computation” terdiri dari peserta lelang yang melakukan proof-of-work yang mereka tawarkan dan menyiarkan solusi. Tidak ada mekanisme untuk mencocokkan penawar dengan solusi yang disediakan. Yang lebih problematis adalah tidak jelasnya bagaimana pengguna dapat mengetahui bahwa semua penawaran telah diajukan – kapan fase “Bidding” berakhir dan fase “Computation” dimulai?
• Masalah-masalah ini berulang dalam fase “Money creation”. Karena sifat proof-of-work, pengguna dapat memverifikasi bahwa bukti yang mereka terima dalam solusi adalah asli. Namun bagaimana pengguna dapat secara kolektif menyepakati serangkaian “tawaran tertinggi”? Bagaimana jika pengguna yang berbeda memilih set yang berbeda, baik karena preferensi atau latensi jaringan?

Sistem yang terdesentralisasi kesulitan dalam melacak data dan membuat pilihan secara konsisten, namun B-money memerlukan pelacakan tawaran dari banyak pengguna dan membuat pilihan konsensus di antara mereka. Kompleksitas ini menghalangi penerapan B-money.

Akar dari kompleksitas ini adalah keyakinan Dai bahwa tingkat “optimal” penciptaan B-money harus berfluktuasi seiring waktu berdasarkan “perhitungan makroekonomi” penggunanya. Seperti bit gold, B-money tidak memiliki mekanisme untuk membatasi penciptaan uang. Siapapun dapat membuat unit B-money dengan menyiarkan tawaran dan kemudian melakukan proof-of-work yang sesuai.

Baik Szabo maupun Dai mengusulkan penggunaan pasar pertukaran mata uang digital untuk komputasi, namun baik bit gold maupun B-money tidak menentukan kebijakan moneter untuk mengatur pasokan mata uang di pasar ini.

Tujuan Kebijakan Moneter Satoshi Menghasilkan Bitcoin

Sebaliknya, kebijakan moneter yang sehat adalah salah satu tujuan utama Satoshi dalam proyek Bitcoin. Dalam postingan milis pertama tempat Bitcoin diumumkan, Satoshi menulis:

“Akar permasalahan mata uang konvensional adalah kepercayaan yang diperlukan agar mata uang tersebut dapat berfungsi. Bank sentral harus dipercaya untuk tidak merendahkan mata uang tersebut, namun sejarah mata uang fiat penuh dengan pelanggaran terhadap kepercayaan tersebut.” - Satoshi, 2009

Satoshi selanjutnya menjelaskan masalah lain dengan mata uang fiat seperti perbankan cadangan fraksional yang berisiko, kurangnya privasi, pencurian & penipuan yang merajalela, dan ketidakmampuan melakukan pembayaran mikro. Namun Satoshi memulai dengan isu penurunan nilai oleh bank sentral—dengan kekhawatiran mengenai kebijakan moneter.

Satoshi ingin Bitcoin pada akhirnya mencapai pasokan sirkulasi terbatas yang tidak dapat terdilusi seiring waktu. Tingkat penciptaan Bitcoin yang “optimal”, bagi Satoshi, pada akhirnya akan menjadi nol.

Tujuan kebijakan moneter ini, lebih dari karakteristik lain yang mereka miliki secara pribadi (atau kolektif!), adalah alasan Satoshi “menemukan” Bitcoin, blockchain, konsensus Nakamoto, dll. —dan bukan orang lain. Ini adalah jawaban singkat atas pertanyaan yang diajukan dalam judul artikel ini: Satoshi memikirkan Bitcoin karena mereka fokus pada penciptaan mata uang digital dengan persediaan terbatas.

Pasokan Bitcoin yang terbatas bukan hanya tujuan kebijakan moneter atau meme bagi para Bitcoiner untuk berkumpul. Penyederhanaan teknis penting inilah yang memungkinkan Satoshi membangun mata uang digital yang berfungsi sementara B-money Dai tetap menjadi postingan web yang menarik.

Bitcoin adalah B-money dengan persyaratan tambahan berupa kebijakan moneter yang telah ditentukan. Seperti banyak penyederhanaan teknis lainnya, pembatasan kebijakan moneter memungkinkan kemajuan dengan mengurangi ruang lingkup. Mari kita lihat bagaimana masing-masing fase pembuatan B-money disederhanakan dengan menerapkan batasan ini.

Semua Pasokan 21 Juta Bitcoin Sudah Ada

Dalam b-money, setiap “periode penciptaan uang” mencakup fase “Perencanaan”, di mana pengguna diharapkan untuk membagikan “perhitungan makroekonomi” mereka yang membenarkan jumlah b-money yang ingin mereka ciptakan pada saat itu. Tujuan kebijakan moneter Satoshi yaitu pasokan terbatas dan emisi nol tidak sesuai dengan kebebasan yang diberikan b-money kepada pengguna individu untuk menghasilkan uang. Oleh karena itu, langkah pertama dalam perjalanan dari bmoney ke bitcoin adalah menghilangkan kebebasan ini. Pengguna bitcoin perorangan tidak dapat membuat bitcoin. Hanya jaringan bitcoin yang dapat membuat bitcoin, dan hal ini terjadi tepat sekali, pada tahun 2009 ketika Satoshi meluncurkan proyek bitcoin.

Satoshi mampu menggantikan fase “Perencanaan” b-money yang berulang menjadi satu jadwal yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya di mana 21 juta bitcoin yang dibuat pada tahun 2009 akan dilepaskan ke peredaran. Pengguna secara sukarela mendukung kebijakan moneter Satoshi dengan mengunduh dan menjalankan perangkat lunak Bitcoin Core yang kebijakan moneternya dikodekan secara keras.

Hal ini mengubah semantik pasar bitcoin untuk komputasi. Bitcoin yang dibayarkan kepada penambang bukanlah hal baru yang diterbitkan; itu melainkan baru dirilis ke peredaran dari persediaan yang ada.

Pandangan ini sangat berbeda dari klaim naif bahwa “penambang bitcoin menciptakan bitcoin”. Penambang Bitcoin tidak menciptakan bitcoin, mereka membelinya. Bitcoin tidak berharga karena “bitcoin terbuat dari energi”—tetapi nilai bitcoin didemonstrasikan dengan dijual untuk mendapatkan energi.

Mari kita ulangi sekali lagi: bitcoin tidak dibuat melalui proof-of-work, bitcoin dibuat melalui konsensus.

Desain Satoshi menghilangkan persyaratan untuk fase “Perencanaan” yang berkelanjutan dari b-money dengan melakukan semua perencanaan terlebih dahulu. Hal ini memungkinkan Satoshi untuk membuat kebijakan moneter yang sehat namun juga menyederhanakan penerapan bitcoin.

Bitcoin dihargai Melalui Konsensus

Kebebasan yang diberikan kepada pengguna untuk menghasilkan uang menimbulkan beban yang sesuai bagi jaringan bmoney. Selama fase “Penawaran” jaringan b-money harus mengumpulkan dan membagikan “tawaran” pembuatan uang dari banyak pengguna yang berbeda.

Menghilangkan kebebasan untuk menghasilkan uang akan meringankan beban jaringan bitcoin. Karena seluruh 21 juta bitcoin sudah ada, jaringan tidak perlu mengumpulkan tawaran dari pengguna untuk menghasilkan uang, jaringan hanya perlu menjual bitcoin sesuai jadwal Satoshi yang telah ditentukan.

Jaringan bitcoin dengan demikian menawarkan konsensus harga permintaan untuk bitcoin yang dijualnya di setiap blok. Harga tunggal ini dihitung oleh setiap node secara independen menggunakan salinan blockchainnya. Jika node memiliki konsensus pada blockchain yang sama (poin yang akan kita bahas nanti) mereka semua akan menawarkan harga permintaan yang sama di setiap blok.[^8]

Bagian pertama kalkulasi harga konsensus menentukan berapa banyak bitcoin yang akan dijual. Hal ini diperbaiki oleh jadwal rilis Satoshi yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya. Semua node bitcoin di jaringan menghitung jumlah yang sama untuk blok tertentu:

$ bitcoin-cli getblockstats <block\_height> {... "subsidy": 6250000000, ... } # 6.25 BTC

Bagian kedua dari harga yang diminta secara konsensus adalah jumlah komputasi yang akan menjual subsidi saat ini. Sekali lagi, semua node bitcoin di jaringan menghitung nilai yang sama (kita akan meninjau kembali kalkulasi tingkat kesulitan ini di bagian berikutnya):

$ bitcoin-cli getdifficulty {... "result": 55621444139429.57, ... }

Bersama-sama, subsidi dan kesulitan jaringan menentukan permintaan bitcoin saat ini sebagai mata uang komputasi. Karena blockchain berada dalam konsensus, harga ini adalah harga konsensus.

Pengguna b-money juga dianggap memiliki konsensus “blockchain” yang berisi riwayat semua transaksi. Namun Dai tidak pernah memikirkan solusi sederhana berupa konsensus tunggal yang meminta harga untuk pembuatan b-money baru, yang hanya ditentukan oleh data di blockchain tersebut.

Sebaliknya, Dai berasumsi bahwa penciptaan uang harus berlangsung selamanya. Oleh karena itu, pengguna individu perlu diberdayakan untuk mempengaruhi kebijakan moneter – seperti halnya mata uang fiat. Persyaratan yang dirasakan ini membuat Dai merancang sistem penawaran yang mencegah penerapan b-money.

Kompleksitas tambahan ini dihilangkan dengan persyaratan Satoshi mengenai kebijakan moneter yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya.

Waktu Menutup Semua Penyebaran

Dalam fase “Komputasi” b-money, pengguna individu akan melakukan komputasi yang telah mereka lakukan dalam penawaran sebelumnya. Dalam bitcoin, seluruh jaringan adalah penjual – tetapi siapa pembelinya?

Di pasar pengiriman email, pembelinya adalah individu yang ingin mengirim email. Otoritas penetapan harga, penyedia layanan email, akan menetapkan harga yang dianggap murah bagi individu namun mahal bagi pelaku spam. Namun jika jumlah pengguna yang sah bertambah, harganya masih bisa tetap sama karena kekuatan komputasi masing-masing pengguna akan tetap sama.

Di b-money, setiap pengguna yang menyumbangkan tawaran untuk pembuatan uang selanjutnya harus melakukan sendiri jumlah komputasi yang sesuai. Setiap pengguna bertindak sebagai otoritas penetapan harga berdasarkan pengetahuan mereka tentang kemampuan komputasi mereka sendiri.

Jaringan bitcoin menawarkan satu harga yang diminta dalam komputasi subsidi bitcoin saat ini. Namun tidak ada penambang individu yang menemukan blok yang melakukan komputasi sebanyak ini.[9] Blok pemenang penambang individu adalah bukti bahwa semua penambang secara kolektif melakukan jumlah komputasi yang diperlukan. Pembeli bitcoin dengan demikian adalah industri penambangan bitcoin global.

Setelah mencapai konsensus harga yang diminta, jaringan bitcoin tidak akan mengubah harga tersebut sampai lebih banyak blok diproduksi. Blok-blok ini harus berisi proof-of-work dengan harga yang diminta saat ini. Oleh karena itu, industri pertambangan tidak punya pilihan jika ingin “melakukan perdagangan” selain membayar harga yang diminta saat ini dalam komputasi.

Satu-satunya variabel yang dapat dikontrol oleh industri pertambangan adalah berapa lama waktu yang dibutuhkan untuk memproduksi blok berikutnya. Sama seperti jaringan bitcoin yang menawarkan satu harga yang diminta, industri pertambangan juga menawarkan satu penawaran—waktu yang diperlukan untuk menghasilkan blok berikutnya yang memenuhi harga yang diminta jaringan saat ini.

Untuk mengimbangi peningkatan kecepatan perangkat keras dan minat yang berbeda-beda dalam menjalankan node dari waktu ke waktu, kesulitan proof-of-work ditentukan oleh rata-rata bergerak yang menargetkan jumlah rata-rata blok per jam. Jika dihasilkan terlalu cepat, kesulitannya akan meningkat. - Nakamoto, 2008

Satoshi dengan sederhana menjelaskan algoritma penyesuaian kesulitan, yang sering disebut sebagai salah satu ide paling orisinal dalam implementasi bitcoin. Hal ini benar, namun alih-alih berfokus pada daya cipta solusi, mari kita fokus pada mengapa penyelesaian masalah sangat penting bagi Satoshi.

Proyek-proyek seperti bit gold dan b-money tidak perlu membatasi nilai tukar pada saat penciptaan uang karena mereka tidak memiliki pasokan tetap atau kebijakan moneter yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya. Periode penciptaan uang yang lebih cepat atau lebih lambat dapat dikompensasikan melalui cara lain, misalnya melalui pajak. Dealer eksternal memasukkan token bit gold ke dalam bundler yang lebih besar atau lebih kecil atau pengguna b-money mengubah tawaran mereka.

Namun tujuan kebijakan moneter Satoshi mengharuskan bitcoin memiliki tingkat pelepasan bitcoin yang telah ditentukan untuk diedarkan. Membatasi laju (statistik) produksi blok dari waktu ke waktu adalah hal yang wajar dalam bitcoin karena laju produksi blok adalah laju penjualan pasokan awal bitcoin. Menjual 21 juta bitcoin selama 140 tahun adalah proposisi yang berbeda dibandingkan membiarkannya dijual dalam 3 bulan.

Selain itu, bitcoin sebenarnya dapat menerapkan batasan ini karena blockchain adalah “protokol cap waktu aman” milik Szabo. Satoshi menggambarkan bitcoin sebagai yang pertama dan terutama sebagai “server stempel waktu terdistribusi secara peer-to-peer,” dan implementasi awal kode sumber bitcoin menggunakan “rantai waktu” dunia, bukan “blockchain” untuk menggambarkan struktur data bersama yang mengimplementasikan pasar proof-of-work bitcoin.[^10]

Tidak seperti bit gold atau b-money, token dalam bitcoin tidak mengalami kelebihan pasokan. Jaringan bitcoin menggunakan penyesuaian kesulitan untuk mengubah harga uang sebagai respons terhadap perubahan pasokan komputasi.

Algoritme penyesuaian ulang kesulitan Bitcoin memanfaatkan kemampuan ini. Blockchain konsensus digunakan oleh peserta untuk menghitung penawaran historis yang dibuat oleh industri pertambangan dan menyesuaikan kembali kesulitan agar bisa mendekati waktu blok target.

Pesanan Terunggul Menciptakan Konsensus

Rantai penyederhanaan yang disebabkan oleh tuntutan kebijakan moneter yang kuat meluas ke fase “penciptaan uang” dari b-money.

Tawaran yang diajukan pengguna di b-money mengalami masalah “tidak ada yang dipertaruhkan”. Tidak ada mekanisme untuk mencegah pengguna mengajukan tawaran dengan sejumlah besar b-money untuk pekerjaan yang sangat sedikit. Hal ini mengharuskan jaringan untuk melacak tawaran mana yang telah diselesaikan dan hanya menerima “tawaran tertinggi…dalam hal biaya nominal per unit b-money yang dibuat” untuk menghindari tawaran yang mengganggu tersebut. Setiap peserta b-money harus melacak seluruh tawaran senilai buku pesanan, mencocokkan tawaran dengan perhitungan selanjutnya, dan hanya menyelesaikan pesanan yang telah selesai dengan harga tertinggi.

Masalah ini merupakan contoh dari masalah konsensus yang lebih umum dalam sistem desentralisasi, yang juga dikenal sebagai “Byzantine generals” atau terkadang masalah “pembelanjaan ganda” dalam konteks mata uang digital. Berbagi urutan data yang identik di antara semua peserta merupakan suatu tantangan dalam jaringan yang saling bermusuhan dan terdesentralisasi. Solusi yang ada untuk masalah ini – yang disebut “algoritma konsensus Byzantine-fault tolerant (BFT)” – memerlukan koordinasi sebelumnya di antara peserta atau mayoritas (>67%) peserta agar tidak berperilaku bermusuhan.

Bitcoin tidak harus mengelola buku pesanan dalam jumlah besar karena jaringan bitcoin menawarkan harga permintaan konsensus tunggal. Ini berarti node bitcoin dapat menerima blok pertama (valid) yang mereka lihat yang memenuhi harga yang diminta jaringan saat ini—tawaran gangguan dapat dengan mudah diabaikan dan merupakan pemborosan sumber daya penambang.

Komputasi harga berdasarkan konsensus memungkinkan pencocokan pesanan beli/jual dalam bitcoin dilakukan secara antusias, dengan sistem siapa cepat dia dapat. Berbeda dengan b-money, pencocokan pesanan yang cepat ini berarti bahwa pasar bitcoin tidak memiliki fase—pasar ini beroperasi terus-menerus, dengan harga konsensus baru dihitung setelah setiap pesanan dicocokkan (blok ditemukan). Untuk menghindari percabangan yang disebabkan oleh latensi jaringan atau perilaku bertentangan, node juga harus mengikuti aturan rantai terberat. Aturan penyelesaian pesanan yang serakah ini memastikan bahwa hanya tawaran tertinggi yang diterima oleh jaringan.

Kombinasi algoritma yang antusias dan serakah ini, dimana node menerima blok valid pertama yang mereka lihat dan juga mengikuti rantai terberat, adalah algoritma BFT baru yang dengan cepat menyatu pada konsensus tentang urutan blok. Satoshi menghabiskan 25% dari white paper bitcoin untuk mendemonstrasikan klaim ini.[^11]

Kita telah menetapkan di bagian sebelumnya bahwa harga permintaan konsensus bitcoin itu sendiri bergantung pada konsensus blockchain. Namun ternyata keberadaan harga permintaan konsensus tunggal inilah yang memungkinkan perhitungan pasar untuk mencocokkan pesanan dengan penuh semangat, dan itulah yang pertama-tama mengarah pada konsensus!

Terlebih lagi, “konsensus Nakamoto” yang baru ini hanya mengharuskan 50% peserta untuk tidak bertentangan, sebuah kemajuan yang signifikan dibandingkan dengan kondisi sebelumnya. Seorang cypherpunk seperti Satoshi membuat terobosan ilmu komputer teoretis ini, dibandingkan dengan akademisi tradisional atau peneliti industri, karena fokus mereka yang sempit pada penerapan uang yang sehat, dibandingkan algoritma konsensus umum untuk komputasi terdistribusi.

Kesimpulan

B-money adalah kerangka kerja yang kuat untuk membangun mata uang digital tetapi tidak lengkap karena tidak memiliki kebijakan moneter. Membatasi b-money dengan jadwal rilis yang telah ditentukan untuk bitcoin mengurangi cakupan dan menyederhanakan implementasi dengan menghilangkan persyaratan untuk melacak dan memilih di antara tawaran pembuatan uang yang diajukan pengguna. Mempertahankan kecepatan sementara dari jadwal rilis Satoshi menghasilkan algoritma penyesuaian kesulitan dan memungkinkan konsensus Nakamoto, yang secara luas diakui sebagai salah satu aspek paling inovatif dalam implementasi bitcoin.

Ada lebih banyak hal dalam desain bitcoin daripada aspek yang dibahas sejauh ini. Kita memfokuskan artikel ini pada pasar “utama” dalam bitcoin, pasar yang mendistribusikan pasokan awal bitcoin ke dalam sirkulasi.

Artikel berikutnya dalam seri ini akan mengeksplorasi pasar penyelesaian transaksi bitcoin dan kaitannya dengan pasar pendistribusian pasokan bitcoin. Hubungan ini akan menyarankan metodologi bagaimana membangun pasar masa depan untuk layanan terdesentralisasi selain bitcoin.

Catatan kaki

[^1]: Judul seri ini diambil dari pesan telegraf pertama dalam sejarah, yang dikirimkan oleh Samuel Morse pada tahun 1844: “What hath God wrought?”.

[^2]: Bitcoin: Sistem Uang Elektronik Peer-to-Peer, tersedia di: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

[^3]: Pricing via Processing or Combatting Junk Mail oleh Dwork dan Naor. tersedia di:
https://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/../../pvp.pdf

[^4]: Meskipun merupakan pencetus ide tersebut, Dwork & Naor tidak menciptakan “proof-of-work”—julukan tersebut kemudian diberikan pada tahun 1999 oleh Markus Jakobsson dan Ari Juels.

[^5]: Proyek RPoW Hal Finney adalah upaya untuk menciptakan proof-of-work yang dapat ditransfer, tetapi bitcoin tidak menggunakan konsep ini karena tidak memperlakukan komputasi sebagai mata uang. Seperti yang akan kita lihat nanti ketika kita memeriksa bit gold dan b-money, komputasi tidak dapat berupa mata uang karena nilai komputasi berubah seiring waktu sementara unit mata uang harus memiliki nilai yang sama. Bitcoin bukanlah komputasi, bitcoin adalah mata uang yang dijual untuk komputasi.

[^6]: Pada saat ini, beberapa pembaca mungkin percaya bahwa saya meremehkan kontribusi Dai atau Szabo karena kontribusi mereka tidak jelas atau tidak jelas dalam beberapa hal. Perasaan saya justru sebaliknya: Dai dan Szabo pada dasarnya benar dan fakta bahwa mereka tidak mengartikulasikan setiap detail seperti yang dilakukan Satoshi tidak mengurangi kontribusi mereka. Sebaliknya, hal ini seharusnya meningkatkan apresiasi kita terhadap hal tersebut, karena hal ini menunjukkan betapa menantangnya munculnya mata uang digital, bahkan bagi para praktisi terbaiknya.

[^7]: Postingan b-money Dai adalah referensi pertama dalam white paper Satoshi, tersedia di: http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt

[^8]: Ada dua penyederhanaan yang dilakukan di sini:

1. Jumlah bitcoin yang dijual di setiap blok juga dipengaruhi oleh biaya transaksi pasar, yang berada di luar cakupan artikel ini, namun tetap menunggu pekerjaan selanjutnya.
2. Kesulitan yang dilaporkan oleh bitcoin bukanlah jumlah perhitungan yang diharapkan; seseorang harus mengalikannya dengan faktor proporsionalitas.

[^9]: Setidaknya sejak masa lalu yang buruk ketika Satoshi adalah satu-satunya penambang di jaringan.

[^10]: Bitcoin is Time klasik dari Gigi adalah pengenalan yang bagus tentang hubungan mendalam antara bitcoin dan waktu, tersedia di: https://dergigi.com/2021/01/14/bitcoin-is-time/

[^11]: Satoshi melakukan kesalahan baik dalam analisis mereka di buku putih maupun implementasi awal bitcoin berikutnya dengan menggunakan aturan “rantai terpanjang” dan bukan aturan “rantai terberat”.

Sumber artikel: HOW DID SATOSHI THINK OF BITCOIN? https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/how-did-satoshi-think-of-bitcoin

Diterjemahkan oleh: Abengkris

@ c2827524:5f45b2f7

Remember, remember! The fifth of November, The Gunpowder treason and plot; I know of no reason Why the Gunpowder treason Should ever be forgot! Guy Fawkes and his companions Did the scheme contrive, To blow the King and Parliament All up alive. Threescore barrels, laid below, To prove old England's overthrow. But, by God's providence, him they catch, With a dark lantern, lighting a match!

È tanto semplice e molto più pacifico oggi.

• [ ] non serve polvere da sparo
• [ ] niente violenza (lasciamola a chi ne ha il monopolio, lo shdadoh)
• [ ] ci hanno dichiarato guerra e la guerra è economica

Rispondiamo semplicemente studiando #Bitcoin

https://t.me/bitcoincampus https://t.me/BitcoinSecPriv https://t.me/bitcoinita https://satoshispritz.it/

@ 13e63e99:25525c6a

The recent movement of Bitcoin's price can be closely correlated with movements in the S&P 500 index, indicating that both markets are responding to similar macroeconomic factors. This relationship underscores the interconnectedness of Bitcoin and traditional equity markets, particularly during periods of heightened economic uncertainty.

Correlation with the S&P 500

The chart illustrating S&P 500 futures alongside Bitcoin/USD from TradingView highlights this correlation. As market conditions fluctuate, traders often pivot their strategies based on broader economic signals that impact both asset classes.

Shift to Cash and Safe Havens

In the short term, as recession risks loom, traders frequently gravitate towards cash positions and Treasury bills, perceived as safer investments. This shift in sentiment has been reflected in the recent declines seen in both the stock market and Bitcoin prices, particularly following Intel's report of a 6% drop in quarterly revenue compared to the previous year. Such news tends to trigger caution among investors, leading to reduced appetite for riskier assets like cryptocurrencies.

Recent Corporate Disclosures

Recent financial disclosures from major tech companies, such as Microsoft and Meta, indicating an uptick in AI investments, have tempered expectations for earnings growth. This news was compounded by a dramatic 44% drop in Super Micro Computer (SMCI) shares within just three days, following an unexpected resignation of their auditor, EY. These events have contributed to a bearish market sentiment, further influencing Bitcoin's performance.

Labor Market Data and Inflation Concerns

On November 1, the mood shifted somewhat with the release of labor market data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, revealing a modest payroll growth of only 12,000 in October, significantly below the anticipated 100,000. Additionally, the 0.4% increase in US wages from the previous month has reignited inflation fears among investors. Despite these concerns, market analysts, as indicated by the CME FedWatch tool, are anticipating a 0.25% interest rate cut by the US Federal Reserve on November 7, which could have implications for both Bitcoin and equity markets.

Upcoming Political Events

With significant events on the horizon, including the US presidential elections on November 5 and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting, market participants should remain vigilant. Political efforts to stimulate the economy often lead to a depreciation of the US dollar, which can create upward pressure on Bitcoin prices in the medium term. As the landscape evolves, monitoring these developments will be crucial for traders and investors looking to navigate the volatile intersection of Bitcoin and traditional finance.

In summary, Bitcoin's price movements are intricately linked to broader economic indicators and investor sentiment. As macroeconomic conditions shift, so too will the strategies employed by both the Bitcoin and stock markets.

Reference: Google Finance, TradingView

Bitcoin mining in Africa is gaining traction as the continent seeks to leverage its vast natural resources and increasing access to renewable energy. With a growing interest in Bitcoin and the potential for economic diversification, Africa presents both opportunities and challenges for Bitcoin miners.

Key Factors Driving Bitcoin Mining Growth in Africa

1. Renewable Energy Potential: The continent has significant potential for renewable energy sources, such as solar, hydro, and wind. Countries like Ethiopia, South Africa, and Kenya are investing in renewable energy projects, making them attractive locations for Bitcoin mining operations.

2. Low Electricity Costs: In some regions, particularly those with abundant natural resources and renewable energy, electricity costs are significantly lower than in developed countries. This cost advantage can enhance the profitability of Bitcoin mining operations.

3. Growing Bitcoin Adoption: As interest in Bitcoin increases across Africa, there is a growing pool of local and international miners and investors. Initiatives to promote financial inclusion and digital assets are further driving this trend.

Challenges Facing Bitcoin Mining in Africa

1. Infrastructure Limitations: While some countries have made progress, many regions still face inadequate infrastructure, including unreliable power supply and poor internet connectivity, which can hinder mining operations.

2. Regulatory Uncertainty: The regulatory environment for Bitcoin varies widely across Africa. Some countries have embraced Bitcoin, while others have imposed restrictions or outright bans, creating uncertainty for miners.

3. Political Instability: Political instability and governance issues in certain countries can pose risks to mining operations. Countries facing conflict or significant corruption may deter investment in the sector.

Future Outlook

The future of Bitcoin mining in Africa holds considerable promise. As the global demand for Bitcoin continues to rise, the continent's potential for low-cost energy and resource availability can attract both local and foreign investments. Additionally, the push for financial inclusion through Bitcoin aligns with the continent’s broader economic goals.

Bitcoin mining in Africa is positioned for growth, driven by the continent's rich resources and increasing interest in Bitcoin. However, for the sector to realize its potential, stakeholders must address infrastructure challenges, navigate regulatory landscapes, and prioritize sustainability. By leveraging its unique advantages and addressing these challenges, Africa can become a significant player in the global Bitcoin mining industry.

MicroStrategy Announces $21 Billion Stock Offering to Boost Bitcoin Holdings

MicroStrategy has announced a potential sales agreement to issue up to $21 billion in Class A common stock, marking a significant move in its strategy to bolster its Bitcoin portfolio. While such a large stock offering typically raises concerns about shareholder dilution, MicroStrategy's stock has seen remarkable growth this year, reflecting strong investor confidence in Saylor's approach to leveraging capital markets for Bitcoin acquisition, despite fluctuations in Bitcoin prices.

This "at-the-market offering," facilitated by a consortium of sales agents, enables MicroStrategy to sell shares directly at current market prices, thereby minimizing the impact on existing shareholders. This strategy, known as "accretive dilution," allows the company to enhance its Bitcoin holdings while simultaneously improving overall shareholder value. With MicroStrategy's market capitalization surpassing that of other stocks, this approach reinforces its distinctive position within the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Reference: CoinDesk

Russia Lifts Bitcoin Mining Ban, Plans Expansion into BRICS Countries

On November 1st, Russia officially lifted its ban on Bitcoin mining and announced plans to establish mining and artificial intelligence facilities across BRICS countries.

Nico Smid, founder of Digital Mining Solutions, revealed that Russia aims to leverage underutilized energy sources in partnership with BitRiver, the Russian sovereign wealth fund. This initiative could facilitate BRICS nations in settling global trade transactions in Bitcoin, providing an alternative to local currencies backed by gold.

Originally comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, BRICS will expand in 2024 to include Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Ethiopia, and the UAE. Notably, Argentina, Ethiopia, and the UAE are already engaged in Bitcoin mining using state-owned resources. Alen Makhmetov of Hashlabs Mining pointed out that Russia's initiatives could provide geopolitical advantages, especially in regions with limited IT infrastructure.

While the ban has been lifted, miners in Russia must now register with the Federal Tax Service and disclose details about their equipment. Makhmetov cautioned that challenges persist, such as rising electricity costs and the devaluation of the ruble, which could make mining increasingly expensive.

Reference: Cointelegraph

Freed from Prison, Binance Founder CZ Receives Welcome in Dubai, Predicts 2024 as a Recovery Year

Freed from prison, Binance founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ) received an enthusiastic ovation during his appearance in Dubai, where he expressed optimism about the future of cryptocurrency. He suggested that 2024 could mark a recovery year for the market, potentially paving the way for a bull run in 2025.

CZ pointed to historical market cycles as indicators of a forthcoming rebound, emphasizing the need to support industry builders. He showed particular interest in projects that combine AI with blockchain technology, believing they hold significant potential for growth and utility as cryptocurrency adoption increases.

Discussing the regulatory landscape, CZ highlighted a positive shift in legislative support for cryptocurrency, spurred by public demand. He stressed the importance of clearly defining cryptocurrencies within U.S. law, noting the ongoing debates about their classification.

In addition, CZ unveiled his vision for Giggle Academy, a digital platform aimed at providing educational resources to those without access, particularly in impoverished regions. By leveraging AI to create interactive tools and fostering peer mentorship, the initiative seeks to empower up to 100 million people with education while prioritizing social impact over profit.

Reference: CoinDesk, TheBlockBeast

Empowering El Salvador: HCM Capital Supports Bitcoin Education with Mi Primer Bitcoin

HCM Capital is proud to support this dedicated non-profit organization focused on Bitcoin education-Mi Primer Bitcoin. Monthly meetups like these are crucial for fostering local engagement and strengthening the Bitcoin ecosystem. Together, let’s continue to empower communities worldwide!

Reference: X.com

Lifpay Bolt Card Feature released!

Reference: X.com

@ 5a69e82d:aa41c382

Dhruv Bansal, CSO dan Co-Founder Unchained mengeksplorasi prinsip-prinsip dan sejarah yang mengarah pada penciptaan Bitcoin dan mengajukan pertanyaan: "Apa yang telah dilakukan Satoshi"?

Bitcoin sering dibandingkan dengan internet pada tahun 1990an, namun saya yakin analogi yang lebih baik adalah dengan telegraf pada tahun 1840an.[1]

Telegraf adalah teknologi pertama yang mengirimkan data yang dikodekan dengan kecepatan mendekati cahaya dalam jarak jauh. Ini menandai lahirnya industri telekomunikasi. Internet, meskipun skalanya lebih besar, kontennya lebih kaya, dan many-to-many, bukan one-to-one, pada dasarnya masih merupakan teknologi telekomunikasi.

Baik telegraf maupun internet bergantung pada model bisnis di mana perusahaan mengerahkan modal untuk membangun jaringan fisik dan kemudian membebankan biaya kepada pengguna untuk mengirim pesan melalui jaringan ini. Jaringan AT&T secara historis mengirimkan telegram, panggilan telepon, paket TCP/IP, pesan teks, dan sekarang TikTok.

Transformasi masyarakat melalui telekomunikasi telah menghasilkan kebebasan yang lebih besar namun juga sentralisasi yang lebih besar. Internet telah meningkatkan jangkauan jutaan pembuat konten dan usaha kecil, namun juga memperkuat jangkauan perusahaan, otoritas pusat, dan lembaga lain yang memiliki posisi yang cukup baik untuk memantau dan memanipulasi aktivitas online.

Namun Bitcoin bukanlah akhir dari transformasi apa pun—ini adalah awal dari sebuah transformasi. Seperti halnya telekomunikasi, Bitcoin akan mengubah kebiasaan umat manusia dan kehidupan sehari-harinya. Memprediksi seluruh cakupan perubahan saat ini sama dengan membayangkan internet saat hidup di era telegraf.

Seri ini mencoba membayangkan masa depan dengan memulai dari masa lalu. Artikel awal ini menelusuri sejarah mata uang digital sebelum Bitcoin. Hanya dengan memahami kegagalan proyek-proyek sebelumnya, kita dapat memahami apa yang membuat Bitcoin berhasil—dan bagaimana hal itu menyarankan metodologi untuk membangun sistem desentralisasi di masa depan.

Daftar isi

1. Sistem yang Terdesentralisasi Adalah Pasar
   1. Sistem Terdistribusikan Bergantung pada Otoritas Pusat
   2. Sistem Desentralisasi Tidak Memiliki Otoritas Pusat
   3. Sistem Desentralisasi diatur Melalui Insentif
2. Pasar yang Terdesentralisasi Membutuhkan Barang yang Terdesentralisasi
   1. Komputasi Adalah Barang Terdesentralisasi yang Pertama
   2. Mata Uang Adalah Barang Terdesentralisasi yang kedua
   3. Pasar Terdesentralisasi Pertama harus Memperdagangkan Komputasi untuk Mata Uang
3. Bagaimana Sistem Desentralisasi dapat Menentukan Harga Komputasi?
   1. Gunakan Pasar Eksternal
   2. Gunakan Pasar Internal
4. Tujuan Kebijakan Moneter Satoshi Menghasilkan Bitcoin
   1. Semua Pasokan 21 Juta Bitcoin sudah Ada
   2. Bitcoin dihargai Melalui Konsensus
   3. Waktu Menutup semua Penyebaran
   4. Pesanan Terunggul Menciptakan Konsensus
5. Kesimpulan

Klaim utama dari artikel ini adalah bahwa Bitcoin dapat dianggap sebagai adaptasi dari proyek B-money Dai yang menghilangkan kebebasan untuk menciptakan uang. Hanya beberapa minggu setelah artikel ini pertama kali diterbitkan, email baru muncul di mana Satoshi mengaku tidak terbiasa dengan B-money, namun mengakui bahwa Bitcoin dimulai “tepat dari titik itu.” Mengingat bukti baru ini, kami yakin klaim utama ini, meskipun tidak akurat secara historis, masih merupakan cara yang bermakna dan bermanfaat untuk memikirkan asal usul Bitcoin.

Bagaimana Satoshi Nakamoto Memikirkan Bitcoin?

Satoshi memang cerdas, tetapi Bitcoin tidak muncul begitu saja.

Bitcoin mengulangi pekerjaan yang ada di bidang kriptografi, sistem terdistribusi, ekonomi, dan filsafat politik. Konsep proof-of-work sudah ada jauh sebelum digunakan dalam uang dan cypherpunk sebelumnya seperti Nick Szabo, Wei Dai, & Hal Finney mengantisipasi dan memengaruhi desain Bitcoin dengan proyek-proyek seperti bit gold, B-money, dan RPoW. Pertimbangkan bahwa, pada tahun 2008, ketika Satoshi menulis white paper Bitcoin[2], banyak ide penting Bitcoin telah diusulkan dan/atau diimplementasikan:

• Mata uang digital harus berupa jaringan P2P
• Proof-of-work adalah dasar penciptaan uang
• Uang diciptakan melalui lelang
• Kunci publik kriptografi digunakan untuk menentukan kepemilikan dan transfer koin
• Transaksi dikelompokkan menjadi beberapa blok
• Blok dirangkai bersama melalui proof-of-work
• Semua blok disimpan oleh semua peserta

Bitcoin memanfaatkan semua konsep ini, tetapi Satoshi tidak menciptakan satu pun konsep tersebut. Untuk lebih memahami kontribusi Satoshi, kita harus menentukan prinsip Bitcoin mana yang tidak ada dalam daftar.

Beberapa kandidat yang jelas adalah persediaan Bitcoin yang terbatas, konsensus Nakamoto, dan algoritma penyesuaian kesulitan. Tapi apa yang mendorong Satoshi pada ide ini?

Artikel ini mengeksplorasi sejarah mata uang digital dan menyatakan bahwa fokus Satoshi pada kebijakan moneter yang sehat adalah hal yang menyebabkan Bitcoin mengatasi tantangan yang mengalahkan proyek-proyek sebelumnya seperti bit gold dan B-money.

Sistem yang Terdesentralisasi Adalah Pasar

Bitcoin sering digambarkan sebagai sistem terdesentralisasi atau terdistribusi. Sayangnya, kata “desentralisasi” dan “terdistribusi” sering kali membingungkan. Ketika diterapkan pada sistem digital, kedua istilah tersebut mengacu pada cara aplikasi monolitik dapat didekomposisi menjadi jaringan bagian-bagian yang berkomunikasi.

Untuk tujuan kita, perbedaan utama antara sistem terdesentralisasi dan terdistribusi bukanlah topologi diagram jaringannya, namun cara mereka menegakkan aturan. Kami meluangkan waktu di bagian berikut untuk membandingkan sistem terdistribusi dan desentralisasi dan memotivasi gagasan bahwa sistem desentralisasi yang kuat adalah pasar.

Sistem Terdistribusikan Bergantung pada Otoritas Pusat

Dalam hal ini, kami mengartikan “terdistribusi” sebagai sistem apa pun yang telah dipecah menjadi beberapa bagian (sering disebut sebagai "node") yang harus berkomunikasi, biasanya melalui jaringan.

Insinyur perangkat lunak semakin mahir dalam membangun sistem yang terdistribusi secara global. Internet terdiri dari sistem terdistribusi yang secara kolektif berisi miliaran node. Kita masing-masing memiliki simpul di saku kita yang berpartisipasi dan bergantung pada sistem ini.

Namun hampir semua sistem terdistribusi yang kita gunakan saat ini diatur oleh beberapa otoritas pusat, biasanya administrator sistem, perusahaan, atau pemerintah yang saling dipercaya oleh semua node dalam sistem.

Otoritas pusat memastikan semua node mematuhi aturan sistem dan menghapus, memperbaiki, atau menghukum node yang gagal mematuhinya. Mereka dipercaya untuk melakukan koordinasi, menyelesaikan konflik, dan mengalokasikan sumber daya bersama. Seiring waktu, otoritas pusat mengelola perubahan pada sistem, memperbarui atau menambahkan fitur, dan memastikan bahwa node yang berpartisipasi mematuhi perubahan tersebut.

Manfaat yang diperoleh sistem terdistribusi karena mengandalkan otoritas pusat juga disertai dengan biaya. Meskipun sistem ini kuat terhadap kegagalan node-nodenya, kegagalan otoritas pusat dapat menyebabkan sistem berhenti berfungsi secara keseluruhan. Kemampuan otoritas pusat untuk mengambil keputusan secara sepihak berarti menumbangkan atau menghilangkan otoritas pusat sudah cukup untuk mengendalikan atau menghancurkan keseluruhan sistem.

Terlepas dari adanya trade-off ini, jika ada persyaratan bahwa satu partai atau koalisi harus mempertahankan otoritas pusat, atau jika peserta dalam sistem tersebut puas dengan mengandalkan otoritas pusat, maka sistem terdistribusi tradisional adalah solusi terbaik. Tidak diperlukan blockchain, token, atau sistem desentralisasi serupa.

Secara khusus, kasus VC atau mata uang kripto yang didukung oleh pemerintah, dengan persyaratan bahwa satu pihak dapat memantau atau membatasi pembayaran dan membekukan akun, adalah kasus penggunaan yang sempurna untuk sistem terdistribusi tradisional.

Sistem Desentralisasi Tidak Memiliki Otoritas Pusat

Kami menganggap “desentralisasi” memiliki arti yang lebih kuat daripada “terdistribusi”: sistem desentralisasi adalah bagian dari sistem terdistribusi yang tidak memiliki otoritas pusat. Sinonim yang mirip dengan “desentralisasi” adalah “peer-to-peer” (P2P).

Menghapus otoritas pusat memberikan beberapa keuntungan. Sistem terdesentralisasi:

• Tumbuh dengan cepat karena tidak ada hambatan untuk masuk—siapa pun dapat mengembangkan sistem hanya dengan menjalankan node baru, dan tidak ada persyaratan untuk registrasi atau persetujuan dari otoritas pusat.
• Kuat karena tidak ada otoritas pusat yang kegagalannya dapat membahayakan berfungsinya sistem. Semua node adalah sama, jadi kegagalan bersifat lokal dan jaringan merutekan sekitar kerusakan.
• Sulit untuk ditangkap, diatur, dikenakan pajak, atau diawasi karena tidak adanya titik kendali terpusat yang dapat ditumbangkan oleh pemerintah.

Kekuatan inilah yang menjadi alasan Satoshi memilih desain Bitcoin yang terdesentralisasi dan peer-to-peer:

“Pemerintah pandai memotong… jaringan yang dikendalikan secara terpusat seperti Napster, namun jaringan P2P murni seperti Gnutella dan Tor tampaknya masih mampu bertahan.” - Satoshi Nakamoto, 2008

Namun kekuatan ini juga disertai dengan kelemahan. Sistem yang terdesentralisasi bisa menjadi kurang efisien karena setiap titik harus memikul tanggung jawab tambahan untuk koordinasi yang sebelumnya diambil alih oleh otoritas pusat.

Sistem yang terdesentralisasi juga sering dilanda perilaku yang bersifat penipuan dan bertentangan. Terlepas dari persetujuan Satoshi terhadap Gnutella, siapa pun yang menggunakan program berbagi file P2P untuk mengunduh file yang ternyata kotor atau berbahaya memahami alasan mengapa berbagi file P2P tidak pernah menjadi model utama untuk transfer data online.

Satoshi tidak menyebutkannya secara eksplisit, namun email adalah sistem terdesentralisasi lainnya yang menghindari kendali pemerintah. Dan email juga terkenal sebagai spam.

Sistem Desentralisasi diatur Melalui Insentif

Akar masalahnya, dalam semua kasus ini adalah, bahwa perilaku kejahatan (menyebarkan file buruk, mengirim email spam) tidak dihukum, dan perilaku kooperatif (menyebarkan file bagus, hanya mengirim email berguna) tidak dihargai. Sistem desentralisasi yang mengandalkan partisipannya untuk menjadi aktor yang baik gagal untuk berkembang karena sistem tersebut tidak dapat mencegah aktor jahat untuk ikut berpartisipasi.

Tanpa memaksakan otoritas pusat, satu-satunya cara untuk menyelesaikan masalah ini adalah dengan menggunakan insentif ekonomi. Aktor yang baik, menurut definisinya, bermain sesuai aturan karena mereka secara inheren termotivasi untuk melakukannya. Pelaku kejahatan, menurut definisinya, adalah orang yang egois dan licik, namun insentif ekonomi yang tepat dapat mengarahkan perilaku buruk mereka ke arah kebaikan bersama. Sistem yang terdesentralisasi melakukan hal ini dengan memastikan bahwa perilaku kooperatif menguntungkan dan perilaku kejahatan merugikan.

Cara terbaik untuk menerapkan layanan terdesentralisasi yang kuat adalah dengan menciptakan pasar di mana semua pelaku, baik dan buruk, dibayar untuk menyediakan layanan tersebut. Kurangnya hambatan masuk bagi pembeli dan penjual di pasar yang terdesentralisasi mendorong skala dan efisiensi. Jika protokol pasar dapat melindungi partisipan dari penipuan, pencurian, dan penyalahgunaan, maka pelaku kejahatan akan merasa lebih menguntungkan untuk mengikuti aturan atau menyerang sistem lain.

Pasar yang Terdesentralisasi Membutuhkan Barang yang Terdesentralisasi

Namun pasar itu rumit. Mereka harus memberi pembeli dan penjual kemampuan untuk mengirimkan penawaran dan permintaan serta menemukan, mencocokkan, dan menyelesaikan pesanan. Kebijakan tersebut harus adil, memberikan konsistensi yang kuat, dan menjaga ketersediaan meskipun terjadi masa-masa yang tidak menentu.

Pasar global saat ini sangat mumpuni dan canggih, namun menggunakan barang-barang tradisional dan jaringan pembayaran untuk menerapkan insentif di pasar yang terdesentralisasi bukanlah hal yang baru. Setiap penggabungan antara sistem desentralisasi dan uang fiat, aset tradisional, atau komoditas fisik akan menimbulkan kembali ketergantungan pada otoritas pusat yang mengontrol pemroses pembayaran, bank, dan bursa.

Sistem terdesentralisasi tidak dapat mentransfer uang tunai, mencari saldo rekening perantara, atau menentukan kepemilikan properti. Barang-barang tradisional sama sekali tidak terbaca dalam sistem desentralisasi. Hal sebaliknya tidak benar—sistem tradisional dapat berinteraksi dengan Bitcoin semudah aktor lainnya (begitu mereka memutuskan ingin melakukannya). Batasan antara sistem tradisional dan desentralisasi bukanlah sebuah tembok yang tidak dapat dilewati, melainkan sebuah membran semi-permeabel.

Ini berarti bahwa sistem yang terdesentralisasi tidak dapat melaksanakan pembayaran dalam mata uang barang tradisional apa pun. Mereka bahkan tidak dapat menentukan saldo rekening yang didominasi fiat atau kepemilikan real estat atau barang fisik. Seluruh perekonomian tradisional sama sekali tidak terbaca dalam sistem desentralisasi.

Menciptakan pasar yang terdesentralisasi membutuhkan perdagangan barang-barang baru yang terdesentralisasi yang dapat dibaca dan ditransfer dalam sistem yang terdesentralisasi.

Komputasi Adalah Barang Terdesentralisasi yang Pertama

Contoh pertama dari “barang terdesentralisasi” adalah kelas komputasi khusus yang pertama kali diusulkan pada tahun 1993 oleh Cynthia Dwork dan Moni Naor.[3]

Karena adanya hubungan mendalam antara matematika, fisika, dan ilmu komputer, komputasi ini memerlukan energi dan sumber daya perangkat keras di dunia nyata—hal ini tidak dapat dipalsukan. Karena sumber daya di dunia nyata langka, komputasi ini juga langka.

input untuk komputasi ini dapat berupa data apa pun. Keluaran yang dihasilkan adalah “bukti” digital bahwa pengkomputasian telah dilakukan pada data input yang diberikan. Pembuktian mengandung “kesulitan” tertentu yang merupakan bukti (statistik) dari sejumlah pekerjaan komputasi tertentu. Yang terpenting, hubungan antara data input, pembuktian, dan pekerjaan komputasi asli yang dilakukan dapat diverifikasi secara independen tanpa perlu mengajukan banding ke otoritas pusat mana pun.

Gagasan untuk menyebarkan beberapa data input bersama dengan bukti digital sebagai bukti kerja komputasi dunia nyata yang dilakukan pada input tersebut sekarang disebut “proof-of-work”.[4] Proof-of-work adalah, jika menggunakan ungkapan Nick Szabo, “biaya yang tidak dapat ditiru”. Karena proof-of-work dapat diverifikasi oleh siapa pun, maka proof-of-work merupakan sumber daya ekonomi yang dapat dibaca oleh semua peserta dalam sistem desentralisasi. Proof-of-work mengubah penghitungan data menjadi barang yang terdesentralisasi. Dwork & Naor mengusulkan penggunaan komputasi untuk membatasi penyalahgunaan sumber daya bersama dengan memaksa peserta untuk memberikan proof-of-work dengan tingkat kesulitan minimum tertentu sebelum mereka dapat mengakses sumber daya:

“Dalam makalah ini kami menyarankan pendekatan komputasi untuk memerangi penyebaran surat elektronik. Secara umum, kami telah merancang mekanisme kontrol akses yang dapat digunakan kapan pun diinginkan untuk membatasi, namun tidak melarang, akses ke sumber daya.” - Dwoak & Naor, 1993

Dalam proposal Dwork & Naor, administrator sistem email akan menetapkan tingkat kesulitan bukti kerja minimum untuk mengirimkan email. Pengguna yang ingin mengirim email perlu melakukan sejumlah komputasi yang sesuai dengan email tersebut sebagai data input. Bukti yang dihasilkan akan dikirimkan ke server bersamaan dengan permintaan pengiriman email.

Dwork & Naor menyebut kesulitan proof-of-work sebagai “fungsi penetapan harga” karena, dengan menyesuaikan kesulitan tersebut, “otoritas penetapan harga” dapat memastikan bahwa sumber daya bersama tetap murah untuk digunakan bagi pengguna yang jujur dan rata-rata, namun mahal bagi pengguna yang mencari untuk mengeksploitasinya. Di pasar pengiriman email, administrator server adalah otoritas penetapan harga; mereka harus memilih “harga” untuk pengiriman email yang cukup rendah untuk penggunaan normal namun terlalu tinggi untuk spam.

Meskipun Dwork & Naor membingkai proof-of-work sebagai disinsentif ekonomi untuk memerangi penyalahgunaan sumber daya, nomenklatur “fungsi penetapan harga” dan “otoritas penetapan harga” mendukung interpretasi yang berbeda dan berbasis pasar: pengguna membeli akses ke sumber daya dengan imbalan komputasi pada tingkat yang sama. harga yang ditetapkan oleh pengontrol sumber daya.

Dalam interpretasi ini, jaringan pengiriman email sebenarnya adalah pengiriman email perdagangan pasar yang terdesentralisasi untuk komputasi. Kesulitan minimum dari proof-of-work adalah harga yang diminta untuk pengiriman email dalam mata uang komputasi.

Mata Uang Adalah Barang Terdesentralisasi yang kedua

Namun komputasi bukanlah mata uang yang baik.

Bukti yang digunakan untuk “memperdagangkan” komputasi hanya valid untuk input yang digunakan dalam komputasi tersebut. Hubungan yang tidak dapat dipecahkan antara bukti spesifik dan input tertentu berarti bahwa proof-of-work untuk satu input tidak dapat digunakan kembali untuk input yang berbeda.

Proof-of-work awalnya diusulkan sebagai mekanisme kontrol akses untuk membatasi email spam. Pengguna diharapkan memberikan bukti kerja bersama email apa pun yang ingin mereka kirim. Mekanisme ini juga dapat dianggap sebagai pasar di mana pengguna membeli pengiriman email dengan komputasi pada harga yang dipilih oleh penyedia layanan email.

Batasan ini berguna – dapat digunakan untuk mencegah pekerjaan yang dilakukan oleh satu pembeli di pasar kemudian dibelanjakan kembali oleh pembeli lain. Misalnya, HashCash, implementasi nyata pertama dari pasar pengiriman email, menyertakan metadata seperti stempel waktu saat ini dan alamat email pengirim dalam data masukan untuk penghitungan bukti kerja. Bukti yang dihasilkan oleh pengguna tertentu untuk email tertentu, tidak dapat digunakan untuk email yang berbeda.

Namun ini juga berarti bahwa komputasi bukti kerja adalah barang yang dipesan lebih dahulu. Dana tersebut tidak dapat dipertukarkan, tidak dapat dibelanjakan kembali,[5] dan tidak memecahkan masalah kebutuhan yang terjadi secara kebetulan. Properti moneter yang hilang ini mencegah komputasi menjadi mata uang. Terlepas dari namanya, tidak ada insentif bagi penyedia pengiriman email untuk ingin mengakumulasikan HashCash, karena akan ada uang tunai sebenarnya.

Adam Back, penemu HashCash, memahami masalah berikut:

"Hashcash tidak dapat ditransfer secara langsung karena untuk membuatnya didistribusikan, setiap penyedia layanan hanya menerima pembayaran dalam bentuk tunai yang dibuat untuk mereka. Anda mungkin dapat menyiapkan pencetakan gaya digicash (dengan chaumian ecash) dan meminta bank hanya mencetak uang tunai pada penerimaan tabrakan hash yang ditangani. Namun ini berarti Anda harus mempercayai bank untuk tidak mencetak uang dalam jumlah tak terbatas untuk digunakan sendiri." - Adam Back, 1997

Kita tidak ingin menukar komputasi yang dibuat khusus untuk setiap barang atau jasa yang dijual dalam perekonomian yang terdesentralisasi. Kita menginginkan mata uang digital serba guna yang dapat langsung digunakan untuk mengoordinasikan pertukaran nilai di pasar mana pun.

Membangun mata uang digital yang berfungsi namun tetap terdesentralisasi merupakan tantangan yang signifikan. Mata uang membutuhkan unit yang dapat dipertukarkan dengan nilai yang sama yang dapat ditransfer antar pengguna. Hal ini memerlukan model penerbitan, definisi kriptografi kepemilikan dan transfer, proses penemuan dan penyelesaian transaksi, dan buku besar historis. Infrastruktur ini tidak diperlukan ketika bukti kerja hanya dianggap sebagai “mekanisme kontrol akses”.

Terlebih lagi, sistem desentralisasi adalah pasar, jadi semua fungsi dasar mata uang ini harus disediakan melalui penyedia layanan berbayar… dalam satuan mata uang yang sedang dibuat!

Seperti mengkompilasi compiler pertama, permulaan jaringan listrik yang gelap, atau evolusi kehidupan itu sendiri, pencipta mata uang digital dihadapkan pada masalah bootstrapping: bagaimana mendefinisikan insentif ekonomi yang mendasari mata uang yang berfungsi tanpa memiliki mata uang yang berfungsi di dalamnya yang akan mendenominasikan atau membayar insentif tersebut.

Komputasi dan mata uang adalah barang pertama dan kedua di pasar yang terdesentralisasi. Proof-of-work sendiri memungkinkan pertukaran komputasi tetapi mata uang yang berfungsi memerlukan lebih banyak infrastruktur. Butuh waktu 15 tahun bagi komunitas cypherpunk untuk mengembangkan infrastruktur tersebut.

Pasar Terdesentralisasi Pertama harus Memperdagangkan Komputasi untuk Mata Uang

Kemajuan dalam masalah bootstrapping ini berasal dari penyusunan batasan yang tepat.

Sistem yang terdesentralisasi harus menjadi pasar. Pasar terdiri dari pembeli dan penjual yang saling bertukar barang. Pasar terdesentralisasi untuk mata uang digital hanya memiliki dua barang yang dapat dibaca di dalamnya:

1. Komputasi melalui proof-of-work
2. Unit mata uang yang kita coba bangun

Oleh karena itu, satu-satunya perdagangan pasar yang memungkinkan adalah antara kedua barang tersebut. Komputasi harus dijual untuk satuan mata uang atau setara dengan satuan mata uang harus dijual untuk komputasi. Menyatakan hal ini sangatlah mudah—bagian tersulitnya adalah menata pasar ini sehingga sekadar menukar mata uang untuk komputasi akan mem-bootstrap semua kemampuan mata uang itu sendiri!

Seluruh sejarah mata uang digital yang berpuncak pada white paper Satoshi tahun 2008 adalah serangkaian upaya yang semakin canggih dalam menata pasar ini. Bagian berikut mengulas proyek-proyek seperti bit gold milik Nick Szabo dan B-money milik Wei Dai. Memahami bagaimana proyek-proyek ini menyusun pasar mereka dan mengapa mereka gagal akan membantu kita memahami mengapa Satoshi dan Bitcoin berhasil.

Bagaimana Sistem Desentralisasi Dapat Menentukan Harga Komputasi?

Fungsi utama pasar adalah penemuan harga. Oleh karena itu, komputasi perdagangan pasar untuk mata uang harus menemukan harga komputasi itu sendiri, dalam satuan mata uang tersebut.

Kita biasanya tidak memberikan nilai moneter pada komputasi. Kita biasanya menghargai kapasitas untuk melakukan komputasi karena kita menghargai output dari komputasi, bukan komputasi itu sendiri. Jika keluaran yang sama dapat dilakukan dengan lebih efisien, dengan komputasi yang lebih sedikit, hal ini biasanya disebut “kemajuan”.

Proof-of-work mewakili komputasi spesifik yang keluarannya hanya berupa bukti bahwa komputasi tersebut telah dilakukan. Menghasilkan bukti yang sama dengan melakukan lebih sedikit komputasi dan lebih sedikit pekerjaan tidak akan menghasilkan kemajuan—hal ini akan menjadi bug. Oleh karena itu, komputasi yang terkait dengan Proof-of-work merupakan hal yang aneh dan baru untuk dicoba dihargai.

Ketika bukti kerja dianggap sebagai disinsentif terhadap penyalahgunaan sumber daya, maka bukti kerja tidak perlu dinilai secara tepat dan konsisten. Yang terpenting adalah penyedia layanan email menetapkan tingkat kesulitan yang cukup rendah sehingga tidak terlihat oleh pengguna yang sah, namun cukup tinggi sehingga menjadi penghalang bagi pelaku spam. Oleh karena itu, terdapat beragam “harga” yang dapat diterima dan setiap peserta bertindak sebagai otoritas penetapan harga mereka sendiri, dengan menerapkan fungsi penetapan harga lokal.

Namun satuan mata uang dimaksudkan agar dapat dipertukarkan, masing-masing memiliki nilai yang sama. Karena perubahan teknologi dari waktu ke waktu, dua unit mata uang yang dibuat dengan tingkat kesulitan proof-of-work yang sama—yang diukur dengan jumlah komputasi yang sesuai—mungkin memiliki biaya produksi yang sangat berbeda di dunia nyata, yang diukur dengan waktu, energi, dan/atau modal untuk melakukan komputasi tersebut. Ketika komputasi dijual dengan menggunakan mata uang, dan biaya produksi yang mendasarinya bervariasi, bagaimana pasar dapat memastikan harga yang konsisten?

Nick Szabo dengan jelas mengidentifikasi masalah harga ini ketika menjelaskan bit gold:

"Masalah utamanya...adalah bahwa skema pembuktian kerja bergantung pada arsitektur komputer, bukan hanya matematika abstrak yang didasarkan pada "siklus komputasi" abstrak. ...Jadi, ada kemungkinan untuk menjadi produsen berbiaya sangat rendah (dengan beberapa kali lipat besarnya) dan membanjiri pasar dengan bit gold." - Szabo, 2005

Mata uang terdesentralisasi yang diciptakan melalui proof-of-work akan mengalami kelebihan pasokan dan penurunan pasokan seiring dengan perubahan pasokan komputasi seiring waktu. Untuk mengakomodasi volatilitas ini, jaringan harus belajar menghitung harga secara dinamis.

Mata uang digital awal mencoba memberi harga pada komputasi dengan mencoba mengukur “biaya komputasi” secara kolektif. Wei Dai, misalnya, mengusulkan solusi praktis berikut dalam B-money:

"Jumlah unit moneter yang diciptakan sama dengan biaya upaya komputasi dalam sekeranjang komoditas standar. Sebagai contoh, jika sebuah masalah memerlukan waktu 100 jam untuk diselesaikan pada komputer yang dapat menyelesaikannya dengan cara yang paling ekonomis, dan diperlukan 3 keranjang standar untuk membeli 100 jam waktu komputasi pada komputer tersebut di pasar terbuka, maka setelah solusi terhadap masalah tersebut disiarkan, setiap orang mengkredit rekening penyiar sebanyak 3 unit." - Dai, 1998

Sayangnya, Dai tidak menjelaskan bagaimana pengguna dalam sistem yang seharusnya terdesentralisasi seharusnya menyetujui definisi “keranjang standar”, komputer mana yang memecahkan masalah tertentu “paling ekonomis”, atau biaya komputasi di “pasar terbuka”. Mencapai konsensus di antara semua pengguna mengenai kumpulan data bersama yang berubah-ubah terhadap waktu adalah masalah penting dalam sistem desentralisasi!

Agar adil bagi Dai, dia menyadari hal ini:

“Salah satu bagian yang lebih bermasalah dalam protokol B-money adalah penciptaan uang. Bagian dari protokol ini mengharuskan semua [pengguna] memutuskan dan menyetujui biaya perhitungan tertentu. Sayangnya karena teknologi komputasi cenderung berkembang pesat dan tidak selalu bersifat publik, informasi ini mungkin tidak tersedia, tidak akurat, atau ketinggalan jaman, yang semuanya akan menyebabkan masalah serius pada protokol." - Dai, 1998

Dai kemudian mengusulkan mekanisme penetapan harga berbasis lelang yang lebih canggih yang kemudian dikatakan Satoshi sebagai titik awal idenya. Kita akan kembali ke skema lelang di bawah ini, tapi pertama-tama mari kita beralih ke bit gold, dan pertimbangkan wawasan Szabo tentang masalahnya.

Gunakan Pasar Eksternal

Szabo mengklaim bahwa proof-of-work harus “diberi stempel waktu dengan aman”:

"Bukti kerja diberi stempel waktu yang aman. Ini harus bekerja secara terdistribusi, dengan beberapa layanan stempel waktu berbeda sehingga tidak ada layanan stempel waktu tertentu yang perlu diandalkan secara substansial." - Szabo, 2005

Szabo tertaut ke halaman sumber daya tentang protokol penandaan waktu yang aman tetapi tidak menjelaskan algoritme spesifik apa pun untuk penandaan waktu yang aman. Ungkapan “aman” dan “fesyen terdistribusi” mempunyai pengaruh yang besar di sini, sehingga dapat mengatasi kerumitan dalam mengandalkan satu (atau banyak) layanan “di luar sistem” untuk penandaan waktu.[6]

Waktu pembuatan unit mata uang digital penting karena menghubungkan komputasi yang dilakukan dengan biaya produksi di dunia nyata.

Terlepas dari ketidakjelasan implementasi, Szabo benar—waktu pembuatan proof-of-work merupakan faktor penting dalam menentukan harga karena terkait dengan biaya komputasi:

"…Namun, karena bit gold diberi stempel waktu, waktu yang dibuat serta tingkat kesulitan matematis dari pekerjaan tersebut dapat dibuktikan secara otomatis. Dari sini, biasanya dapat disimpulkan berapa biaya produksi selama periode waktu tersebut..." - Szabo, 2005

"Menyimpulkan" biaya produksi adalah hal yang penting karena bit gold tidak memiliki mekanisme untuk membatasi penciptaan uang. Siapapun dapat membuat bit gold dengan melakukan perhitungan yang sesuai. Tanpa kemampuan untuk mengatur penerbitan, bit gold sama dengan barang koleksi:

"…Tidak seperti atom emas yang dapat dipertukarkan, tetapi seperti halnya barang-barang kolektor, pasokan dalam jumlah besar selama jangka waktu tertentu akan menurunkan nilai barang-barang tersebut. Dalam hal ini, emas kecil bertindak lebih seperti barang-barang kolektor daripada seperti emas..." - Szabo, 2005

Bit gold memerlukan proses eksternal tambahan untuk menciptakan unit mata uang yang sepadan:

“…[B]it Gold tidak dapat dipertukarkan berdasarkan fungsi sederhana, misalnya, panjang tali. Sebaliknya, untuk membuat unit yang dapat dipertukarkan, dealer harus menggabungkan potongan-potongan bit gold dengan nilai berbeda ke dalam satuan yang lebih besar kira-kira dengan nilai yang sama. Hal ini serupa dengan apa yang dilakukan banyak pedagang komoditas saat ini untuk memungkinkan pasar komoditas bekerja. Kepercayaan masih terdistribusi karena perkiraan nilai dari kumpulan tersebut dapat diverifikasi secara independen oleh banyak pihak lain dengan cara yang sebagian besar atau seluruhnya otomatis." - Szabo, 2005

Mengutip Szabo, “untuk menguji nilai… bit gold, dealer memeriksa dan memverifikasi tingkat kesulitan, masukan, dan stempel waktu”. Dealer yang mendefinisikan “unit yang lebih besar dengan nilai yang kira-kira sama” menyediakan fungsi penetapan harga yang serupa dengan “keranjang komoditas standar” Dai. Unit yang dapat dipertukarkan tidak dibuat dalam bentuk bit gold ketika bukti kerja diproduksi, hanya kemudian ketika bukti tersebut digabungkan menjadi “unit yang kira-kira bernilai sama” oleh dealer di pasar di luar jaringan.

Yang patut disyukuri, Szabo mengakui kelemahan ini:

"…Potensi kelebihan pasokan yang awalnya tersembunyi karena inovasi tersembunyi dalam arsitektur mesin adalah potensi kelemahan dalam bit gold, atau setidaknya ketidaksempurnaan yang harus diatasi oleh lelang awal dan pertukaran ex post bit gold." - Szabo, 2005

Sekali lagi, meskipun belum sampai pada (yang sekarang kita kenal sebagai) solusinya, Szabo menunjukkan solusinya: karena biaya komputasi berubah seiring waktu, jaringan harus merespons perubahan pasokan komputasi dengan menyesuaikan harga uang.

Gunakan Pasar Internal

Dealer Szabo akan menjadi pasar eksternal yang menentukan harga (bundel dari) bit gold setelah penciptaannya. Apakah mungkin menerapkan pasar ini di dalam sistem dan bukan di luar sistem?

Mari kita kembali ke Wei Dai dan B-money. Seperti disebutkan sebelumnya, Dai mengusulkan model alternatif berbasis lelang untuk pembuatan B-money. Desain Satoshi untuk Bitcoin meningkat secara langsung pada model lelang B-money[7]:

“Jadi saya mengusulkan subprotokol penciptaan uang alternatif, di mana [pengguna]… memutuskan dan menyetujui jumlah B-money yang akan dibuat setiap periode, dengan biaya pembuatan uang tersebut ditentukan melalui lelang. Setiap periode pembuatan uang adalah dibagi menjadi empat tahap, sebagai berikut:

Planning. Para [pengguna] menghitung dan bernegosiasi satu sama lain untuk menentukan peningkatan jumlah uang beredar yang optimal untuk periode berikutnya. Apakah [jaringan] dapat mencapai konsensus atau tidak, mereka masing-masing menyiarkan kuota penciptaan uang mereka dan komputasi makroekonomi apa pun yang dilakukan untuk mendukung angka tersebut.

Bidding. Siapapun yang ingin membuat B-money menyiarkan tawaran dalam bentuk dimana x adalah banyaknya B-money yang ingin dibuatnya, dan y adalah soal yang belum terselesaikan dari kelas soal yang telah ditentukan. Setiap masalah di kelas ini harus memiliki biaya nominal (katakanlah dalam MIPS-years) yang disetujui secara publik.

Computation. Setelah melihat penawaran, pihak yang mengajukan penawaran pada tahap penawaran sekarang dapat menyelesaikan masalah dalam penawarannya dan menyiarkan solusinya. Penciptaan uang.

Money creation. Setiap [pengguna] menerima tawaran tertinggi (di antara mereka yang benar-benar menyiarkan solusi) dalam hal biaya nominal per unit B-money yang dibuat dan memberikan kredit kepada akun penawar sesuai dengan itu."
- Dai, 1998

B-money membuat kemajuan signifikan menuju struktur pasar yang tepat untuk mata uang digital. Ini berupaya untuk menghilangkan dealer eksternal Szabo dan memungkinkan pengguna untuk terlibat dalam penemuan harga dengan menawar satu sama lain secara langsung.

Namun menerapkan proposal Dai seperti yang tertulis akan menjadi sebuah tantangan:

• Dalam fase "Planning”, pengguna menanggung beban menegosiasikan “peningkatan optimal jumlah uang beredar untuk periode berikutnya”. Bagaimana “optimal” harus didefinisikan, bagaimana pengguna harus bernegosiasi satu sama lain, dan bagaimana hasil negosiasi tersebut dibagikan tidak dijelaskan.
• Terlepas dari apa yang direncanakan, fase “Bidding” memungkinkan siapa saja untuk mengajukan “tawaran” untuk membuat B-money. Tawaran mencakup jumlah B-money yang akan dibuat serta jumlah bukti kerja yang sesuai sehingga setiap penawaran adalah harga, jumlah perhitungan yang bersedia dilakukan oleh penawar tertentu untuk membeli sejumlah tertentu. dari B-money.
• Setelah penawaran diserahkan, fase “Computation” terdiri dari peserta lelang yang melakukan proof-of-work yang mereka tawarkan dan menyiarkan solusi. Tidak ada mekanisme untuk mencocokkan penawar dengan solusi yang disediakan. Yang lebih problematis adalah tidak jelasnya bagaimana pengguna dapat mengetahui bahwa semua penawaran telah diajukan – kapan fase “Bidding” berakhir dan fase “Computation” dimulai?
• Masalah-masalah ini berulang dalam fase “Money creation”. Karena sifat proof-of-work, pengguna dapat memverifikasi bahwa bukti yang mereka terima dalam solusi adalah asli. Namun bagaimana pengguna dapat secara kolektif menyepakati serangkaian “tawaran tertinggi”? Bagaimana jika pengguna yang berbeda memilih set yang berbeda, baik karena preferensi atau latensi jaringan?

Sistem yang terdesentralisasi kesulitan dalam melacak data dan membuat pilihan secara konsisten, namun B-money memerlukan pelacakan tawaran dari banyak pengguna dan membuat pilihan konsensus di antara mereka. Kompleksitas ini menghalangi penerapan B-money.

Akar dari kompleksitas ini adalah keyakinan Dai bahwa tingkat “optimal” penciptaan B-money harus berfluktuasi seiring waktu berdasarkan “perhitungan makroekonomi” penggunanya. Seperti bit gold, B-money tidak memiliki mekanisme untuk membatasi penciptaan uang. Siapapun dapat membuat unit B-money dengan menyiarkan tawaran dan kemudian melakukan proof-of-work yang sesuai.

Baik Szabo maupun Dai mengusulkan penggunaan pasar pertukaran mata uang digital untuk komputasi, namun baik bit gold maupun B-money tidak menentukan kebijakan moneter untuk mengatur pasokan mata uang di pasar ini.

Tujuan Kebijakan Moneter Satoshi Menghasilkan Bitcoin

Sebaliknya, kebijakan moneter yang sehat adalah salah satu tujuan utama Satoshi dalam proyek Bitcoin. Dalam postingan milis pertama tempat Bitcoin diumumkan, Satoshi menulis:

“Akar permasalahan mata uang konvensional adalah kepercayaan yang diperlukan agar mata uang tersebut dapat berfungsi. Bank sentral harus dipercaya untuk tidak merendahkan mata uang tersebut, namun sejarah mata uang fiat penuh dengan pelanggaran terhadap kepercayaan tersebut.” - Satoshi, 2009

Satoshi selanjutnya menjelaskan masalah lain dengan mata uang fiat seperti perbankan cadangan fraksional yang berisiko, kurangnya privasi, pencurian & penipuan yang merajalela, dan ketidakmampuan melakukan pembayaran mikro. Namun Satoshi memulai dengan isu penurunan nilai oleh bank sentral—dengan kekhawatiran mengenai kebijakan moneter.

Satoshi ingin Bitcoin pada akhirnya mencapai pasokan sirkulasi terbatas yang tidak dapat terdilusi seiring waktu. Tingkat penciptaan Bitcoin yang “optimal”, bagi Satoshi, pada akhirnya akan menjadi nol.

Tujuan kebijakan moneter ini, lebih dari karakteristik lain yang mereka miliki secara pribadi (atau kolektif!), adalah alasan Satoshi “menemukan” Bitcoin, blockchain, konsensus Nakamoto, dll. —dan bukan orang lain. Ini adalah jawaban singkat atas pertanyaan yang diajukan dalam judul artikel ini: Satoshi memikirkan Bitcoin karena mereka fokus pada penciptaan mata uang digital dengan persediaan terbatas.

Pasokan Bitcoin yang terbatas bukan hanya tujuan kebijakan moneter atau meme bagi para Bitcoiner untuk berkumpul. Penyederhanaan teknis penting inilah yang memungkinkan Satoshi membangun mata uang digital yang berfungsi sementara B-money Dai tetap menjadi postingan web yang menarik.

Bitcoin adalah B-money dengan persyaratan tambahan berupa kebijakan moneter yang telah ditentukan. Seperti banyak penyederhanaan teknis lainnya, pembatasan kebijakan moneter memungkinkan kemajuan dengan mengurangi ruang lingkup. Mari kita lihat bagaimana masing-masing fase pembuatan B-money disederhanakan dengan menerapkan batasan ini.

Semua Pasokan 21 Juta Bitcoin Sudah Ada

Dalam b-money, setiap “periode penciptaan uang” mencakup fase “Perencanaan”, di mana pengguna diharapkan untuk membagikan “perhitungan makroekonomi” mereka yang membenarkan jumlah b-money yang ingin mereka ciptakan pada saat itu. Tujuan kebijakan moneter Satoshi yaitu pasokan terbatas dan emisi nol tidak sesuai dengan kebebasan yang diberikan b-money kepada pengguna individu untuk menghasilkan uang. Oleh karena itu, langkah pertama dalam perjalanan dari bmoney ke bitcoin adalah menghilangkan kebebasan ini. Pengguna bitcoin perorangan tidak dapat membuat bitcoin. Hanya jaringan bitcoin yang dapat membuat bitcoin, dan hal ini terjadi tepat sekali, pada tahun 2009 ketika Satoshi meluncurkan proyek bitcoin.

Satoshi mampu menggantikan fase “Perencanaan” b-money yang berulang menjadi satu jadwal yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya di mana 21 juta bitcoin yang dibuat pada tahun 2009 akan dilepaskan ke peredaran. Pengguna secara sukarela mendukung kebijakan moneter Satoshi dengan mengunduh dan menjalankan perangkat lunak Bitcoin Core yang kebijakan moneternya dikodekan secara keras.

Hal ini mengubah semantik pasar bitcoin untuk komputasi. Bitcoin yang dibayarkan kepada penambang bukanlah hal baru yang diterbitkan; itu melainkan baru dirilis ke peredaran dari persediaan yang ada.

Pandangan ini sangat berbeda dari klaim naif bahwa “penambang bitcoin menciptakan bitcoin”. Penambang Bitcoin tidak menciptakan bitcoin, mereka membelinya. Bitcoin tidak berharga karena “bitcoin terbuat dari energi”—tetapi nilai bitcoin didemonstrasikan dengan dijual untuk mendapatkan energi.

Mari kita ulangi sekali lagi: bitcoin tidak dibuat melalui proof-of-work, bitcoin dibuat melalui konsensus.

Desain Satoshi menghilangkan persyaratan untuk fase “Perencanaan” yang berkelanjutan dari b-money dengan melakukan semua perencanaan terlebih dahulu. Hal ini memungkinkan Satoshi untuk membuat kebijakan moneter yang sehat namun juga menyederhanakan penerapan bitcoin.

Bitcoin dihargai Melalui Konsensus

Kebebasan yang diberikan kepada pengguna untuk menghasilkan uang menimbulkan beban yang sesuai bagi jaringan bmoney. Selama fase “Penawaran” jaringan b-money harus mengumpulkan dan membagikan “tawaran” pembuatan uang dari banyak pengguna yang berbeda.

Menghilangkan kebebasan untuk menghasilkan uang akan meringankan beban jaringan bitcoin. Karena seluruh 21 juta bitcoin sudah ada, jaringan tidak perlu mengumpulkan tawaran dari pengguna untuk menghasilkan uang, jaringan hanya perlu menjual bitcoin sesuai jadwal Satoshi yang telah ditentukan.

Jaringan bitcoin dengan demikian menawarkan konsensus harga permintaan untuk bitcoin yang dijualnya di setiap blok. Harga tunggal ini dihitung oleh setiap node secara independen menggunakan salinan blockchainnya. Jika node memiliki konsensus pada blockchain yang sama (poin yang akan kita bahas nanti) mereka semua akan menawarkan harga permintaan yang sama di setiap blok.[8]

Bagian pertama kalkulasi harga konsensus menentukan berapa banyak bitcoin yang akan dijual. Hal ini diperbaiki oleh jadwal rilis Satoshi yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya. Semua node bitcoin di jaringan menghitung jumlah yang sama untuk blok tertentu:

$ bitcoin-cli getblockstats {... "subsidy": 6250000000, ... } # 6.25 BTC

Bagian kedua dari harga yang diminta secara konsensus adalah jumlah komputasi yang akan menjual subsidi saat ini. Sekali lagi, semua node bitcoin di jaringan menghitung nilai yang sama (kita akan meninjau kembali kalkulasi tingkat kesulitan ini di bagian berikutnya):

$ bitcoin-cli getdifficulty {... "result": 55621444139429.57, ... }

Bersama-sama, subsidi dan kesulitan jaringan menentukan permintaan bitcoin saat ini sebagai mata uang komputasi. Karena blockchain berada dalam konsensus, harga ini adalah harga konsensus.

Pengguna b-money juga dianggap memiliki konsensus “blockchain” yang berisi riwayat semua transaksi. Namun Dai tidak pernah memikirkan solusi sederhana berupa konsensus tunggal yang meminta harga untuk pembuatan b-money baru, yang hanya ditentukan oleh data di blockchain tersebut.

Sebaliknya, Dai berasumsi bahwa penciptaan uang harus berlangsung selamanya. Oleh karena itu, pengguna individu perlu diberdayakan untuk mempengaruhi kebijakan moneter – seperti halnya mata uang fiat. Persyaratan yang dirasakan ini membuat Dai merancang sistem penawaran yang mencegah penerapan b-money.

Kompleksitas tambahan ini dihilangkan dengan persyaratan Satoshi mengenai kebijakan moneter yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya.

Waktu Menutup Semua Penyebaran

Dalam fase “Komputasi” b-money, pengguna individu akan melakukan komputasi yang telah mereka lakukan dalam penawaran sebelumnya. Dalam bitcoin, seluruh jaringan adalah penjual – tetapi siapa pembelinya?

Di pasar pengiriman email, pembelinya adalah individu yang ingin mengirim email. Otoritas penetapan harga, penyedia layanan email, akan menetapkan harga yang dianggap murah bagi individu namun mahal bagi pelaku spam. Namun jika jumlah pengguna yang sah bertambah, harganya masih bisa tetap sama karena kekuatan komputasi masing-masing pengguna akan tetap sama.

Di b-money, setiap pengguna yang menyumbangkan tawaran untuk pembuatan uang selanjutnya harus melakukan sendiri jumlah komputasi yang sesuai. Setiap pengguna bertindak sebagai otoritas penetapan harga berdasarkan pengetahuan mereka tentang kemampuan komputasi mereka sendiri.

Jaringan bitcoin menawarkan satu harga yang diminta dalam komputasi subsidi bitcoin saat ini. Namun tidak ada penambang individu yang menemukan blok yang melakukan komputasi sebanyak ini.[9] Blok pemenang penambang individu adalah bukti bahwa semua penambang secara kolektif melakukan jumlah komputasi yang diperlukan. Pembeli bitcoin dengan demikian adalah industri penambangan bitcoin global.

Setelah mencapai konsensus harga yang diminta, jaringan bitcoin tidak akan mengubah harga tersebut sampai lebih banyak blok diproduksi. Blok-blok ini harus berisi proof-of-work dengan harga yang diminta saat ini. Oleh karena itu, industri pertambangan tidak punya pilihan jika ingin “melakukan perdagangan” selain membayar harga yang diminta saat ini dalam komputasi.

Satu-satunya variabel yang dapat dikontrol oleh industri pertambangan adalah berapa lama waktu yang dibutuhkan untuk memproduksi blok berikutnya. Sama seperti jaringan bitcoin yang menawarkan satu harga yang diminta, industri pertambangan juga menawarkan satu penawaran—waktu yang diperlukan untuk menghasilkan blok berikutnya yang memenuhi harga yang diminta jaringan saat ini.

Untuk mengimbangi peningkatan kecepatan perangkat keras dan minat yang berbeda-beda dalam menjalankan node dari waktu ke waktu, kesulitan proof-of-work ditentukan oleh rata-rata bergerak yang menargetkan jumlah rata-rata blok per jam. Jika dihasilkan terlalu cepat, kesulitannya akan meningkat. - Nakamoto, 2008

Satoshi dengan sederhana menjelaskan algoritma penyesuaian kesulitan, yang sering disebut sebagai salah satu ide paling orisinal dalam implementasi bitcoin. Hal ini benar, namun alih-alih berfokus pada daya cipta solusi, mari kita fokus pada mengapa penyelesaian masalah sangat penting bagi Satoshi.

Proyek-proyek seperti bit gold dan b-money tidak perlu membatasi nilai tukar pada saat penciptaan uang karena mereka tidak memiliki pasokan tetap atau kebijakan moneter yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya. Periode penciptaan uang yang lebih cepat atau lebih lambat dapat dikompensasikan melalui cara lain, misalnya melalui pajak. Dealer eksternal memasukkan token bit gold ke dalam bundler yang lebih besar atau lebih kecil atau pengguna b-money mengubah tawaran mereka.

Namun tujuan kebijakan moneter Satoshi mengharuskan bitcoin memiliki tingkat pelepasan bitcoin yang telah ditentukan untuk diedarkan. Membatasi laju (statistik) produksi blok dari waktu ke waktu adalah hal yang wajar dalam bitcoin karena laju produksi blok adalah laju penjualan pasokan awal bitcoin. Menjual 21 juta bitcoin selama 140 tahun adalah proposisi yang berbeda dibandingkan membiarkannya dijual dalam 3 bulan.

Selain itu, bitcoin sebenarnya dapat menerapkan batasan ini karena blockchain adalah “protokol cap waktu aman” milik Szabo. Satoshi menggambarkan bitcoin sebagai yang pertama dan terutama sebagai “server stempel waktu terdistribusi secara peer-to-peer,” dan implementasi awal kode sumber bitcoin menggunakan “rantai waktu” dunia, bukan “blockchain” untuk menggambarkan struktur data bersama yang mengimplementasikan pasar proof-of-work bitcoin.[10]

Tidak seperti bit gold atau b-money, token dalam bitcoin tidak mengalami kelebihan pasokan. Jaringan bitcoin menggunakan penyesuaian kesulitan untuk mengubah harga uang sebagai respons terhadap perubahan pasokan komputasi.

Algoritme penyesuaian ulang kesulitan Bitcoin memanfaatkan kemampuan ini. Blockchain konsensus digunakan oleh peserta untuk menghitung penawaran historis yang dibuat oleh industri pertambangan dan menyesuaikan kembali kesulitan agar bisa mendekati waktu blok target.

Pesanan Terunggul Menciptakan Konsensus

Rantai penyederhanaan yang disebabkan oleh tuntutan kebijakan moneter yang kuat meluas ke fase “penciptaan uang” dari b-money.

Tawaran yang diajukan pengguna di b-money mengalami masalah “tidak ada yang dipertaruhkan”. Tidak ada mekanisme untuk mencegah pengguna mengajukan tawaran dengan sejumlah besar b-money untuk pekerjaan yang sangat sedikit. Hal ini mengharuskan jaringan untuk melacak tawaran mana yang telah diselesaikan dan hanya menerima “tawaran tertinggi…dalam hal biaya nominal per unit b-money yang dibuat” untuk menghindari tawaran yang mengganggu tersebut. Setiap peserta b-money harus melacak seluruh tawaran senilai buku pesanan, mencocokkan tawaran dengan perhitungan selanjutnya, dan hanya menyelesaikan pesanan yang telah selesai dengan harga tertinggi.

Masalah ini merupakan contoh dari masalah konsensus yang lebih umum dalam sistem desentralisasi, yang juga dikenal sebagai “Byzantine generals” atau terkadang masalah “pembelanjaan ganda” dalam konteks mata uang digital. Berbagi urutan data yang identik di antara semua peserta merupakan suatu tantangan dalam jaringan yang saling bermusuhan dan terdesentralisasi. Solusi yang ada untuk masalah ini – yang disebut “algoritma konsensus Byzantine-fault tolerant (BFT)” – memerlukan koordinasi sebelumnya di antara peserta atau mayoritas (>67%) peserta agar tidak berperilaku bermusuhan.

Bitcoin tidak harus mengelola buku pesanan dalam jumlah besar karena jaringan bitcoin menawarkan harga permintaan konsensus tunggal. Ini berarti node bitcoin dapat menerima blok pertama (valid) yang mereka lihat yang memenuhi harga yang diminta jaringan saat ini—tawaran gangguan dapat dengan mudah diabaikan dan merupakan pemborosan sumber daya penambang.

Komputasi harga berdasarkan konsensus memungkinkan pencocokan pesanan beli/jual dalam bitcoin dilakukan secara antusias, dengan sistem siapa cepat dia dapat. Berbeda dengan b-money, pencocokan pesanan yang cepat ini berarti bahwa pasar bitcoin tidak memiliki fase—pasar ini beroperasi terus-menerus, dengan harga konsensus baru dihitung setelah setiap pesanan dicocokkan (blok ditemukan). Untuk menghindari percabangan yang disebabkan oleh latensi jaringan atau perilaku bertentangan, node juga harus mengikuti aturan rantai terberat. Aturan penyelesaian pesanan yang serakah ini memastikan bahwa hanya tawaran tertinggi yang diterima oleh jaringan.

Kombinasi algoritma yang antusias dan serakah ini, dimana node menerima blok valid pertama yang mereka lihat dan juga mengikuti rantai terberat, adalah algoritma BFT baru yang dengan cepat menyatu pada konsensus tentang urutan blok. Satoshi menghabiskan 25% dari white paper bitcoin untuk mendemonstrasikan klaim ini.[11]

Kita telah menetapkan di bagian sebelumnya bahwa harga permintaan konsensus bitcoin itu sendiri bergantung pada konsensus blockchain. Namun ternyata keberadaan harga permintaan konsensus tunggal inilah yang memungkinkan perhitungan pasar untuk mencocokkan pesanan dengan penuh semangat, dan itulah yang pertama-tama mengarah pada konsensus!

Terlebih lagi, “konsensus Nakamoto” yang baru ini hanya mengharuskan 50% peserta untuk tidak bertentangan, sebuah kemajuan yang signifikan dibandingkan dengan kondisi sebelumnya. Seorang cypherpunk seperti Satoshi membuat terobosan ilmu komputer teoretis ini, dibandingkan dengan akademisi tradisional atau peneliti industri, karena fokus mereka yang sempit pada penerapan uang yang sehat, dibandingkan algoritma konsensus umum untuk komputasi terdistribusi.

Kesimpulan

B-money adalah kerangka kerja yang kuat untuk membangun mata uang digital tetapi tidak lengkap karena tidak memiliki kebijakan moneter. Membatasi b-money dengan jadwal rilis yang telah ditentukan untuk bitcoin mengurangi cakupan dan menyederhanakan implementasi dengan menghilangkan persyaratan untuk melacak dan memilih di antara tawaran pembuatan uang yang diajukan pengguna. Mempertahankan kecepatan sementara dari jadwal rilis Satoshi menghasilkan algoritma penyesuaian kesulitan dan memungkinkan konsensus Nakamoto, yang secara luas diakui sebagai salah satu aspek paling inovatif dalam implementasi bitcoin.

Ada lebih banyak hal dalam desain bitcoin daripada aspek yang dibahas sejauh ini. Kita memfokuskan artikel ini pada pasar “utama” dalam bitcoin, pasar yang mendistribusikan pasokan awal bitcoin ke dalam sirkulasi.

Artikel berikutnya dalam seri ini akan mengeksplorasi pasar penyelesaian transaksi bitcoin dan kaitannya dengan pasar pendistribusian pasokan bitcoin. Hubungan ini akan menyarankan metodologi bagaimana membangun pasar masa depan untuk layanan terdesentralisasi selain bitcoin.

Catatan kaki

[1] Judul seri ini diambil dari pesan telegraf pertama dalam sejarah, yang dikirimkan oleh Samuel Morse pada tahun 1844: “What hath God wrought?”.

[2] Bitcoin: Sistem Uang Elektronik Peer-to-Peer, tersedia di: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

[3] Pricing via Processing or Combatting Junk Mail oleh Dwork dan Naor. tersedia di:
https://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/../../pvp.pdf

[4] Meskipun merupakan pencetus ide tersebut, Dwork & Naor tidak menciptakan “proof-of-work”—julukan tersebut kemudian diberikan pada tahun 1999 oleh Markus Jakobsson dan Ari Juels.

[5] Proyek RPoW Hal Finney adalah upaya untuk menciptakan proof-of-work yang dapat ditransfer, tetapi bitcoin tidak menggunakan konsep ini karena tidak memperlakukan komputasi sebagai mata uang. Seperti yang akan kita lihat nanti ketika kita memeriksa bit gold dan b-money, komputasi tidak dapat berupa mata uang karena nilai komputasi berubah seiring waktu sementara unit mata uang harus memiliki nilai yang sama. Bitcoin bukanlah komputasi, bitcoin adalah mata uang yang dijual untuk komputasi.

[6] Pada saat ini, beberapa pembaca mungkin percaya bahwa saya meremehkan kontribusi Dai atau Szabo karena kontribusi mereka tidak jelas atau tidak jelas dalam beberapa hal. Perasaan saya justru sebaliknya: Dai dan Szabo pada dasarnya benar dan fakta bahwa mereka tidak mengartikulasikan setiap detail seperti yang dilakukan Satoshi tidak mengurangi kontribusi mereka. Sebaliknya, hal ini seharusnya meningkatkan apresiasi kita terhadap hal tersebut, karena hal ini menunjukkan betapa menantangnya munculnya mata uang digital, bahkan bagi para praktisi terbaiknya.

[7] Postingan b-money Dai adalah referensi pertama dalam white paper Satoshi, tersedia di: http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt

[8] Ada dua penyederhanaan yang dilakukan di sini:

1. Jumlah bitcoin yang dijual di setiap blok juga dipengaruhi oleh biaya transaksi pasar, yang berada di luar cakupan artikel ini, namun tetap menunggu pekerjaan selanjutnya.
2. Kesulitan yang dilaporkan oleh bitcoin bukanlah jumlah perhitungan yang diharapkan; seseorang harus mengalikannya dengan faktor proporsionalitas.

[9] Setidaknya sejak masa lalu yang buruk ketika Satoshi adalah satu-satunya penambang di jaringan.

[10] Bitcoin is Time klasik dari Gigi adalah pengenalan yang bagus tentang hubungan mendalam antara bitcoin dan waktu, tersedia di: https://dergigi.com/2021/01/14/bitcoin-is-time/

[11] Satoshi melakukan kesalahan baik dalam analisis mereka di buku putih maupun implementasi awal bitcoin berikutnya dengan menggunakan aturan “rantai terpanjang” dan bukan aturan “rantai terberat”.

Sumber artikel: HOW DID SATOSHI THINK OF BITCOIN? https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/how-did-satoshi-think-of-bitcoin
Diterjemahkan oleh: Abengkris

@ 5a69e82d:aa41c382

Dhruv Bansal, CSO dan Co-Founder Unchained mengeksplorasi prinsip-prinsip dan sejarah yang mengarah pada penciptaan Bitcoin dan mengajukan pertanyaan: "Apa yang telah dilakukan Satoshi"?

Bitcoin sering dibandingkan dengan internet pada tahun 1990an, namun saya yakin analogi yang lebih baik adalah dengan telegraf pada tahun 1840an.[1]

Telegraf adalah teknologi pertama yang mengirimkan data yang dikodekan dengan kecepatan mendekati cahaya dalam jarak jauh. Ini menandai lahirnya industri telekomunikasi. Internet, meskipun skalanya lebih besar, kontennya lebih kaya, dan many-to-many, bukan one-to-one, pada dasarnya masih merupakan teknologi telekomunikasi.

Baik telegraf maupun internet bergantung pada model bisnis di mana perusahaan mengerahkan modal untuk membangun jaringan fisik dan kemudian membebankan biaya kepada pengguna untuk mengirim pesan melalui jaringan ini. Jaringan AT&T secara historis mengirimkan telegram, panggilan telepon, paket TCP/IP, pesan teks, dan sekarang TikTok.

Transformasi masyarakat melalui telekomunikasi telah menghasilkan kebebasan yang lebih besar namun juga sentralisasi yang lebih besar. Internet telah meningkatkan jangkauan jutaan pembuat konten dan usaha kecil, namun juga memperkuat jangkauan perusahaan, otoritas pusat, dan lembaga lain yang memiliki posisi yang cukup baik untuk memantau dan memanipulasi aktivitas online.

Namun Bitcoin bukanlah akhir dari transformasi apa pun—ini adalah awal dari sebuah transformasi. Seperti halnya telekomunikasi, Bitcoin akan mengubah kebiasaan umat manusia dan kehidupan sehari-harinya. Memprediksi seluruh cakupan perubahan saat ini sama dengan membayangkan internet saat hidup di era telegraf.

Seri ini mencoba membayangkan masa depan dengan memulai dari masa lalu. Artikel awal ini menelusuri sejarah mata uang digital sebelum Bitcoin. Hanya dengan memahami kegagalan proyek-proyek sebelumnya, kita dapat memahami apa yang membuat Bitcoin berhasil—dan bagaimana hal itu menyarankan metodologi untuk membangun sistem desentralisasi di masa depan.

Daftar isi

1. Sistem yang Terdesentralisasi Adalah Pasar
   1. Sistem Terdistribusikan Bergantung pada Otoritas Pusat
   2. Sistem Desentralisasi Tidak Memiliki Otoritas Pusat
   3. Sistem Desentralisasi diatur Melalui Insentif
2. Pasar yang Terdesentralisasi Membutuhkan Barang yang Terdesentralisasi
   1. Komputasi Adalah Barang Terdesentralisasi yang Pertama
   2. Mata Uang Adalah Barang Terdesentralisasi yang kedua
   3. Pasar Terdesentralisasi Pertama harus Memperdagangkan Komputasi untuk Mata Uang
3. Bagaimana Sistem Desentralisasi dapat Menentukan Harga Komputasi?
   1. Gunakan Pasar Eksternal
   2. Gunakan Pasar Internal
4. Tujuan Kebijakan Moneter Satoshi Menghasilkan Bitcoin
   1. Semua Pasokan 21 Juta Bitcoin sudah Ada
   2. Bitcoin dihargai Melalui Konsensus
   3. Waktu Menutup semua Penyebaran
   4. Pesanan Terunggul Menciptakan Konsensus
5. Kesimpulan

Klaim utama dari artikel ini adalah bahwa Bitcoin dapat dianggap sebagai adaptasi dari proyek B-money Dai yang menghilangkan kebebasan untuk menciptakan uang. Hanya beberapa minggu setelah artikel ini pertama kali diterbitkan, email baru muncul di mana Satoshi mengaku tidak terbiasa dengan B-money, namun mengakui bahwa Bitcoin dimulai “tepat dari titik itu.” Mengingat bukti baru ini, kami yakin klaim utama ini, meskipun tidak akurat secara historis, masih merupakan cara yang bermakna dan bermanfaat untuk memikirkan asal usul Bitcoin.

Bagaimana Satoshi Nakamoto Memikirkan Bitcoin?

Satoshi memang cerdas, tetapi Bitcoin tidak muncul begitu saja.

Bitcoin mengulangi pekerjaan yang ada di bidang kriptografi, sistem terdistribusi, ekonomi, dan filsafat politik. Konsep proof-of-work sudah ada jauh sebelum digunakan dalam uang dan cypherpunk sebelumnya seperti Nick Szabo, Wei Dai, & Hal Finney mengantisipasi dan memengaruhi desain Bitcoin dengan proyek-proyek seperti bit gold, B-money, dan RPoW. Pertimbangkan bahwa, pada tahun 2008, ketika Satoshi menulis white paper Bitcoin[2], banyak ide penting Bitcoin telah diusulkan dan/atau diimplementasikan:

• Mata uang digital harus berupa jaringan P2P
• Proof-of-work adalah dasar penciptaan uang
• Uang diciptakan melalui lelang
• Kunci publik kriptografi digunakan untuk menentukan kepemilikan dan transfer koin
• Transaksi dikelompokkan menjadi beberapa blok
• Blok dirangkai bersama melalui proof-of-work
• Semua blok disimpan oleh semua peserta

Bitcoin memanfaatkan semua konsep ini, tetapi Satoshi tidak menciptakan satu pun konsep tersebut. Untuk lebih memahami kontribusi Satoshi, kita harus menentukan prinsip Bitcoin mana yang tidak ada dalam daftar.

Beberapa kandidat yang jelas adalah persediaan Bitcoin yang terbatas, konsensus Nakamoto, dan algoritma penyesuaian kesulitan. Tapi apa yang mendorong Satoshi pada ide ini?

Artikel ini mengeksplorasi sejarah mata uang digital dan menyatakan bahwa fokus Satoshi pada kebijakan moneter yang sehat adalah hal yang menyebabkan Bitcoin mengatasi tantangan yang mengalahkan proyek-proyek sebelumnya seperti bit gold dan B-money.

Sistem yang Terdesentralisasi Adalah Pasar

Bitcoin sering digambarkan sebagai sistem terdesentralisasi atau terdistribusi. Sayangnya, kata “desentralisasi” dan “terdistribusi” sering kali membingungkan. Ketika diterapkan pada sistem digital, kedua istilah tersebut mengacu pada cara aplikasi monolitik dapat didekomposisi menjadi jaringan bagian-bagian yang berkomunikasi.

Untuk tujuan kita, perbedaan utama antara sistem terdesentralisasi dan terdistribusi bukanlah topologi diagram jaringannya, namun cara mereka menegakkan aturan. Kami meluangkan waktu di bagian berikut untuk membandingkan sistem terdistribusi dan desentralisasi dan memotivasi gagasan bahwa sistem desentralisasi yang kuat adalah pasar.

Sistem Terdistribusikan Bergantung pada Otoritas Pusat

Dalam hal ini, kami mengartikan “terdistribusi” sebagai sistem apa pun yang telah dipecah menjadi beberapa bagian (sering disebut sebagai "node") yang harus berkomunikasi, biasanya melalui jaringan.

Insinyur perangkat lunak semakin mahir dalam membangun sistem yang terdistribusi secara global. Internet terdiri dari sistem terdistribusi yang secara kolektif berisi miliaran node. Kita masing-masing memiliki simpul di saku kita yang berpartisipasi dan bergantung pada sistem ini.

Namun hampir semua sistem terdistribusi yang kita gunakan saat ini diatur oleh beberapa otoritas pusat, biasanya administrator sistem, perusahaan, atau pemerintah yang saling dipercaya oleh semua node dalam sistem.

Otoritas pusat memastikan semua node mematuhi aturan sistem dan menghapus, memperbaiki, atau menghukum node yang gagal mematuhinya. Mereka dipercaya untuk melakukan koordinasi, menyelesaikan konflik, dan mengalokasikan sumber daya bersama. Seiring waktu, otoritas pusat mengelola perubahan pada sistem, memperbarui atau menambahkan fitur, dan memastikan bahwa node yang berpartisipasi mematuhi perubahan tersebut.

Manfaat yang diperoleh sistem terdistribusi karena mengandalkan otoritas pusat juga disertai dengan biaya. Meskipun sistem ini kuat terhadap kegagalan node-nodenya, kegagalan otoritas pusat dapat menyebabkan sistem berhenti berfungsi secara keseluruhan. Kemampuan otoritas pusat untuk mengambil keputusan secara sepihak berarti menumbangkan atau menghilangkan otoritas pusat sudah cukup untuk mengendalikan atau menghancurkan keseluruhan sistem.

Terlepas dari adanya trade-off ini, jika ada persyaratan bahwa satu partai atau koalisi harus mempertahankan otoritas pusat, atau jika peserta dalam sistem tersebut puas dengan mengandalkan otoritas pusat, maka sistem terdistribusi tradisional adalah solusi terbaik. Tidak diperlukan blockchain, token, atau sistem desentralisasi serupa.

Secara khusus, kasus VC atau mata uang kripto yang didukung oleh pemerintah, dengan persyaratan bahwa satu pihak dapat memantau atau membatasi pembayaran dan membekukan akun, adalah kasus penggunaan yang sempurna untuk sistem terdistribusi tradisional.

Sistem Desentralisasi Tidak Memiliki Otoritas Pusat

Kami menganggap “desentralisasi” memiliki arti yang lebih kuat daripada “terdistribusi”: sistem desentralisasi adalah bagian dari sistem terdistribusi yang tidak memiliki otoritas pusat. Sinonim yang mirip dengan “desentralisasi” adalah “peer-to-peer” (P2P).

Menghapus otoritas pusat memberikan beberapa keuntungan. Sistem terdesentralisasi:

• Tumbuh dengan cepat karena tidak ada hambatan untuk masuk—siapa pun dapat mengembangkan sistem hanya dengan menjalankan node baru, dan tidak ada persyaratan untuk registrasi atau persetujuan dari otoritas pusat.
• Kuat karena tidak ada otoritas pusat yang kegagalannya dapat membahayakan berfungsinya sistem. Semua node adalah sama, jadi kegagalan bersifat lokal dan jaringan merutekan sekitar kerusakan.
• Sulit untuk ditangkap, diatur, dikenakan pajak, atau diawasi karena tidak adanya titik kendali terpusat yang dapat ditumbangkan oleh pemerintah.

Kekuatan inilah yang menjadi alasan Satoshi memilih desain Bitcoin yang terdesentralisasi dan peer-to-peer:

“Pemerintah pandai memotong… jaringan yang dikendalikan secara terpusat seperti Napster, namun jaringan P2P murni seperti Gnutella dan Tor tampaknya masih mampu bertahan.” - Satoshi Nakamoto, 2008

Namun kekuatan ini juga disertai dengan kelemahan. Sistem yang terdesentralisasi bisa menjadi kurang efisien karena setiap titik harus memikul tanggung jawab tambahan untuk koordinasi yang sebelumnya diambil alih oleh otoritas pusat.

Sistem yang terdesentralisasi juga sering dilanda perilaku yang bersifat penipuan dan bertentangan. Terlepas dari persetujuan Satoshi terhadap Gnutella, siapa pun yang menggunakan program berbagi file P2P untuk mengunduh file yang ternyata kotor atau berbahaya memahami alasan mengapa berbagi file P2P tidak pernah menjadi model utama untuk transfer data online.

Satoshi tidak menyebutkannya secara eksplisit, namun email adalah sistem terdesentralisasi lainnya yang menghindari kendali pemerintah. Dan email juga terkenal sebagai spam.

Sistem Desentralisasi diatur Melalui Insentif

Akar masalahnya, dalam semua kasus ini adalah, bahwa perilaku kejahatan (menyebarkan file buruk, mengirim email spam) tidak dihukum, dan perilaku kooperatif (menyebarkan file bagus, hanya mengirim email berguna) tidak dihargai. Sistem desentralisasi yang mengandalkan partisipannya untuk menjadi aktor yang baik gagal untuk berkembang karena sistem tersebut tidak dapat mencegah aktor jahat untuk ikut berpartisipasi.

Tanpa memaksakan otoritas pusat, satu-satunya cara untuk menyelesaikan masalah ini adalah dengan menggunakan insentif ekonomi. Aktor yang baik, menurut definisinya, bermain sesuai aturan karena mereka secara inheren termotivasi untuk melakukannya. Pelaku kejahatan, menurut definisinya, adalah orang yang egois dan licik, namun insentif ekonomi yang tepat dapat mengarahkan perilaku buruk mereka ke arah kebaikan bersama. Sistem yang terdesentralisasi melakukan hal ini dengan memastikan bahwa perilaku kooperatif menguntungkan dan perilaku kejahatan merugikan.

Cara terbaik untuk menerapkan layanan terdesentralisasi yang kuat adalah dengan menciptakan pasar di mana semua pelaku, baik dan buruk, dibayar untuk menyediakan layanan tersebut. Kurangnya hambatan masuk bagi pembeli dan penjual di pasar yang terdesentralisasi mendorong skala dan efisiensi. Jika protokol pasar dapat melindungi partisipan dari penipuan, pencurian, dan penyalahgunaan, maka pelaku kejahatan akan merasa lebih menguntungkan untuk mengikuti aturan atau menyerang sistem lain.

Pasar yang Terdesentralisasi Membutuhkan Barang yang Terdesentralisasi

Namun pasar itu rumit. Mereka harus memberi pembeli dan penjual kemampuan untuk mengirimkan penawaran dan permintaan serta menemukan, mencocokkan, dan menyelesaikan pesanan. Kebijakan tersebut harus adil, memberikan konsistensi yang kuat, dan menjaga ketersediaan meskipun terjadi masa-masa yang tidak menentu.

Pasar global saat ini sangat mumpuni dan canggih, namun menggunakan barang-barang tradisional dan jaringan pembayaran untuk menerapkan insentif di pasar yang terdesentralisasi bukanlah hal yang baru. Setiap penggabungan antara sistem desentralisasi dan uang fiat, aset tradisional, atau komoditas fisik akan menimbulkan kembali ketergantungan pada otoritas pusat yang mengontrol pemroses pembayaran, bank, dan bursa.

Sistem terdesentralisasi tidak dapat mentransfer uang tunai, mencari saldo rekening perantara, atau menentukan kepemilikan properti. Barang-barang tradisional sama sekali tidak terbaca dalam sistem desentralisasi. Hal sebaliknya tidak benar—sistem tradisional dapat berinteraksi dengan Bitcoin semudah aktor lainnya (begitu mereka memutuskan ingin melakukannya). Batasan antara sistem tradisional dan desentralisasi bukanlah sebuah tembok yang tidak dapat dilewati, melainkan sebuah membran semi-permeabel.

Ini berarti bahwa sistem yang terdesentralisasi tidak dapat melaksanakan pembayaran dalam mata uang barang tradisional apa pun. Mereka bahkan tidak dapat menentukan saldo rekening yang didominasi fiat atau kepemilikan real estat atau barang fisik. Seluruh perekonomian tradisional sama sekali tidak terbaca dalam sistem desentralisasi.

Menciptakan pasar yang terdesentralisasi membutuhkan perdagangan barang-barang baru yang terdesentralisasi yang dapat dibaca dan ditransfer dalam sistem yang terdesentralisasi.

Komputasi Adalah Barang Terdesentralisasi yang Pertama

Contoh pertama dari “barang terdesentralisasi” adalah kelas komputasi khusus yang pertama kali diusulkan pada tahun 1993 oleh Cynthia Dwork dan Moni Naor.[3]

Karena adanya hubungan mendalam antara matematika, fisika, dan ilmu komputer, komputasi ini memerlukan energi dan sumber daya perangkat keras di dunia nyata—hal ini tidak dapat dipalsukan. Karena sumber daya di dunia nyata langka, komputasi ini juga langka.

input untuk komputasi ini dapat berupa data apa pun. Keluaran yang dihasilkan adalah “bukti” digital bahwa pengkomputasian telah dilakukan pada data input yang diberikan. Pembuktian mengandung “kesulitan” tertentu yang merupakan bukti (statistik) dari sejumlah pekerjaan komputasi tertentu. Yang terpenting, hubungan antara data input, pembuktian, dan pekerjaan komputasi asli yang dilakukan dapat diverifikasi secara independen tanpa perlu mengajukan banding ke otoritas pusat mana pun.

Gagasan untuk menyebarkan beberapa data input bersama dengan bukti digital sebagai bukti kerja komputasi dunia nyata yang dilakukan pada input tersebut sekarang disebut “proof-of-work”.[4] Proof-of-work adalah, jika menggunakan ungkapan Nick Szabo, “biaya yang tidak dapat ditiru”. Karena proof-of-work dapat diverifikasi oleh siapa pun, maka proof-of-work merupakan sumber daya ekonomi yang dapat dibaca oleh semua peserta dalam sistem desentralisasi. Proof-of-work mengubah penghitungan data menjadi barang yang terdesentralisasi. Dwork & Naor mengusulkan penggunaan komputasi untuk membatasi penyalahgunaan sumber daya bersama dengan memaksa peserta untuk memberikan proof-of-work dengan tingkat kesulitan minimum tertentu sebelum mereka dapat mengakses sumber daya:

“Dalam makalah ini kami menyarankan pendekatan komputasi untuk memerangi penyebaran surat elektronik. Secara umum, kami telah merancang mekanisme kontrol akses yang dapat digunakan kapan pun diinginkan untuk membatasi, namun tidak melarang, akses ke sumber daya.” - Dwoak & Naor, 1993

Dalam proposal Dwork & Naor, administrator sistem email akan menetapkan tingkat kesulitan bukti kerja minimum untuk mengirimkan email. Pengguna yang ingin mengirim email perlu melakukan sejumlah komputasi yang sesuai dengan email tersebut sebagai data input. Bukti yang dihasilkan akan dikirimkan ke server bersamaan dengan permintaan pengiriman email.

Dwork & Naor menyebut kesulitan proof-of-work sebagai “fungsi penetapan harga” karena, dengan menyesuaikan kesulitan tersebut, “otoritas penetapan harga” dapat memastikan bahwa sumber daya bersama tetap murah untuk digunakan bagi pengguna yang jujur dan rata-rata, namun mahal bagi pengguna yang mencari untuk mengeksploitasinya. Di pasar pengiriman email, administrator server adalah otoritas penetapan harga; mereka harus memilih “harga” untuk pengiriman email yang cukup rendah untuk penggunaan normal namun terlalu tinggi untuk spam.

Meskipun Dwork & Naor membingkai proof-of-work sebagai disinsentif ekonomi untuk memerangi penyalahgunaan sumber daya, nomenklatur “fungsi penetapan harga” dan “otoritas penetapan harga” mendukung interpretasi yang berbeda dan berbasis pasar: pengguna membeli akses ke sumber daya dengan imbalan komputasi pada tingkat yang sama. harga yang ditetapkan oleh pengontrol sumber daya.

Dalam interpretasi ini, jaringan pengiriman email sebenarnya adalah pengiriman email perdagangan pasar yang terdesentralisasi untuk komputasi. Kesulitan minimum dari proof-of-work adalah harga yang diminta untuk pengiriman email dalam mata uang komputasi.

Mata Uang Adalah Barang Terdesentralisasi yang kedua

Namun komputasi bukanlah mata uang yang baik.

Bukti yang digunakan untuk “memperdagangkan” komputasi hanya valid untuk input yang digunakan dalam komputasi tersebut. Hubungan yang tidak dapat dipecahkan antara bukti spesifik dan input tertentu berarti bahwa proof-of-work untuk satu input tidak dapat digunakan kembali untuk input yang berbeda.

Proof-of-work awalnya diusulkan sebagai mekanisme kontrol akses untuk membatasi email spam. Pengguna diharapkan memberikan bukti kerja bersama email apa pun yang ingin mereka kirim. Mekanisme ini juga dapat dianggap sebagai pasar di mana pengguna membeli pengiriman email dengan komputasi pada harga yang dipilih oleh penyedia layanan email.

Batasan ini berguna – dapat digunakan untuk mencegah pekerjaan yang dilakukan oleh satu pembeli di pasar kemudian dibelanjakan kembali oleh pembeli lain. Misalnya, HashCash, implementasi nyata pertama dari pasar pengiriman email, menyertakan metadata seperti stempel waktu saat ini dan alamat email pengirim dalam data masukan untuk penghitungan bukti kerja. Bukti yang dihasilkan oleh pengguna tertentu untuk email tertentu, tidak dapat digunakan untuk email yang berbeda.

Namun ini juga berarti bahwa komputasi bukti kerja adalah barang yang dipesan lebih dahulu. Dana tersebut tidak dapat dipertukarkan, tidak dapat dibelanjakan kembali,[5] dan tidak memecahkan masalah kebutuhan yang terjadi secara kebetulan. Properti moneter yang hilang ini mencegah komputasi menjadi mata uang. Terlepas dari namanya, tidak ada insentif bagi penyedia pengiriman email untuk ingin mengakumulasikan HashCash, karena akan ada uang tunai sebenarnya.

Adam Back, penemu HashCash, memahami masalah berikut:

"Hashcash tidak dapat ditransfer secara langsung karena untuk membuatnya didistribusikan, setiap penyedia layanan hanya menerima pembayaran dalam bentuk tunai yang dibuat untuk mereka. Anda mungkin dapat menyiapkan pencetakan gaya digicash (dengan chaumian ecash) dan meminta bank hanya mencetak uang tunai pada penerimaan tabrakan hash yang ditangani. Namun ini berarti Anda harus mempercayai bank untuk tidak mencetak uang dalam jumlah tak terbatas untuk digunakan sendiri." - Adam Back, 1997

Kita tidak ingin menukar komputasi yang dibuat khusus untuk setiap barang atau jasa yang dijual dalam perekonomian yang terdesentralisasi. Kita menginginkan mata uang digital serba guna yang dapat langsung digunakan untuk mengoordinasikan pertukaran nilai di pasar mana pun.

Membangun mata uang digital yang berfungsi namun tetap terdesentralisasi merupakan tantangan yang signifikan. Mata uang membutuhkan unit yang dapat dipertukarkan dengan nilai yang sama yang dapat ditransfer antar pengguna. Hal ini memerlukan model penerbitan, definisi kriptografi kepemilikan dan transfer, proses penemuan dan penyelesaian transaksi, dan buku besar historis. Infrastruktur ini tidak diperlukan ketika bukti kerja hanya dianggap sebagai “mekanisme kontrol akses”.

Terlebih lagi, sistem desentralisasi adalah pasar, jadi semua fungsi dasar mata uang ini harus disediakan melalui penyedia layanan berbayar… dalam satuan mata uang yang sedang dibuat!

Seperti mengkompilasi compiler pertama, permulaan jaringan listrik yang gelap, atau evolusi kehidupan itu sendiri, pencipta mata uang digital dihadapkan pada masalah bootstrapping: bagaimana mendefinisikan insentif ekonomi yang mendasari mata uang yang berfungsi tanpa memiliki mata uang yang berfungsi di dalamnya yang akan mendenominasikan atau membayar insentif tersebut.

Komputasi dan mata uang adalah barang pertama dan kedua di pasar yang terdesentralisasi. Proof-of-work sendiri memungkinkan pertukaran komputasi tetapi mata uang yang berfungsi memerlukan lebih banyak infrastruktur. Butuh waktu 15 tahun bagi komunitas cypherpunk untuk mengembangkan infrastruktur tersebut.

Pasar Terdesentralisasi Pertama harus Memperdagangkan Komputasi untuk Mata Uang

Kemajuan dalam masalah bootstrapping ini berasal dari penyusunan batasan yang tepat.

Sistem yang terdesentralisasi harus menjadi pasar. Pasar terdiri dari pembeli dan penjual yang saling bertukar barang. Pasar terdesentralisasi untuk mata uang digital hanya memiliki dua barang yang dapat dibaca di dalamnya:

1. Komputasi melalui proof-of-work
2. Unit mata uang yang kita coba bangun

Oleh karena itu, satu-satunya perdagangan pasar yang memungkinkan adalah antara kedua barang tersebut. Komputasi harus dijual untuk satuan mata uang atau setara dengan satuan mata uang harus dijual untuk komputasi. Menyatakan hal ini sangatlah mudah—bagian tersulitnya adalah menata pasar ini sehingga sekadar menukar mata uang untuk komputasi akan mem-bootstrap semua kemampuan mata uang itu sendiri!

Seluruh sejarah mata uang digital yang berpuncak pada white paper Satoshi tahun 2008 adalah serangkaian upaya yang semakin canggih dalam menata pasar ini. Bagian berikut mengulas proyek-proyek seperti bit gold milik Nick Szabo dan B-money milik Wei Dai. Memahami bagaimana proyek-proyek ini menyusun pasar mereka dan mengapa mereka gagal akan membantu kita memahami mengapa Satoshi dan Bitcoin berhasil.

Bagaimana Sistem Desentralisasi Dapat Menentukan Harga Komputasi?

Fungsi utama pasar adalah penemuan harga. Oleh karena itu, komputasi perdagangan pasar untuk mata uang harus menemukan harga komputasi itu sendiri, dalam satuan mata uang tersebut.

Kita biasanya tidak memberikan nilai moneter pada komputasi. Kita biasanya menghargai kapasitas untuk melakukan komputasi karena kita menghargai output dari komputasi, bukan komputasi itu sendiri. Jika keluaran yang sama dapat dilakukan dengan lebih efisien, dengan komputasi yang lebih sedikit, hal ini biasanya disebut “kemajuan”.

Proof-of-work mewakili komputasi spesifik yang keluarannya hanya berupa bukti bahwa komputasi tersebut telah dilakukan. Menghasilkan bukti yang sama dengan melakukan lebih sedikit komputasi dan lebih sedikit pekerjaan tidak akan menghasilkan kemajuan—hal ini akan menjadi bug. Oleh karena itu, komputasi yang terkait dengan Proof-of-work merupakan hal yang aneh dan baru untuk dicoba dihargai.

Ketika bukti kerja dianggap sebagai disinsentif terhadap penyalahgunaan sumber daya, maka bukti kerja tidak perlu dinilai secara tepat dan konsisten. Yang terpenting adalah penyedia layanan email menetapkan tingkat kesulitan yang cukup rendah sehingga tidak terlihat oleh pengguna yang sah, namun cukup tinggi sehingga menjadi penghalang bagi pelaku spam. Oleh karena itu, terdapat beragam “harga” yang dapat diterima dan setiap peserta bertindak sebagai otoritas penetapan harga mereka sendiri, dengan menerapkan fungsi penetapan harga lokal.

Namun satuan mata uang dimaksudkan agar dapat dipertukarkan, masing-masing memiliki nilai yang sama. Karena perubahan teknologi dari waktu ke waktu, dua unit mata uang yang dibuat dengan tingkat kesulitan proof-of-work yang sama—yang diukur dengan jumlah komputasi yang sesuai—mungkin memiliki biaya produksi yang sangat berbeda di dunia nyata, yang diukur dengan waktu, energi, dan/atau modal untuk melakukan komputasi tersebut. Ketika komputasi dijual dengan menggunakan mata uang, dan biaya produksi yang mendasarinya bervariasi, bagaimana pasar dapat memastikan harga yang konsisten?

Nick Szabo dengan jelas mengidentifikasi masalah harga ini ketika menjelaskan bit gold:

"Masalah utamanya...adalah bahwa skema pembuktian kerja bergantung pada arsitektur komputer, bukan hanya matematika abstrak yang didasarkan pada "siklus komputasi" abstrak. ...Jadi, ada kemungkinan untuk menjadi produsen berbiaya sangat rendah (dengan beberapa kali lipat besarnya) dan membanjiri pasar dengan bit gold." - Szabo, 2005

Mata uang terdesentralisasi yang diciptakan melalui proof-of-work akan mengalami kelebihan pasokan dan penurunan pasokan seiring dengan perubahan pasokan komputasi seiring waktu. Untuk mengakomodasi volatilitas ini, jaringan harus belajar menghitung harga secara dinamis.

Mata uang digital awal mencoba memberi harga pada komputasi dengan mencoba mengukur “biaya komputasi” secara kolektif. Wei Dai, misalnya, mengusulkan solusi praktis berikut dalam B-money:

"Jumlah unit moneter yang diciptakan sama dengan biaya upaya komputasi dalam sekeranjang komoditas standar. Sebagai contoh, jika sebuah masalah memerlukan waktu 100 jam untuk diselesaikan pada komputer yang dapat menyelesaikannya dengan cara yang paling ekonomis, dan diperlukan 3 keranjang standar untuk membeli 100 jam waktu komputasi pada komputer tersebut di pasar terbuka, maka setelah solusi terhadap masalah tersebut disiarkan, setiap orang mengkredit rekening penyiar sebanyak 3 unit." - Dai, 1998

Sayangnya, Dai tidak menjelaskan bagaimana pengguna dalam sistem yang seharusnya terdesentralisasi seharusnya menyetujui definisi “keranjang standar”, komputer mana yang memecahkan masalah tertentu “paling ekonomis”, atau biaya komputasi di “pasar terbuka”. Mencapai konsensus di antara semua pengguna mengenai kumpulan data bersama yang berubah-ubah terhadap waktu adalah masalah penting dalam sistem desentralisasi!

Agar adil bagi Dai, dia menyadari hal ini:

“Salah satu bagian yang lebih bermasalah dalam protokol B-money adalah penciptaan uang. Bagian dari protokol ini mengharuskan semua [pengguna] memutuskan dan menyetujui biaya perhitungan tertentu. Sayangnya karena teknologi komputasi cenderung berkembang pesat dan tidak selalu bersifat publik, informasi ini mungkin tidak tersedia, tidak akurat, atau ketinggalan jaman, yang semuanya akan menyebabkan masalah serius pada protokol." - Dai, 1998

Dai kemudian mengusulkan mekanisme penetapan harga berbasis lelang yang lebih canggih yang kemudian dikatakan Satoshi sebagai titik awal idenya. Kita akan kembali ke skema lelang di bawah ini, tapi pertama-tama mari kita beralih ke bit gold, dan pertimbangkan wawasan Szabo tentang masalahnya.

Gunakan Pasar Eksternal

Szabo mengklaim bahwa proof-of-work harus “diberi stempel waktu dengan aman”:

"Bukti kerja diberi stempel waktu yang aman. Ini harus bekerja secara terdistribusi, dengan beberapa layanan stempel waktu berbeda sehingga tidak ada layanan stempel waktu tertentu yang perlu diandalkan secara substansial." - Szabo, 2005

Szabo tertaut ke halaman sumber daya tentang protokol penandaan waktu yang aman tetapi tidak menjelaskan algoritme spesifik apa pun untuk penandaan waktu yang aman. Ungkapan “aman” dan “fesyen terdistribusi” mempunyai pengaruh yang besar di sini, sehingga dapat mengatasi kerumitan dalam mengandalkan satu (atau banyak) layanan “di luar sistem” untuk penandaan waktu.[6]

Waktu pembuatan unit mata uang digital penting karena menghubungkan komputasi yang dilakukan dengan biaya produksi di dunia nyata.

Terlepas dari ketidakjelasan implementasi, Szabo benar—waktu pembuatan proof-of-work merupakan faktor penting dalam menentukan harga karena terkait dengan biaya komputasi:

"…Namun, karena bit gold diberi stempel waktu, waktu yang dibuat serta tingkat kesulitan matematis dari pekerjaan tersebut dapat dibuktikan secara otomatis. Dari sini, biasanya dapat disimpulkan berapa biaya produksi selama periode waktu tersebut..." - Szabo, 2005

"Menyimpulkan" biaya produksi adalah hal yang penting karena bit gold tidak memiliki mekanisme untuk membatasi penciptaan uang. Siapapun dapat membuat bit gold dengan melakukan perhitungan yang sesuai. Tanpa kemampuan untuk mengatur penerbitan, bit gold sama dengan barang koleksi:

"…Tidak seperti atom emas yang dapat dipertukarkan, tetapi seperti halnya barang-barang kolektor, pasokan dalam jumlah besar selama jangka waktu tertentu akan menurunkan nilai barang-barang tersebut. Dalam hal ini, emas kecil bertindak lebih seperti barang-barang kolektor daripada seperti emas..." - Szabo, 2005

Bit gold memerlukan proses eksternal tambahan untuk menciptakan unit mata uang yang sepadan:

“…[B]it Gold tidak dapat dipertukarkan berdasarkan fungsi sederhana, misalnya, panjang tali. Sebaliknya, untuk membuat unit yang dapat dipertukarkan, dealer harus menggabungkan potongan-potongan bit gold dengan nilai berbeda ke dalam satuan yang lebih besar kira-kira dengan nilai yang sama. Hal ini serupa dengan apa yang dilakukan banyak pedagang komoditas saat ini untuk memungkinkan pasar komoditas bekerja. Kepercayaan masih terdistribusi karena perkiraan nilai dari kumpulan tersebut dapat diverifikasi secara independen oleh banyak pihak lain dengan cara yang sebagian besar atau seluruhnya otomatis." - Szabo, 2005

Mengutip Szabo, “untuk menguji nilai… bit gold, dealer memeriksa dan memverifikasi tingkat kesulitan, masukan, dan stempel waktu”. Dealer yang mendefinisikan “unit yang lebih besar dengan nilai yang kira-kira sama” menyediakan fungsi penetapan harga yang serupa dengan “keranjang komoditas standar” Dai. Unit yang dapat dipertukarkan tidak dibuat dalam bentuk bit gold ketika bukti kerja diproduksi, hanya kemudian ketika bukti tersebut digabungkan menjadi “unit yang kira-kira bernilai sama” oleh dealer di pasar di luar jaringan.

Yang patut disyukuri, Szabo mengakui kelemahan ini:

"…Potensi kelebihan pasokan yang awalnya tersembunyi karena inovasi tersembunyi dalam arsitektur mesin adalah potensi kelemahan dalam bit gold, atau setidaknya ketidaksempurnaan yang harus diatasi oleh lelang awal dan pertukaran ex post bit gold." - Szabo, 2005

Sekali lagi, meskipun belum sampai pada (yang sekarang kita kenal sebagai) solusinya, Szabo menunjukkan solusinya: karena biaya komputasi berubah seiring waktu, jaringan harus merespons perubahan pasokan komputasi dengan menyesuaikan harga uang.

Gunakan Pasar Internal

Dealer Szabo akan menjadi pasar eksternal yang menentukan harga (bundel dari) bit gold setelah penciptaannya. Apakah mungkin menerapkan pasar ini di dalam sistem dan bukan di luar sistem?

Mari kita kembali ke Wei Dai dan B-money. Seperti disebutkan sebelumnya, Dai mengusulkan model alternatif berbasis lelang untuk pembuatan B-money. Desain Satoshi untuk Bitcoin meningkat secara langsung pada model lelang B-money[7]:

“Jadi saya mengusulkan subprotokol penciptaan uang alternatif, di mana [pengguna]… memutuskan dan menyetujui jumlah B-money yang akan dibuat setiap periode, dengan biaya pembuatan uang tersebut ditentukan melalui lelang. Setiap periode pembuatan uang adalah dibagi menjadi empat tahap, sebagai berikut:

Planning. Para [pengguna] menghitung dan bernegosiasi satu sama lain untuk menentukan peningkatan jumlah uang beredar yang optimal untuk periode berikutnya. Apakah [jaringan] dapat mencapai konsensus atau tidak, mereka masing-masing menyiarkan kuota penciptaan uang mereka dan komputasi makroekonomi apa pun yang dilakukan untuk mendukung angka tersebut.

Bidding. Siapapun yang ingin membuat B-money menyiarkan tawaran dalam bentuk dimana x adalah banyaknya B-money yang ingin dibuatnya, dan y adalah soal yang belum terselesaikan dari kelas soal yang telah ditentukan. Setiap masalah di kelas ini harus memiliki biaya nominal (katakanlah dalam MIPS-years) yang disetujui secara publik.

Computation. Setelah melihat penawaran, pihak yang mengajukan penawaran pada tahap penawaran sekarang dapat menyelesaikan masalah dalam penawarannya dan menyiarkan solusinya. Penciptaan uang.

Money creation. Setiap [pengguna] menerima tawaran tertinggi (di antara mereka yang benar-benar menyiarkan solusi) dalam hal biaya nominal per unit B-money yang dibuat dan memberikan kredit kepada akun penawar sesuai dengan itu."
- Dai, 1998

B-money membuat kemajuan signifikan menuju struktur pasar yang tepat untuk mata uang digital. Ini berupaya untuk menghilangkan dealer eksternal Szabo dan memungkinkan pengguna untuk terlibat dalam penemuan harga dengan menawar satu sama lain secara langsung.

Namun menerapkan proposal Dai seperti yang tertulis akan menjadi sebuah tantangan:

• Dalam fase "Planning”, pengguna menanggung beban menegosiasikan “peningkatan optimal jumlah uang beredar untuk periode berikutnya”. Bagaimana “optimal” harus didefinisikan, bagaimana pengguna harus bernegosiasi satu sama lain, dan bagaimana hasil negosiasi tersebut dibagikan tidak dijelaskan.
• Terlepas dari apa yang direncanakan, fase “Bidding” memungkinkan siapa saja untuk mengajukan “tawaran” untuk membuat B-money. Tawaran mencakup jumlah B-money yang akan dibuat serta jumlah bukti kerja yang sesuai sehingga setiap penawaran adalah harga, jumlah perhitungan yang bersedia dilakukan oleh penawar tertentu untuk membeli sejumlah tertentu. dari B-money.
• Setelah penawaran diserahkan, fase “Computation” terdiri dari peserta lelang yang melakukan proof-of-work yang mereka tawarkan dan menyiarkan solusi. Tidak ada mekanisme untuk mencocokkan penawar dengan solusi yang disediakan. Yang lebih problematis adalah tidak jelasnya bagaimana pengguna dapat mengetahui bahwa semua penawaran telah diajukan – kapan fase “Bidding” berakhir dan fase “Computation” dimulai?
• Masalah-masalah ini berulang dalam fase “Money creation”. Karena sifat proof-of-work, pengguna dapat memverifikasi bahwa bukti yang mereka terima dalam solusi adalah asli. Namun bagaimana pengguna dapat secara kolektif menyepakati serangkaian “tawaran tertinggi”? Bagaimana jika pengguna yang berbeda memilih set yang berbeda, baik karena preferensi atau latensi jaringan?

Sistem yang terdesentralisasi kesulitan dalam melacak data dan membuat pilihan secara konsisten, namun B-money memerlukan pelacakan tawaran dari banyak pengguna dan membuat pilihan konsensus di antara mereka. Kompleksitas ini menghalangi penerapan B-money.

Akar dari kompleksitas ini adalah keyakinan Dai bahwa tingkat “optimal” penciptaan B-money harus berfluktuasi seiring waktu berdasarkan “perhitungan makroekonomi” penggunanya. Seperti bit gold, B-money tidak memiliki mekanisme untuk membatasi penciptaan uang. Siapapun dapat membuat unit B-money dengan menyiarkan tawaran dan kemudian melakukan proof-of-work yang sesuai.

Baik Szabo maupun Dai mengusulkan penggunaan pasar pertukaran mata uang digital untuk komputasi, namun baik bit gold maupun B-money tidak menentukan kebijakan moneter untuk mengatur pasokan mata uang di pasar ini.

Tujuan Kebijakan Moneter Satoshi Menghasilkan Bitcoin

Sebaliknya, kebijakan moneter yang sehat adalah salah satu tujuan utama Satoshi dalam proyek Bitcoin. Dalam postingan milis pertama tempat Bitcoin diumumkan, Satoshi menulis:

“Akar permasalahan mata uang konvensional adalah kepercayaan yang diperlukan agar mata uang tersebut dapat berfungsi. Bank sentral harus dipercaya untuk tidak merendahkan mata uang tersebut, namun sejarah mata uang fiat penuh dengan pelanggaran terhadap kepercayaan tersebut.” - Satoshi, 2009

Satoshi selanjutnya menjelaskan masalah lain dengan mata uang fiat seperti perbankan cadangan fraksional yang berisiko, kurangnya privasi, pencurian & penipuan yang merajalela, dan ketidakmampuan melakukan pembayaran mikro. Namun Satoshi memulai dengan isu penurunan nilai oleh bank sentral—dengan kekhawatiran mengenai kebijakan moneter.

Satoshi ingin Bitcoin pada akhirnya mencapai pasokan sirkulasi terbatas yang tidak dapat terdilusi seiring waktu. Tingkat penciptaan Bitcoin yang “optimal”, bagi Satoshi, pada akhirnya akan menjadi nol.

Tujuan kebijakan moneter ini, lebih dari karakteristik lain yang mereka miliki secara pribadi (atau kolektif!), adalah alasan Satoshi “menemukan” Bitcoin, blockchain, konsensus Nakamoto, dll. —dan bukan orang lain. Ini adalah jawaban singkat atas pertanyaan yang diajukan dalam judul artikel ini: Satoshi memikirkan Bitcoin karena mereka fokus pada penciptaan mata uang digital dengan persediaan terbatas.

Pasokan Bitcoin yang terbatas bukan hanya tujuan kebijakan moneter atau meme bagi para Bitcoiner untuk berkumpul. Penyederhanaan teknis penting inilah yang memungkinkan Satoshi membangun mata uang digital yang berfungsi sementara B-money Dai tetap menjadi postingan web yang menarik.

Bitcoin adalah B-money dengan persyaratan tambahan berupa kebijakan moneter yang telah ditentukan. Seperti banyak penyederhanaan teknis lainnya, pembatasan kebijakan moneter memungkinkan kemajuan dengan mengurangi ruang lingkup. Mari kita lihat bagaimana masing-masing fase pembuatan B-money disederhanakan dengan menerapkan batasan ini.

Semua Pasokan 21 Juta Bitcoin Sudah Ada

Dalam b-money, setiap “periode penciptaan uang” mencakup fase “Perencanaan”, di mana pengguna diharapkan untuk membagikan “perhitungan makroekonomi” mereka yang membenarkan jumlah b-money yang ingin mereka ciptakan pada saat itu. Tujuan kebijakan moneter Satoshi yaitu pasokan terbatas dan emisi nol tidak sesuai dengan kebebasan yang diberikan b-money kepada pengguna individu untuk menghasilkan uang. Oleh karena itu, langkah pertama dalam perjalanan dari bmoney ke bitcoin adalah menghilangkan kebebasan ini. Pengguna bitcoin perorangan tidak dapat membuat bitcoin. Hanya jaringan bitcoin yang dapat membuat bitcoin, dan hal ini terjadi tepat sekali, pada tahun 2009 ketika Satoshi meluncurkan proyek bitcoin.

Satoshi mampu menggantikan fase “Perencanaan” b-money yang berulang menjadi satu jadwal yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya di mana 21 juta bitcoin yang dibuat pada tahun 2009 akan dilepaskan ke peredaran. Pengguna secara sukarela mendukung kebijakan moneter Satoshi dengan mengunduh dan menjalankan perangkat lunak Bitcoin Core yang kebijakan moneternya dikodekan secara keras.

Hal ini mengubah semantik pasar bitcoin untuk komputasi. Bitcoin yang dibayarkan kepada penambang bukanlah hal baru yang diterbitkan; itu melainkan baru dirilis ke peredaran dari persediaan yang ada.

Pandangan ini sangat berbeda dari klaim naif bahwa “penambang bitcoin menciptakan bitcoin”. Penambang Bitcoin tidak menciptakan bitcoin, mereka membelinya. Bitcoin tidak berharga karena “bitcoin terbuat dari energi”—tetapi nilai bitcoin didemonstrasikan dengan dijual untuk mendapatkan energi.

Mari kita ulangi sekali lagi: bitcoin tidak dibuat melalui proof-of-work, bitcoin dibuat melalui konsensus.

Desain Satoshi menghilangkan persyaratan untuk fase “Perencanaan” yang berkelanjutan dari b-money dengan melakukan semua perencanaan terlebih dahulu. Hal ini memungkinkan Satoshi untuk membuat kebijakan moneter yang sehat namun juga menyederhanakan penerapan bitcoin.

Bitcoin dihargai Melalui Konsensus

Kebebasan yang diberikan kepada pengguna untuk menghasilkan uang menimbulkan beban yang sesuai bagi jaringan bmoney. Selama fase “Penawaran” jaringan b-money harus mengumpulkan dan membagikan “tawaran” pembuatan uang dari banyak pengguna yang berbeda.

Menghilangkan kebebasan untuk menghasilkan uang akan meringankan beban jaringan bitcoin. Karena seluruh 21 juta bitcoin sudah ada, jaringan tidak perlu mengumpulkan tawaran dari pengguna untuk menghasilkan uang, jaringan hanya perlu menjual bitcoin sesuai jadwal Satoshi yang telah ditentukan.

Jaringan bitcoin dengan demikian menawarkan konsensus harga permintaan untuk bitcoin yang dijualnya di setiap blok. Harga tunggal ini dihitung oleh setiap node secara independen menggunakan salinan blockchainnya. Jika node memiliki konsensus pada blockchain yang sama (poin yang akan kita bahas nanti) mereka semua akan menawarkan harga permintaan yang sama di setiap blok.[8]

Bagian pertama kalkulasi harga konsensus menentukan berapa banyak bitcoin yang akan dijual. Hal ini diperbaiki oleh jadwal rilis Satoshi yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya. Semua node bitcoin di jaringan menghitung jumlah yang sama untuk blok tertentu:

$ bitcoin-cli getblockstats {... "subsidy": 6250000000, ... } # 6.25 BTC

Bagian kedua dari harga yang diminta secara konsensus adalah jumlah komputasi yang akan menjual subsidi saat ini. Sekali lagi, semua node bitcoin di jaringan menghitung nilai yang sama (kita akan meninjau kembali kalkulasi tingkat kesulitan ini di bagian berikutnya):

$ bitcoin-cli getdifficulty {... "result": 55621444139429.57, ... }

Bersama-sama, subsidi dan kesulitan jaringan menentukan permintaan bitcoin saat ini sebagai mata uang komputasi. Karena blockchain berada dalam konsensus, harga ini adalah harga konsensus.

Pengguna b-money juga dianggap memiliki konsensus “blockchain” yang berisi riwayat semua transaksi. Namun Dai tidak pernah memikirkan solusi sederhana berupa konsensus tunggal yang meminta harga untuk pembuatan b-money baru, yang hanya ditentukan oleh data di blockchain tersebut.

Sebaliknya, Dai berasumsi bahwa penciptaan uang harus berlangsung selamanya. Oleh karena itu, pengguna individu perlu diberdayakan untuk mempengaruhi kebijakan moneter – seperti halnya mata uang fiat. Persyaratan yang dirasakan ini membuat Dai merancang sistem penawaran yang mencegah penerapan b-money.

Kompleksitas tambahan ini dihilangkan dengan persyaratan Satoshi mengenai kebijakan moneter yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya.

Waktu Menutup Semua Penyebaran

Dalam fase “Komputasi” b-money, pengguna individu akan melakukan komputasi yang telah mereka lakukan dalam penawaran sebelumnya. Dalam bitcoin, seluruh jaringan adalah penjual – tetapi siapa pembelinya?

Di pasar pengiriman email, pembelinya adalah individu yang ingin mengirim email. Otoritas penetapan harga, penyedia layanan email, akan menetapkan harga yang dianggap murah bagi individu namun mahal bagi pelaku spam. Namun jika jumlah pengguna yang sah bertambah, harganya masih bisa tetap sama karena kekuatan komputasi masing-masing pengguna akan tetap sama.

Di b-money, setiap pengguna yang menyumbangkan tawaran untuk pembuatan uang selanjutnya harus melakukan sendiri jumlah komputasi yang sesuai. Setiap pengguna bertindak sebagai otoritas penetapan harga berdasarkan pengetahuan mereka tentang kemampuan komputasi mereka sendiri.

Jaringan bitcoin menawarkan satu harga yang diminta dalam komputasi subsidi bitcoin saat ini. Namun tidak ada penambang individu yang menemukan blok yang melakukan komputasi sebanyak ini.[9] Blok pemenang penambang individu adalah bukti bahwa semua penambang secara kolektif melakukan jumlah komputasi yang diperlukan. Pembeli bitcoin dengan demikian adalah industri penambangan bitcoin global.

Setelah mencapai konsensus harga yang diminta, jaringan bitcoin tidak akan mengubah harga tersebut sampai lebih banyak blok diproduksi. Blok-blok ini harus berisi proof-of-work dengan harga yang diminta saat ini. Oleh karena itu, industri pertambangan tidak punya pilihan jika ingin “melakukan perdagangan” selain membayar harga yang diminta saat ini dalam komputasi.

Satu-satunya variabel yang dapat dikontrol oleh industri pertambangan adalah berapa lama waktu yang dibutuhkan untuk memproduksi blok berikutnya. Sama seperti jaringan bitcoin yang menawarkan satu harga yang diminta, industri pertambangan juga menawarkan satu penawaran—waktu yang diperlukan untuk menghasilkan blok berikutnya yang memenuhi harga yang diminta jaringan saat ini.

Untuk mengimbangi peningkatan kecepatan perangkat keras dan minat yang berbeda-beda dalam menjalankan node dari waktu ke waktu, kesulitan proof-of-work ditentukan oleh rata-rata bergerak yang menargetkan jumlah rata-rata blok per jam. Jika dihasilkan terlalu cepat, kesulitannya akan meningkat. - Nakamoto, 2008

Satoshi dengan sederhana menjelaskan algoritma penyesuaian kesulitan, yang sering disebut sebagai salah satu ide paling orisinal dalam implementasi bitcoin. Hal ini benar, namun alih-alih berfokus pada daya cipta solusi, mari kita fokus pada mengapa penyelesaian masalah sangat penting bagi Satoshi.

Proyek-proyek seperti bit gold dan b-money tidak perlu membatasi nilai tukar pada saat penciptaan uang karena mereka tidak memiliki pasokan tetap atau kebijakan moneter yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya. Periode penciptaan uang yang lebih cepat atau lebih lambat dapat dikompensasikan melalui cara lain, misalnya melalui pajak. Dealer eksternal memasukkan token bit gold ke dalam bundler yang lebih besar atau lebih kecil atau pengguna b-money mengubah tawaran mereka.

Namun tujuan kebijakan moneter Satoshi mengharuskan bitcoin memiliki tingkat pelepasan bitcoin yang telah ditentukan untuk diedarkan. Membatasi laju (statistik) produksi blok dari waktu ke waktu adalah hal yang wajar dalam bitcoin karena laju produksi blok adalah laju penjualan pasokan awal bitcoin. Menjual 21 juta bitcoin selama 140 tahun adalah proposisi yang berbeda dibandingkan membiarkannya dijual dalam 3 bulan.

Selain itu, bitcoin sebenarnya dapat menerapkan batasan ini karena blockchain adalah “protokol cap waktu aman” milik Szabo. Satoshi menggambarkan bitcoin sebagai yang pertama dan terutama sebagai “server stempel waktu terdistribusi secara peer-to-peer,” dan implementasi awal kode sumber bitcoin menggunakan “rantai waktu” dunia, bukan “blockchain” untuk menggambarkan struktur data bersama yang mengimplementasikan pasar proof-of-work bitcoin.[10]

Tidak seperti bit gold atau b-money, token dalam bitcoin tidak mengalami kelebihan pasokan. Jaringan bitcoin menggunakan penyesuaian kesulitan untuk mengubah harga uang sebagai respons terhadap perubahan pasokan komputasi.

Algoritme penyesuaian ulang kesulitan Bitcoin memanfaatkan kemampuan ini. Blockchain konsensus digunakan oleh peserta untuk menghitung penawaran historis yang dibuat oleh industri pertambangan dan menyesuaikan kembali kesulitan agar bisa mendekati waktu blok target.

Pesanan Terunggul Menciptakan Konsensus

Rantai penyederhanaan yang disebabkan oleh tuntutan kebijakan moneter yang kuat meluas ke fase “penciptaan uang” dari b-money.

Tawaran yang diajukan pengguna di b-money mengalami masalah “tidak ada yang dipertaruhkan”. Tidak ada mekanisme untuk mencegah pengguna mengajukan tawaran dengan sejumlah besar b-money untuk pekerjaan yang sangat sedikit. Hal ini mengharuskan jaringan untuk melacak tawaran mana yang telah diselesaikan dan hanya menerima “tawaran tertinggi…dalam hal biaya nominal per unit b-money yang dibuat” untuk menghindari tawaran yang mengganggu tersebut. Setiap peserta b-money harus melacak seluruh tawaran senilai buku pesanan, mencocokkan tawaran dengan perhitungan selanjutnya, dan hanya menyelesaikan pesanan yang telah selesai dengan harga tertinggi.

Masalah ini merupakan contoh dari masalah konsensus yang lebih umum dalam sistem desentralisasi, yang juga dikenal sebagai “Byzantine generals” atau terkadang masalah “pembelanjaan ganda” dalam konteks mata uang digital. Berbagi urutan data yang identik di antara semua peserta merupakan suatu tantangan dalam jaringan yang saling bermusuhan dan terdesentralisasi. Solusi yang ada untuk masalah ini – yang disebut “algoritma konsensus Byzantine-fault tolerant (BFT)” – memerlukan koordinasi sebelumnya di antara peserta atau mayoritas (>67%) peserta agar tidak berperilaku bermusuhan.

Bitcoin tidak harus mengelola buku pesanan dalam jumlah besar karena jaringan bitcoin menawarkan harga permintaan konsensus tunggal. Ini berarti node bitcoin dapat menerima blok pertama (valid) yang mereka lihat yang memenuhi harga yang diminta jaringan saat ini—tawaran gangguan dapat dengan mudah diabaikan dan merupakan pemborosan sumber daya penambang.

Komputasi harga berdasarkan konsensus memungkinkan pencocokan pesanan beli/jual dalam bitcoin dilakukan secara antusias, dengan sistem siapa cepat dia dapat. Berbeda dengan b-money, pencocokan pesanan yang cepat ini berarti bahwa pasar bitcoin tidak memiliki fase—pasar ini beroperasi terus-menerus, dengan harga konsensus baru dihitung setelah setiap pesanan dicocokkan (blok ditemukan). Untuk menghindari percabangan yang disebabkan oleh latensi jaringan atau perilaku bertentangan, node juga harus mengikuti aturan rantai terberat. Aturan penyelesaian pesanan yang serakah ini memastikan bahwa hanya tawaran tertinggi yang diterima oleh jaringan.

Kombinasi algoritma yang antusias dan serakah ini, dimana node menerima blok valid pertama yang mereka lihat dan juga mengikuti rantai terberat, adalah algoritma BFT baru yang dengan cepat menyatu pada konsensus tentang urutan blok. Satoshi menghabiskan 25% dari white paper bitcoin untuk mendemonstrasikan klaim ini.[11]

Kita telah menetapkan di bagian sebelumnya bahwa harga permintaan konsensus bitcoin itu sendiri bergantung pada konsensus blockchain. Namun ternyata keberadaan harga permintaan konsensus tunggal inilah yang memungkinkan perhitungan pasar untuk mencocokkan pesanan dengan penuh semangat, dan itulah yang pertama-tama mengarah pada konsensus!

Terlebih lagi, “konsensus Nakamoto” yang baru ini hanya mengharuskan 50% peserta untuk tidak bertentangan, sebuah kemajuan yang signifikan dibandingkan dengan kondisi sebelumnya. Seorang cypherpunk seperti Satoshi membuat terobosan ilmu komputer teoretis ini, dibandingkan dengan akademisi tradisional atau peneliti industri, karena fokus mereka yang sempit pada penerapan uang yang sehat, dibandingkan algoritma konsensus umum untuk komputasi terdistribusi.

Kesimpulan

B-money adalah kerangka kerja yang kuat untuk membangun mata uang digital tetapi tidak lengkap karena tidak memiliki kebijakan moneter. Membatasi b-money dengan jadwal rilis yang telah ditentukan untuk bitcoin mengurangi cakupan dan menyederhanakan implementasi dengan menghilangkan persyaratan untuk melacak dan memilih di antara tawaran pembuatan uang yang diajukan pengguna. Mempertahankan kecepatan sementara dari jadwal rilis Satoshi menghasilkan algoritma penyesuaian kesulitan dan memungkinkan konsensus Nakamoto, yang secara luas diakui sebagai salah satu aspek paling inovatif dalam implementasi bitcoin.

Ada lebih banyak hal dalam desain bitcoin daripada aspek yang dibahas sejauh ini. Kita memfokuskan artikel ini pada pasar “utama” dalam bitcoin, pasar yang mendistribusikan pasokan awal bitcoin ke dalam sirkulasi.

Artikel berikutnya dalam seri ini akan mengeksplorasi pasar penyelesaian transaksi bitcoin dan kaitannya dengan pasar pendistribusian pasokan bitcoin. Hubungan ini akan menyarankan metodologi bagaimana membangun pasar masa depan untuk layanan terdesentralisasi selain bitcoin.

Catatan kaki

[1] Judul seri ini diambil dari pesan telegraf pertama dalam sejarah, yang dikirimkan oleh Samuel Morse pada tahun 1844: “What hath God wrought?”.

[2] Bitcoin: Sistem Uang Elektronik Peer-to-Peer, tersedia di: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

[3] Pricing via Processing or Combatting Junk Mail oleh Dwork dan Naor. tersedia di:
https://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/../../pvp.pdf

[4] Meskipun merupakan pencetus ide tersebut, Dwork & Naor tidak menciptakan “proof-of-work”—julukan tersebut kemudian diberikan pada tahun 1999 oleh Markus Jakobsson dan Ari Juels.

[5] Proyek RPoW Hal Finney adalah upaya untuk menciptakan proof-of-work yang dapat ditransfer, tetapi bitcoin tidak menggunakan konsep ini karena tidak memperlakukan komputasi sebagai mata uang. Seperti yang akan kita lihat nanti ketika kita memeriksa bit gold dan b-money, komputasi tidak dapat berupa mata uang karena nilai komputasi berubah seiring waktu sementara unit mata uang harus memiliki nilai yang sama. Bitcoin bukanlah komputasi, bitcoin adalah mata uang yang dijual untuk komputasi.

[6] Pada saat ini, beberapa pembaca mungkin percaya bahwa saya meremehkan kontribusi Dai atau Szabo karena kontribusi mereka tidak jelas atau tidak jelas dalam beberapa hal. Perasaan saya justru sebaliknya: Dai dan Szabo pada dasarnya benar dan fakta bahwa mereka tidak mengartikulasikan setiap detail seperti yang dilakukan Satoshi tidak mengurangi kontribusi mereka. Sebaliknya, hal ini seharusnya meningkatkan apresiasi kita terhadap hal tersebut, karena hal ini menunjukkan betapa menantangnya munculnya mata uang digital, bahkan bagi para praktisi terbaiknya.

[7] Postingan b-money Dai adalah referensi pertama dalam white paper Satoshi, tersedia di: http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt

[8] Ada dua penyederhanaan yang dilakukan di sini:

1. Jumlah bitcoin yang dijual di setiap blok juga dipengaruhi oleh biaya transaksi pasar, yang berada di luar cakupan artikel ini, namun tetap menunggu pekerjaan selanjutnya.
2. Kesulitan yang dilaporkan oleh bitcoin bukanlah jumlah perhitungan yang diharapkan; seseorang harus mengalikannya dengan faktor proporsionalitas.

[9] Setidaknya sejak masa lalu yang buruk ketika Satoshi adalah satu-satunya penambang di jaringan.

[10] Bitcoin is Time klasik dari Gigi adalah pengenalan yang bagus tentang hubungan mendalam antara bitcoin dan waktu, tersedia di: https://dergigi.com/2021/01/14/bitcoin-is-time/

[11] Satoshi melakukan kesalahan baik dalam analisis mereka di buku putih maupun implementasi awal bitcoin berikutnya dengan menggunakan aturan “rantai terpanjang” dan bukan aturan “rantai terberat”.

Sumber artikel: HOW DID SATOSHI THINK OF BITCOIN? https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/how-did-satoshi-think-of-bitcoin
Diterjemahkan oleh: Abengkris

@ 6bae33c8:607272e8

I thought I needed the Bucs to cover, but it turns out the two guys one game behind me in my pool also had them, so I had the double week won anyway. It would be like thinking you needed a particular swing state to win, but had already picked up enough other states that it was irrelevant, but won that state anyway for good measure.

That’s $140, plus $70 I won earlier, for a $130 entry with nine weeks to go and an overall prize. Small potatoes, but I like winning.

I had Patrick Mahomes in my dynasty league which was good, but also Xavier Worthless which was not. I needed a little more from Harrison Butker too in the Primetime, but seven points isn’t terrible.

• The big story of the game (assuming Mahomes is fine) was DeAndre Hopkins who now looks like a top-10 WR with half the league out for the year. He’s a perfect Chief — old, slow but reliable and able to move the chains. Mahomes finally put up a good fantasy line too.

• Travis Kelce is all the way back to being TE1 again. He’s old, full of mRNA poison (who knows if he really gets high on his own supply?), but still effective, lost fumble notwithstanding. The volume came back a few weeks ago, and Hopkins’ presence on the outside only seemed to make it easier.

• Kareem Hunt is another perfect Chief — old, tough, slow and steady.

• The Bucs have Cade Otton, Sterling Shepard suddenly (though as a Giants fan, trust me when I say he won’t stay healthy) and not much else. The three-headed monster at running back isn’t helping fantasy owners, either, though the Chiefs were a particularly tough matchup. Otton is a top-five TE for now, but we’ll see what happens when Mike Evans comes back.

• Baker Mayfield played well, driving the Bucs back to force overtime against a tough defense, minus his top two targets.

• I’m biased toward based Todd Bowles, but there was some criticism about his going for the PAT to tie at the end rather then for two to win it. I’ll defend his decision. There were 27 seconds left. If they fail on the two, it’s a guaranteed loss, but if they make it, it forces the Chiefs into aggressive, go-for-broke mode rather than hope to get a good gain on first down and take a knee if it’s tied. And Butker has a big leg (thanks to being well nourished by his wife’s dutiful work in the kitchen), and a FG beats you. Finally, the Chiefs have a stout front, and you’re missing your fade target in Evans. Of course, the Chiefs got the ball and won in overtime, so he turned out to be the wrong, but who gets the ball in overtime is really a coin flip. Like literally.

@ a012dc82:6458a70d

Table Of Content

• The Volatility Factor

• Regulatory Concerns

• Shifting Investor Sentiment

• Conclusion

• FAQ

Bitcoin, once a symbol of hope and financial revolution, is experiencing a significant shakeout in the market. Investor confidence, once soaring high, is fading, and funds dedicated to cryptocurrencies are facing challenging times. In this article, we will explore the factors behind this phenomenon and shed light on the reasons for the current state of the Bitcoin market. From market volatility and regulatory concerns to shifting investor sentiment, we will examine the forces at play in this great Bitcoin shakeout.

The Volatility Factor

Volatility and its Impact on Investor Confidence

Bitcoin's notorious price volatility has always been a characteristic of the cryptocurrency market. However, recent extreme price swings have tested the nerves of even the most seasoned investors. Sudden price drops and rapid recoveries have created an atmosphere of uncertainty, leading to a loss of investor confidence. The fear of losing substantial amounts of money in a short period has caused many to question the stability and long-term viability of Bitcoin.

Market Manipulation and Whales

The Bitcoin market is not immune to manipulation. Large investors, often referred to as "whales," hold significant amounts of Bitcoin and have the power to influence market trends. Their actions, such as massive sell-offs or coordinated buying, can create artificial price movements and exacerbate market volatility. Such manipulation further erodes investor confidence and undermines the perception of a fair and transparent market.

Regulatory Concerns

Uncertainty Surrounding Regulations

Bitcoin operates in a regulatory gray area in many jurisdictions. Governments around the world are still grappling with how to classify and regulate cryptocurrencies effectively. This regulatory uncertainty creates unease among investors, as sudden changes in regulations or unfavorable policies could impact the value and accessibility of Bitcoin. Concerns about potential bans, restrictions, or stringent reporting requirements add another layer of risk and deter institutional investors from entering the market.

Investor Protection and Fraud Prevention

Regulatory efforts are driven by the need to protect investors and prevent fraudulent activities in the cryptocurrency space. While these efforts are necessary for the long-term health of the market, increased regulatory scrutiny can also contribute to a decline in investor confidence. Striking the right balance between consumer protection and fostering innovation remains a challenge, but it is crucial for the market's growth and stability.

Shifting Investor Sentiment

Overhyped Expectations and Disillusionment

During the cryptocurrency boom of 2017, Bitcoin reached unprecedented levels of media coverage and public attention. The rapid rise in value fueled unrealistic expectations, with some predicting astronomical prices for Bitcoin in the future. However, as the market corrected and entered a prolonged bearish phase, many investors became disillusioned. The prolonged period of price stagnation and the failure to meet exaggerated expectations have contributed to waning investor sentiment and a sense of disillusionment.

Lack of Understanding and Education

Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, in general, remain relatively complex and unfamiliar concepts for many individuals. The lack of understanding about the technology, its potential, and the underlying market dynamics can lead to irrational decision-making and increased vulnerability to market volatility. Without proper education and knowledge, investors may succumb to panic selling or fall victim to scams, further damaging their confidence in the market.

Conclusion

The great Bitcoin shakeout is a culmination of various factors, including market volatility, regulatory concerns, and shifting investor sentiment. The extreme price swings, manipulation by whales, and regulatory uncertainties have led to a fading investor confidence in the Bitcoin market. Additionally, overhyped expectations and a lack of understanding have contributed to disillusionment among investors. However, it's important to note that market shakeouts are not uncommon in the cryptocurrency space, and Bitcoin has shown resilience in the face of adversity before. As the market continues to evolve and regulatory frameworks become clearer, it is possible that investor confidence will be restored, paving the way for a more mature and sustainable Bitcoin market.

FAQ

Why is investor confidence fading in the Bitcoin market? Investor confidence in the Bitcoin market is fading due to factors such as extreme price volatility, market manipulation by large investors, regulatory uncertainties, and overhyped expectations that were not met.

How does market volatility affect investor confidence? Market volatility, characterized by sudden price drops and rapid recoveries, creates uncertainty and can lead to a loss of investor confidence. The fear of losing substantial amounts of money in a short period undermines the perception of stability in the Bitcoin market.

What role do whales play in the Bitcoin market? Whales, referring to large investors who hold significant amounts of Bitcoin, have the power to influence market trends through their actions. Their massive sell-offs or coordinated buying can create artificial price movements and exacerbate market volatility, impacting investor confidence.

How do regulatory concerns affect the Bitcoin market? Regulatory uncertainties surrounding Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies contribute to a decline in investor confidence. The lack of clear regulations and potential changes in policies or restrictions create unease and deter institutional investors from entering the market.

That's all for today

If you want more, be sure to follow us on:

NOSTR: croxroad@getalby.com

X: @croxroadnews

Instagram: @croxroadnews.co

Youtube: @croxroadnews

Store: https://croxroad.store

Subscribe to CROX ROAD Bitcoin Only Daily Newsletter

https://www.croxroad.co/subscribe

DISCLAIMER: None of this is financial advice. This newsletter is strictly educational and is not investment advice or a solicitation to buy or sell any assets or to make any financial decisions. Please be careful and do your own research.

@ a367f9eb:0633efea

Last week, an investigation by Reuters revealed that Chinese researchers have been using open-source AI tools to build nefarious-sounding models that may have some military application.

The reporting purports that adversaries in the Chinese Communist Party and its military wing are taking advantage of the liberal software licensing of American innovations in the AI space, which could someday have capabilities to presumably harm the United States.

In a June paper reviewed by Reuters, six Chinese researchers from three institutions, including two under the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) leading research body, the Academy of Military Science (AMS), detailed how they had used an early version of Meta’s Llama as a base for what it calls “ChatBIT”.

The researchers used an earlier Llama 13B large language model (LLM) from Meta, incorporating their own parameters to construct a military-focused AI tool to gather and process intelligence, and offer accurate and reliable information for operational decision-making.

While I’m doubtful that today’s existing chatbot-like tools will be the ultimate battlefield for a new geopolitical war (queue up the computer-simulated war from the Star Trek episode “A Taste of Armageddon“), this recent exposé requires us to revisit why large language models are released as open-source code in the first place.

Added to that, should it matter that an adversary is having a poke around and may ultimately use them for some purpose we may not like, whether that be China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran?

The number of open-source AI LLMs continues to grow each day, with projects like Vicuna, LLaMA, BLOOMB, Falcon, and Mistral available for download. In fact, there are over one million open-source LLMs available as of writing this post. With some decent hardware, every global citizen can download these codebases and run them on their computer.

With regard to this specific story, we could assume it to be a selective leak by a competitor of Meta which created the LLaMA model, intended to harm its reputation among those with cybersecurity and national security credentials. There are potentially trillions of dollars on the line.

Or it could be the revelation of something more sinister happening in the military-sponsored labs of Chinese hackers who have already been caught attacking American infrastructure, data, and yes, your credit history?

As consumer advocates who believe in the necessity of liberal democracies to safeguard our liberties against authoritarianism, we should absolutely remain skeptical when it comes to the communist regime in Beijing. We’ve written as much many times.

At the same time, however, we should not subrogate our own critical thinking and principles because it suits a convenient narrative.

Consumers of all stripes deserve technological freedom, and innovators should be free to provide that to us. And open-source software has provided the very foundations for all of this.

Open-source matters When we discuss open-source software and code, what we’re really talking about is the ability for people other than the creators to use it.

The various licensing schemes – ranging from GNU General Public License (GPL) to the MIT License and various public domain classifications – determine whether other people can use the code, edit it to their liking, and run it on their machine. Some licenses even allow you to monetize the modifications you’ve made.

While many different types of software will be fully licensed and made proprietary, restricting or even penalizing those who attempt to use it on their own, many developers have created software intended to be released to the public. This allows multiple contributors to add to the codebase and to make changes to improve it for public benefit.

Open-source software matters because anyone, anywhere can download and run the code on their own. They can also modify it, edit it, and tailor it to their specific need. The code is intended to be shared and built upon not because of some altruistic belief, but rather to make it accessible for everyone and create a broad base. This is how we create standards for technologies that provide the ground floor for further tinkering to deliver value to consumers.

Open-source libraries create the building blocks that decrease the hassle and cost of building a new web platform, smartphone, or even a computer language. They distribute common code that can be built upon, assuring interoperability and setting standards for all of our devices and technologies to talk to each other.

I am myself a proponent of open-source software. The server I run in my home has dozens of dockerized applications sourced directly from open-source contributors on GitHub and DockerHub. When there are versions or adaptations that I don’t like, I can pick and choose which I prefer. I can even make comments or add edits if I’ve found a better way for them to run.

Whether you know it or not, many of you run the Linux operating system as the base for your Macbook or any other computer and use all kinds of web tools that have active repositories forked or modified by open-source contributors online. This code is auditable by everyone and can be scrutinized or reviewed by whoever wants to (even AI bots).

This is the same software that runs your airlines, powers the farms that deliver your food, and supports the entire global monetary system. The code of the first decentralized cryptocurrency Bitcoin is also open-source, which has allowed thousands of copycat protocols that have revolutionized how we view money.

You know what else is open-source and available for everyone to use, modify, and build upon?

PHP, Mozilla Firefox, LibreOffice, MySQL, Python, Git, Docker, and WordPress. All protocols and languages that power the web. Friend or foe alike, anyone can download these pieces of software and run them how they see fit.

Open-source code is speech, and it is knowledge.

We build upon it to make information and technology accessible. Attempts to curb open-source, therefore, amount to restricting speech and knowledge.

Open-source is for your friends, and enemies In the context of Artificial Intelligence, many different developers and companies have chosen to take their large language models and make them available via an open-source license.

At this very moment, you can click on over to Hugging Face, download an AI model, and build a chatbot or scripting machine suited to your needs. All for free (as long as you have the power and bandwidth).

Thousands of companies in the AI sector are doing this at this very moment, discovering ways of building on top of open-source models to develop new apps, tools, and services to offer to companies and individuals. It’s how many different applications are coming to life and thousands more jobs are being created.

We know this can be useful to friends, but what about enemies?

As the AI wars heat up between liberal democracies like the US, the UK, and (sluggishly) the European Union, we know that authoritarian adversaries like the CCP and Russia are building their own applications.

The fear that China will use open-source US models to create some kind of military application is a clear and present danger for many political and national security researchers, as well as politicians.

A bipartisan group of US House lawmakers want to put export controls on AI models, as well as block foreign access to US cloud servers that may be hosting AI software.

If this seems familiar, we should also remember that the US government once classified cryptography and encryption as “munitions” that could not be exported to other countries (see The Crypto Wars). Many of the arguments we hear today were invoked by some of the same people as back then.

Now, encryption protocols are the gold standard for many different banking and web services, messaging, and all kinds of electronic communication. We expect our friends to use it, and our foes as well. Because code is knowledge and speech, we know how to evaluate it and respond if we need to.

Regardless of who uses open-source AI, this is how we should view it today. These are merely tools that people will use for good or ill. It’s up to governments to determine how best to stop illiberal or nefarious uses that harm us, rather than try to outlaw or restrict building of free and open software in the first place.

Limiting open-source threatens our own advancement If we set out to restrict and limit our ability to create and share open-source code, no matter who uses it, that would be tantamount to imposing censorship. There must be another way.

If there is a “Hundred Year Marathon” between the United States and liberal democracies on one side and autocracies like the Chinese Communist Party on the other, this is not something that will be won or lost based on software licenses. We need as much competition as possible.

The Chinese military has been building up its capabilities with trillions of dollars’ worth of investments that span far beyond AI chatbots and skip logic protocols.

The theft of intellectual property at factories in Shenzhen, or in US courts by third-party litigation funding coming from China, is very real and will have serious economic consequences. It may even change the balance of power if our economies and countries turn to war footing.

But these are separate issues from the ability of free people to create and share open-source code which we can all benefit from. In fact, if we want to continue our way our life and continue to add to global productivity and growth, it’s demanded that we defend open-source.

If liberal democracies want to compete with our global adversaries, it will not be done by reducing the freedoms of citizens in our own countries.

Last week, an investigation by Reuters revealed that Chinese researchers have been using open-source AI tools to build nefarious-sounding models that may have some military application.

The reporting purports that adversaries in the Chinese Communist Party and its military wing are taking advantage of the liberal software licensing of American innovations in the AI space, which could someday have capabilities to presumably harm the United States.

In a June paper reviewed by Reuters, six Chinese researchers from three institutions, including two under the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) leading research body, the Academy of Military Science (AMS), detailed how they had used an early version of Meta’s Llama as a base for what it calls “ChatBIT”.

The researchers used an earlier Llama 13B large language model (LLM) from Meta, incorporating their own parameters to construct a military-focused AI tool to gather and process intelligence, and offer accurate and reliable information for operational decision-making.

While I’m doubtful that today’s existing chatbot-like tools will be the ultimate battlefield for a new geopolitical war (queue up the computer-simulated war from the Star Trek episode “A Taste of Armageddon“), this recent exposé requires us to revisit why large language models are released as open-source code in the first place.

Added to that, should it matter that an adversary is having a poke around and may ultimately use them for some purpose we may not like, whether that be China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran?

The number of open-source AI LLMs continues to grow each day, with projects like Vicuna, LLaMA, BLOOMB, Falcon, and Mistral available for download. In fact, there are over one million open-source LLMs available as of writing this post. With some decent hardware, every global citizen can download these codebases and run them on their computer.

With regard to this specific story, we could assume it to be a selective leak by a competitor of Meta which created the LLaMA model, intended to harm its reputation among those with cybersecurity and national security credentials. There are potentially trillions of dollars on the line.

Or it could be the revelation of something more sinister happening in the military-sponsored labs of Chinese hackers who have already been caught attacking American infrastructure, data, and yes, your credit history?

As consumer advocates who believe in the necessity of liberal democracies to safeguard our liberties against authoritarianism, we should absolutely remain skeptical when it comes to the communist regime in Beijing. We’ve written as much many times.

At the same time, however, we should not subrogate our own critical thinking and principles because it suits a convenient narrative.

Consumers of all stripes deserve technological freedom, and innovators should be free to provide that to us. And open-source software has provided the very foundations for all of this.

Open-source matters

When we discuss open-source software and code, what we’re really talking about is the ability for people other than the creators to use it.

The various licensing schemes – ranging from GNU General Public License (GPL) to the MIT License and various public domain classifications – determine whether other people can use the code, edit it to their liking, and run it on their machine. Some licenses even allow you to monetize the modifications you’ve made.

While many different types of software will be fully licensed and made proprietary, restricting or even penalizing those who attempt to use it on their own, many developers have created software intended to be released to the public. This allows multiple contributors to add to the codebase and to make changes to improve it for public benefit.

Open-source software matters because anyone, anywhere can download and run the code on their own. They can also modify it, edit it, and tailor it to their specific need. The code is intended to be shared and built upon not because of some altruistic belief, but rather to make it accessible for everyone and create a broad base. This is how we create standards for technologies that provide the ground floor for further tinkering to deliver value to consumers.

Open-source libraries create the building blocks that decrease the hassle and cost of building a new web platform, smartphone, or even a computer language. They distribute common code that can be built upon, assuring interoperability and setting standards for all of our devices and technologies to talk to each other.

I am myself a proponent of open-source software. The server I run in my home has dozens of dockerized applications sourced directly from open-source contributors on GitHub and DockerHub. When there are versions or adaptations that I don’t like, I can pick and choose which I prefer. I can even make comments or add edits if I’ve found a better way for them to run.

Whether you know it or not, many of you run the Linux operating system as the base for your Macbook or any other computer and use all kinds of web tools that have active repositories forked or modified by open-source contributors online. This code is auditable by everyone and can be scrutinized or reviewed by whoever wants to (even AI bots).

This is the same software that runs your airlines, powers the farms that deliver your food, and supports the entire global monetary system. The code of the first decentralized cryptocurrency Bitcoin is also open-source, which has allowed thousands of copycat protocols that have revolutionized how we view money.

You know what else is open-source and available for everyone to use, modify, and build upon?

PHP, Mozilla Firefox, LibreOffice, MySQL, Python, Git, Docker, and WordPress. All protocols and languages that power the web. Friend or foe alike, anyone can download these pieces of software and run them how they see fit.

Open-source code is speech, and it is knowledge.

We build upon it to make information and technology accessible. Attempts to curb open-source, therefore, amount to restricting speech and knowledge.

Open-source is for your friends, and enemies

In the context of Artificial Intelligence, many different developers and companies have chosen to take their large language models and make them available via an open-source license.

At this very moment, you can click on over to Hugging Face, download an AI model, and build a chatbot or scripting machine suited to your needs. All for free (as long as you have the power and bandwidth).

Thousands of companies in the AI sector are doing this at this very moment, discovering ways of building on top of open-source models to develop new apps, tools, and services to offer to companies and individuals. It’s how many different applications are coming to life and thousands more jobs are being created.

We know this can be useful to friends, but what about enemies?

As the AI wars heat up between liberal democracies like the US, the UK, and (sluggishly) the European Union, we know that authoritarian adversaries like the CCP and Russia are building their own applications.

The fear that China will use open-source US models to create some kind of military application is a clear and present danger for many political and national security researchers, as well as politicians.

A bipartisan group of US House lawmakers want to put export controls on AI models, as well as block foreign access to US cloud servers that may be hosting AI software.

If this seems familiar, we should also remember that the US government once classified cryptography and encryption as “munitions” that could not be exported to other countries (see The Crypto Wars). Many of the arguments we hear today were invoked by some of the same people as back then.

Now, encryption protocols are the gold standard for many different banking and web services, messaging, and all kinds of electronic communication. We expect our friends to use it, and our foes as well. Because code is knowledge and speech, we know how to evaluate it and respond if we need to.

Regardless of who uses open-source AI, this is how we should view it today. These are merely tools that people will use for good or ill. It’s up to governments to determine how best to stop illiberal or nefarious uses that harm us, rather than try to outlaw or restrict building of free and open software in the first place.

Limiting open-source threatens our own advancement

If we set out to restrict and limit our ability to create and share open-source code, no matter who uses it, that would be tantamount to imposing censorship. There must be another way.

If there is a “Hundred Year Marathon” between the United States and liberal democracies on one side and autocracies like the Chinese Communist Party on the other, this is not something that will be won or lost based on software licenses. We need as much competition as possible.

The Chinese military has been building up its capabilities with trillions of dollars’ worth of investments that span far beyond AI chatbots and skip logic protocols.

The theft of intellectual property at factories in Shenzhen, or in US courts by third-party litigation funding coming from China, is very real and will have serious economic consequences. It may even change the balance of power if our economies and countries turn to war footing.

But these are separate issues from the ability of free people to create and share open-source code which we can all benefit from. In fact, if we want to continue our way our life and continue to add to global productivity and growth, it’s demanded that we defend open-source.

If liberal democracies want to compete with our global adversaries, it will not be done by reducing the freedoms of citizens in our own countries.

Originally published on the website of the Consumer Choice Center.

@ a10260a2:caa23e3e

TIL Google Authenticator can potentially collect a lot of data, more than some of the other popular 2FA apps^1.

Whether it does or it doesn’t, if you’re like me, you don’t turn down an opportunity to remove some Google from your life and add in some open-source.

Here’s a quick overview of the migration process.

Step 1: Download 2FAS

Step 2: Export accounts from Authenticator

This can be done via “Transfer accounts” in the sidebar. If you’re transferring on the same phone, take a screenshot of the QR code.

Step 3: Import accounts into 2FAS

During the setup process for 2FAS, you’ll be given the option to import existing tokens from Google. This is where you’ll tap “Choose QR Code” and select the screenshot you took in step 2.

Note that when you tap continue after importing the tokens, you’ll be taken back to the same screen as above. I think it should take you to your list of accounts after. Either way, don’t think the import failed. Just tap cancel, and you’ll be taken there.

If you’re on Android, check out Aegis. 🫡

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/753472

@ bf7973ed:841ad12a

Day two of replacing bad habits with good habits.

I've also created shortcuts on my phone (iPhone) to limit the use of social media today. This will lock my phone after 5 minutes of social media.

Some bad habits can also affect our relationships with people, I'm working on these from the inside out. I've identified some of these habits and am now working on breaking them or replacing them.

@ 472f440f:5669301e

All eyes are, unsurprisingly, on the US Presidential election. Tomorrow is the big day. I don't want to come off as preachy, however it is pretty clear to me that if you are an American citizen who cares about bitcoin and would like to live under an administration that is eager to embrace the industry as opposed to an administration that is actively hostile toward bitcoin there is only one candidate who deserves your vote; Donald J. Trump. I think he's a better candidate for other reasons, but if you've read this rag for long enough you probably already know what those are. Instead of writing a screed about why I am voting for Trump, let's highlight some things outside of the election that you should be paying attention to this week.

First up, there are two Treasury auctions; $42B of 10-Year notes tomorrow and $25B 30-Year bonds on Wednesday.

It will be interesting to see what the demand for these auctions is and how they affect rates. The long end of the yield curve has been pumping since the Fed's rate cut in the middle of September, which is the market signaling that it does not believe inflation has been appropriately tamed. Yields came down today, but as you can see from the charts things are trending in the wrong direction.

As the Treasury issues new debt at higher rates, the interest expense on that debt, naturally, drifts higher. If the long end of the yield curve doesn't come down aggressively over the course of the next year this is going to be a big problem. There are trillions of dollars worth of Treasury debt that needs the be rolled over in the next few years and it would be advantageous for the Treasury if that debt wasn't being rolled over with yields as high as they are. With the amount of debt the country has accrued in recent decades, every incremental dollar of debt that gets issued and/or rolled over at higher interest rates exacerbates the problem. We are approaching the territory of runaway exponentials, as evidenced by this chart. The growth slope gets steeper and steeper

This debt problem is the elephant in the room that needs to be addressed as quickly as possible. The national debt hit $1.2T in early 1983. It then took 26 years to 10x from $1.2T to $12T in late 2009 and has only taken another 15 years to triple from there to $36T or 30x from the arbitrary base I picked out (Q1 1983).

With this in mind, keep an eye out for these auctions tomorrow and Wednesday, where rates end at the end of trading on Wednesday, and whether or not we officially push over $36T. Regardless of who wins the election tomorrow, this is a problem that needs to be confronted. Whether or not it can be solved at all is up for debate. I don't see how what can be done to reel in this runaway train at this point. However, at the very least, we should acknowledge that we're in the realm of exponentials and have people prepare accordingly by accumulating hard assets that cannot be debased (bitcoin).

The other thing to pay attention to is the FOMC meeting on Wednesday and the announcement of the results of the meeting on Thursday. Will Jerome and the other Fed board members to keep rates where they are, cut, or raise rates? Raising rates seems to be out of the question despite the fact that many believe it would be the most prudent move considering how the long end of the yield curve reacted to the 50bps cut in September. If they decide to cut rates, by how much will they cut them? Will they slow the pace with a 25bps cut or continue at the 50bps clip established in September?

We'll find toward the end of this week. Don't lose sight of these events while the world is enthralled with the elections in the US.

I don't know about you freaks, but I couldn't feel more fortunate that bitcoin exists at a time like this. Having access to a distributed peer-to-peer digital cash system with a fixed supply during a time of incredible political divisiveness and out-of-control runaway sovereign debt feels like a Godsend.

Stay sane out there.

Final thought...

We're going to win.

@ 9349d012:d3e98946

Chef's notes

2 cups pureed pumpkin 2 cups white sugar 3 eggs, beaten 1/2 cup olive oil 1 tablespoon cinnamon 1 1/2 teaspoon baking powder 1 teaspoon baking soda 1/2 teaspoon salt 2 1/4 cups flour 1/4 cup chopped pecans

Preheat oven to 350 degrees Fahrenheit. Coat a bread pan with olive oil. Mix all ingredients minus nuts, leaving the flour for last, and adding it in 2 parts. Stir until combined. Pour the batter into the bread pan and sprinkle chopped nuts down the middle of the batter, lenghtwise. Bake for an hour and ten minutes or until a knife insert in the middle of the pan comes out clean. Allow bread to cool in the pan for five mintes, then use knife to loosen the edges of the loaf and pop out of the pan. Rest on a rack or plate until cool enough to slice. Spread bread slices with Plugra butter and serve.

https://cookeatloveshare.com/pumpkin-bread/

Details

• ⏲️ Prep time: 30 minutes
• 🍳 Cook time: 1 hour and ten minutes
• 🍽️ Servings: 6

Ingredients

• See Chef's Notes

Directions

1. See Chef's Notes

@ c7c26cb9:7525bb8d

Quem não os conhece? Os vampiros sugadores de sangue, os mortos-vivos sinistros, imortalizados em incontáveis filmes e inspirados principalmente no romance “Drácula” de Bram Stoker (1897). Pense em filmes icônicos como o mudo “Nosferatu – Uma Sinfonia do Horror” (1922), “Drácula” (1958) com Christopher Lee, a paródia de Roman Polanski “A Dança dos Vampiros” (1967) ou “Nosferatu – O Vampiro da Noite” (1979), estrelando Klaus Kinski como o Conde Drácula.

Vampiros são demônios que saem de seus túmulos à noite, buscando drenar o sangue de vítimas inocentes. Não apenas roubam a força vital que os sustenta, mas também espalham sua maldição. Muitas vítimas, ao serem mordidas, também “se tornam” mortas-vivas, juntando-se ao domínio sombrio do vampiro.

Os inimigos e caçadores de vampiros enfrentam um desafio formidável: os vampiros podem se disfarçar, transformando-se em criaturas como lobos ou morcegos, e geralmente possuem uma força sobre-humana. Só podem ser repelidos por defesas tradicionais — dentes de alho, rosários, água benta ou a cruz cristã. Mas destruí-los de fato exige decapitação, uma estaca de madeira no coração, ou a luz do sol, que os transforma em pó.

O vampiro é um mito antigo e difundido. A imagem de uma criatura morta-viva sugadora de sangue, ou conceitos semelhantes, existe em várias culturas. Esse demônio personifica a superstição — atuando como uma projeção de medos primordiais, do inexplicável e do mal como o contraponto do bem. A ideia de uma criatura que emerge à noite, drena o sangue de suas vítimas e as puxa da luz para a escuridão é, sem dúvida, profundamente ameaçadora.

Quando refletimos um pouco mais sobre a história de terror do demônio vampiro, inevitavelmente começamos a ver paralelos (ou pelo menos pontos de contato) com o sistema de moeda fiat que existe mundialmente hoje.

Sob o Manto da Escuridão

Isso ocorre sob o manto da escuridão: é justo dizer que a grande maioria das pessoas não sabe como o sistema de moeda fiat de hoje é estruturado, como funciona ou quais são seus efeitos. Nas escolas e universidades, os alunos são, na maioria das vezes, deixados no escuro sobre o assunto, e as consequências do sistema fiat surpreendem a maioria das pessoas — despreparadas e sem piedade. Quantas pessoas sabem que o sistema atual é um sistema em que o banco central do estado possui um monopólio coercitivo sobre a criação de dinheiro fiat, enquanto os bancos comerciais emitem seu próprio dinheiro fiat com base no dinheiro fiat do banco central?

Quem sabe que o dinheiro fiat é literalmente criado do nada, representando uma forma de criação de dinheiro que não tem conexão alguma com “poupança real”? E quem explica para as pessoas que, do ponto de vista econômico, a expansão da oferta de moeda fiat é inflacionária, resultando em preços mais altos para bens e serviços em comparação a uma situação onde a oferta de dinheiro não tivesse sido aumentada? Poucos sabem também que a emissão de moeda fiat via mercado de crédito causa uma má alocação de capital, inicialmente desencadeando um boom, seguido por uma recessão; que leva as economias a um endividamento excessivo; e que permite ao estado crescer cada vez mais às custas das liberdades dos cidadãos e empreendedores.

Em resumo, para a maioria das pessoas, os danos causados pela moeda fiat são desconhecidos; eles se aproximam furtivamente sob o manto da escuridão, como um vampiro.

Vítimas Vulneráveis & Vida Sugada

As vítimas são muitas vezes indefesas e inconscientes, com os frutos de seu trabalho sendo efetivamente sugados. A moeda fiat tem algo de vampírico, permitindo que um grupo (aqueles autorizados a criar dinheiro fiat) viva às custas de outros (aqueles forçados a usar o dinheiro monopolizado). Os primeiros a receber o novo dinheiro fiat são os beneficiários. Eles podem usá-lo para comprar bens e serviços cujos preços ainda não subiram, enriquecendo-se.

Conforme o dinheiro troca de mãos, ele aumenta a demanda e os preços dos bens sobem. Como resultado, os últimos a receberem o novo dinheiro só podem comprar bens a preços mais altos, ficando em desvantagem. Os primeiros beneficiários melhoram sua posição às custas dos últimos. Os mais gravemente afetados são aqueles que não recebem nada do suprimento de novo dinheiro — eles são, efetivamente, os “sugados até secarem.”

O efeito redistributivo vampírico da moeda fiat, que opera nas sombras, beneficia especialmente os bancos comerciais que criam dinheiro fiat, bem como aqueles em posição de tomar novos empréstimos bancários em moeda fiat.

Primeiro e principalmente, é o estado e aqueles que dele se beneficiam que são os maiores vencedores do sistema de dinheiro fiat vampiresco. O estado financia uma parte significativa de seus gastos com a moeda fiat recém-criada, usando-a para pagar seus representantes, funcionários e suas aposentadorias, bem como as empresas das quais compra bens e serviços. O estado e seus beneficiários estão entre os primeiros a receber o novo dinheiro fiat, tornando-se os principais beneficiários em detrimento de muitos que não estão diretamente ligados ao estado.

Poder-se-ia argumentar que uma redistribuição de renda e riqueza, provocada pelo aumento de moeda fiat, também ocorreria em um sistema de moeda-mercadoria ou metais preciosos. Isso é verdade em princípio, mas o aumento em um sistema de moeda lastreada em ouro, por exemplo, seria menos pronunciado do que em um sistema de moeda fiat. O fato é que este último foi escolhido deliberadamente por sua natureza vampiresca. Ele beneficia o estado, os bancos e as grandes empresas às custas da população em geral, mantendo-a aquém de seu potencial econômico.

Criando Servos

Como um vampiro, a moeda fiat infecta suas vítimas, tornando-as cúmplices do sistema de dinheiro fiat. A moeda fiat literalmente escraviza seus usuários, tornando-os dependentes. Por exemplo, ela incentiva empresas e famílias a contrair dívidas e viver além de suas possibilidades, algo viabilizado pelas taxas de juros artificialmente baixas. As pessoas também são incentivadas a investir em ativos (como casas e empresas) porque a natureza cronicamente inflacionária da moeda fiat garante uma elevação contínua dos preços dos ativos. Uma vez atraídas pela moeda fiat, o bem-estar econômico e financeiro das pessoas torna-se dependente da continuação do sistema de moeda fiat inflacionário e de seu “resgate” pelo estado e pelo banco central em tempos de crise — mesmo que isso ocorra às custas de quem não se beneficia do sistema, ou que beneficia muito pouco.

Políticos, burocratas, funcionários bancários e empresas que recebem contratos do governo desenvolvem um interesse em manter o sistema de moeda fiat. Nesse sentido, eles se tornam servos vampiros do dinheiro fiat, alimentando-se do sangue daqueles que trabalham produtivamente ao reivindicar uma parte de sua renda.

Além disso, os detentores de dinheiro fiat perdem, pois ele continuamente perde poder de compra. No sistema de moeda fiat, o banco central mantém as taxas de juros artificialmente baixas — muitas vezes negativas quando ajustadas pela inflação —, de modo que as poupanças em depósitos a prazo, contas de poupança e títulos são efetivamente corroídas.

Aversão à Luz

O vampiro e o sistema de dinheiro fiat não suportam a luz do dia; ambos se desintegram em pó quando expostos ao sol. Se as pessoas realmente entendessem os efeitos negativos da moeda fiat e os danos que ela causa ao mundo, provavelmente a rejeitariam — junto com as estruturas de produção e emprego que ela cria. Provavelmente é por isso que tão pouco é ensinado sobre a moeda fiat em escolas e universidades. Seus aspectos mais sombrios são ocultados, com o sistema educacional estatal garantindo que o brilho do conhecimento não ilumine o sistema de moeda fiat.

Lembre-se de que os conselhos dos bancos centrais são geralmente chamados de “os guardiões da moeda” e que eles “combatem” a inflação. Nada poderia estar mais longe da verdade — como um vampiro que recebe seus convidados e conversa com inteligência, sem revelar sua verdadeira natureza. Assim como a luz solar mata um vampiro, o conhecimento econômico sólido destruiria o sistema de moeda fiat, especialmente se combinado com uma ética simples e bem compreendida como “faça aos outros o que você gostaria que fizessem a você.”

Até que esse dia chegue, os investidores devem estar cientes dos sérios defeitos econômicos e éticos da moeda fiat. A verdade incômoda é que a prosperidade e a paz de longo prazo não podem ser sustentadas sob um sistema de moeda fiat. Portanto, é do interesse de todos que a luz da verdade exponha e, assim, acabe com o sistema de moeda fiat. Como isso pode ser alcançado?

Informando proativamente e honestamente as pessoas sobre os males do dinheiro fiat; aconselhando-as a reduzir sua dependência dele, tanto em suas vidas quanto em suas economias; e promovendo um mercado livre para o dinheiro, incentivando inovações tecnológicas na esfera monetária que estejam além do controle do estado. Juntas, essas ações agirão como um raio de sol sobre o sistema de moeda fiat vampires.

09/26/2024 • Mises Wire • Thorsten Polleit

@ c2827524:5f45b2f7

# Milano🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 esterno notte

Sul balcone a contemplare la #scighera e per ascoltare il gocciolio della nebbia che cade sulle foglie, fumando l'ultima sigaretta di oggi. O la prima di domani, dipende.

Qualche #woke del palazzo di fronte chiama #deliveroo per lo spuntino di mezzanotte.

Immancabile si presenta Anacleto pedalante, che citofona per la consegna, col solito biciclo elettrico che Tesla scansati. Deve andare alla "scala D" e chiede 4 volte se la D è la prima che trova.

Pheega! Ma l'alfabeto! La D può mai essere la prima?

egnente

3 minuti buoni per capire che... no mannaggialaputtana: la D è come nell'alfabeto, la quarta!

Ci saranno sì e no 8 gradi, lo spuntino di mezzanotte è giusto giusto da scongelare per domani semmai, Anacleto-Analfabeto fa la consegna e se ne va in contro mano.

Niente male per uno che dovrebbe pagare le pensioni agli idagliANI. Leggere e scrivere: no. Codice della strada: no Lavoro di merda? sì. Perfettamente integrato, quasi mimetizzato, nella città più qualunque e socialista della penisola a forma di piede.

@ f42176a1:0ed621ae

The cost of government nanny state:

Assume a person at age 22 gets a job earning $30,000 a year. They never get a raise. Retire at age 65. This gives them an investing time horizon of 43 years. However, instead of having 15.3% paid in FICA tax, they get 15.3% of their income put into the S&P 500. (let's ignore the potential and promise of bitcoin for this example).

• 15.3% of $30,000 = $4,590 per year
• Assume annual rate of return of 9.65% (slightly less than historical S&P return)
• After 43 years they'll have $2,450,000 in their account.
• Using the "4% rule" would provide a retirement income of $98,000 a year or a little over $8,000 per month income for the rest of their life.

According to a CNBC article in 2020 https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/20/how-much-can-you-get-from-social-security-if-you-make-30000-a-year.html Someone making $30,000 year on average in their lifetime will receive $1,357 per month at their full retirement age. This gives a net shortfall of $6,643 we all lose in our current system.

Now of course FICA is social security AND Medicare, but Social Security is 12.4% and Medicare is the remaining 2.9% of the total 15.3% in payroll tax. This equates to something like $317 per month in Medicare benefit, vastly short of the $6,643 remainder on the "privatized social security" account funded with the exact same amount of capital.

Now, the true "kicker" is in the unfortunate scenario of an untimely death. Say you die the day you'd start social security. In our current system you heirs get $255 death benefit (not a typo), in our new scenario they get $2,450,000.

To say that social security is a bad deal may be the understatement of the century. It is beyond time to revamp the system. I prefer no compulsion, but even if compulsion remains it is vastly superior to put this money in your own account you own and not contribute to the ponzi scheme we have now.

@ a3aa0a88:ed2fb51d

The story of Peanut’s seizure has sparked criticism of government overreach, as the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) obtained warrants to raid Mark Longo’s home over a period of five hours to seize Peanut and a raccoon. Many see this prolonged operation—carried out in response to complaints about unlawfully possessed wildlife—as excessive.

https://i.ibb.co/Tb7TBfK/image.png

Supporters argue that Peanut was neither a safety risk nor a health hazard, and question whether state resources could have been better allocated. The incident raises broader concerns over regulations and individual rights.

RIP Peanut

https://i.ibb.co/416zLVR/image.png

@ 45bda953:bc1e518e

3 standard cycles later.

Albin was lying on a two meter high rock outcropping. It was warm from Ceb light but he dared not move. His adrenalin was pumping but he could scarcely take a breath for fear of being heard. His thumping heart was so loud it made him paranoid. He crawled forward and peeked over the edge of the low precipice. A dangerous and savage escaped slave was on his trail, ready to scalp and gut him. If only he could flee to his safe zone. He heard a long low whistle from across the valley. A light flashed from amongst some dense shrubbery at an estimated two hundred metres away. He pulled a mirror from his pocket preparing to return the signal. “This increases my chances.” He thought to himself. He knew that their common enemy was behind him and could not possibly see the reflection of Ceb light if he directed said light perpendicularly away from the hunter. He flashed with his mirror five times towards his ally, two second counts between each flash. No immediate response... he waited. Light flashed from the shrubbery and immediately he became aware of movement in the tall grass behind him. He resisted the urge to look back over his shoulder. The sweat exploded off his forehead. He remained still. It seemed like minutes though it was only a few seconds. Light flashed again.

Grassy movement sounds recurred, heart now racing. Third flash. A burst of movement from the rear left at around eight O clock. Albin turned his head and pressed his right cheek against the cooking rock. A tanned thirteen year old youth raced past below him at unbelievable speed. Scruff cloth pants, barefoot with no shirt and a trailing headband. Albin pushed himself up to his hands and knees. “If there is fifty meters distance between us I could risk running for the manor.” The shrubs on the other side of the valley started to rock violently and birthed a boy in a buttoned up shirt with leather shoes and woven short breeches all tailor made. The boy ran with all his might towards the Domitian manor. “This is my chance.” Albin scrambled off the rock and sprinted towards the manor jumping and dodging the hindering bushes and stones. The other party moving parallel to him across the valley. Seth caught sight of Albin but did not change target and kept course. He held a small blunt wooden object caught up to his first victim and proceeded to stab his prey in the back with it. “Ha, you're dead!” Seth exclaimed while immediately changing course to intersect his secondary target before he gets inside the safe zone. “Not fair. It’s not fair you cheat!” The belligerent player cried dismally. Seth did not care for the accusation in spite of not realising that Albin actually sacrificed his ally to gain a tactical advantage. He was determined to get both kills and be victorious. Albin felt less secure in his current situation and began to doubt his previous assessment of fifty meters and thought that an earlier head start might have been a more favourable risk assessment. “Don't panic Albin, focus.” He reproved himself. Recalculating his speed in comparison to the speed of his hunter, estimated the future point of contact. Veering to the right he sagaciously aimed for the far corner of the estate gardens, increasing the distance of his run to the demarcated safe zone considerably more for his rival than for himself. The race became more intense with the hunter closing in... “I’m alive!” Was the triumphant breathless utterance as the knife swiped past the back of his neck mere centimetres. Albin fell on the trimmed lawn panting. Looking back he saw Seth in a similar condition of respiratory suffering. The loser was still far away grumbling and kicking at the weeds. Seth grinned, “I almost had you.” Albin just nodded in agreement. “I'm thirsty... water, milk or wattle gum juice.” “Wattle gum juice!” Seth exclaimed without hesitation. Albin knew that the slave would never say no to the delicacies and confections of the common people but gave him the option to choose either way. He brushed the grass clippings off his clothes and entered through the back door of the manor. In the kitchen he poured juice into three demure clay mugs whilst noticing emanations of a heated conversation from the foyer. His curiosity bested him. Albin went in and sat himself down on the staircase and gulped at his beverage. The adults scarcely noticed him. “The people are ready to accrue for themselves better prospects in the colony!” The tradesman appealed with fervour. “Your proposals would be sensible under normal circumstances but colonial expansion is best suited for peacetime.” Domitius riposted. “This war has been going for almost III standard cycles, are the people supposed to pause their dreams and ambitions for some vaguely defined purpose. Please consider that an expansion program will be beneficial to the war effort eventually.” Domitius knew that he was being evasive and dishonest. He was finding it more difficult to guide the colony according to his vision, their growing despondency was worsened by his deflecting their requests with indirect excuses. Domitius did not want to rule with force, his exerting authoritarian command would only foster resentment towards him among the Kaspian landowners. “We do not have a militia. How would we keep an influx off world slaves servile if the war seems to tilt against the Empire?” Domitius replied with rhetoric. “It is a valid concern. Mechanical labour is the solution. We should convene a council to address these issues and come to consensus.” The traders uncompromising insistence triggered Domitius past the limit of his patience. “This will not turn into a democracy! Tell me what you require and I will consider it, if I do not agree with you I will annul it and appoint an inquisitor to judge and punish all who dissent!” The tradesman lost his composure and shrunk back. “My lord, I am reluctant to admit... there are no requests.” “No requests?” “Yes my lord.” Domitius was puzzled. The tradesman’s son came into the room with his cup of wattle juice and sat down next to Albin. “Father Ecknard very recently informed me of the news... I had applied for a licence half a cycle previously.” Domitius felt uneasy. “What news?” “... A licence has been issued from Kaspa Prime... they are sending extractors to Hithe III.” Domitius went pale. Thousands of implications flooded his mind. Economic problems, ecological issues and a very much more complex political situation. He remained unresponsive for a moment. “I understand. Isidor, you may go.” The tradesman bowed lower than was required of him then reached towards his son. “I apologise for my insolence.” Domitius ignored the man who quickly left the premises. Domitius looked at his son. “Never become too familiar with your subjects, they become derisive. Damn it! He has created more problems for us than he could comprehend.” “Yes pappa.” He agreed with his father instinctively. “Pappa? Are we going to see real space ships!”

“We are...” Domitius appreciated his son's innocence. “big ones.” He smiled with all but his eyes.

Juela Prime - Capitol

Emilien was waiting patiently in the office lobby of a towering high rise structure. One of thousands of competing banks on the Juel Capitol. He had a valid appointment and felt annoyed by the guard hanging around near him and kept noticing the suspicious glances. “What are you looking at.” he hissed from under his hood. “You a spacer?” “Maybe.” The guard did not follow up on his question, he did not leave either. The door slid open and a impeccably well groomed secretary beckoned at him. “Mr Dierre is ready for you.” “Thank you sweetheart.” He brushed past her sticking a pernicious grin right in her face, she gagged. “Welcome Mr Emilien, I hope you had a good trip.” The bank chief executive greeted with outstretched arms. “Nice suit, I always have good trips. Is it very expensive?” The spacer gestured toward the fabric while looking around and sizing up the situation. “More than you know.” The executive smugly responded and proceeded to open a cabinet containing differently labelled flasks filled with various hues of alcohol. “I know quite a lot.” Emilien licked his lips. The banker hesitantly offered a serving which was accepted without vacillation. “I always thought that you void jumpers would be more reluctant accepting unverified consumables?” Dierre smiled a questioning look. Emilien swallowed the strong fluid and inhaled deeply. “I have a clone ready. And an implant that up links me directly to my pod. Don't think that if I have to wake up in a fresh body that I won't remember this place, including your mug.” Emilien tapped lightly on his temple seeming threatening and postured while he spoke. The banker nodded in uneasy amusement. “Excellent, excellent. Ahem, The reason we contacted you Mr Emilien, is because we are in business...” He promptly helped himself to a second glass of... whatever alcohol it was, anticipating a speech and a job description. “...the business of war. Currently we are supplying arms to the Juela fleet, who are at war with the Magarrian Empire. They are for the most part, boycotting our factories... which is a shame really, but understandably so. The Shiv Unity are supporting our enemy logistically yet have not joined them in active combat." He walked around his desk swirling the brown liquid round and round as he talked. "We are trying to coax Osteri aggression, but they have occupied themselves in... other endeavours and don't seem as willing as usual to assault Magar territories.” The spacer frowned and feigned curiosity. “Why would you suppose that be?” He interjected. “We are not sure... don't interrupt me, you break my train of thought.” The banker lied and it did not escape his attention. “Continue by all means.” He waved a bottle at the executive leaning back into a comfy black leather chair. “If we get the upper hand in this war we could control vital Magar territories, the profits our companies could absorb from the moons and planets would be virtually tax free and help to continue fund the war effort...” Emilien cut him off with a snide sarcasm. “How philanthropic. I watch your news propaganda...” Emilien slowly sat upright and uncannily performed like a popular Juel news anchor. “Breaking news. The Magar Empire are allegedly oppressing... slaves, it is reported that the war has driven them to desperation and are driving their labour forces harder than what is... morally justifiable. Any petitions made or pleas for leniency, no matter how trivial is met with... corporal punishment. We must be vocal about their plight and fight for... freedom and liberty. You are with The Report. See you next time, and remember, peace everywhere for all.” He mockingly mimics a news anchor's plastic monotone while folding up and shifting around imaginary papers. The secretary sniggered softly from behind her desk, Dierre frowned. Emilien slouched back into his chair. “What would you have me do boss?” The banker remained silent. “Excuse me one moment.” Dierre touched a pad on his desk, privacy panels slid up separating Dierre from his guest and the lady. He opened comms to an unknown voice. Emilien auto tuned up his sonic receptors slightly and closed his eyes listening in uninvited but inconspicuously. "Yes Dierre, make it quick." “Right, good afternoon sir. I am not sure about this character, Mr Emilien, should we not rather employ one of our own for this contract.” “What? No! There is no one else with the expertise and or reputation required for this investment. He has no prior affiliation to us no, no record. Dierre, just hire the man and stop whining like a little bitch! I don't need this type of crap. This was prearranged, what I don’t need is uncalled for opinionated inputs. We have made the decision and you, you explain what we require of them. So explain to the space clone what we need him to do and how much we are going to pay him for it!” The silence was awkward. “Wh... Yes sir.” The banker was keeping good composure under the condescending circumstances. Emilien smiled, a sly joy filling his soulless being. The comms line closed and the privacy panels retreated into the floor to reveal to the banker Emilien, sitting there grinning like an idiot. “How much are you going to pay me?” “Don't you want to know details of the job concerned?” “No. Just show me the figures in sat.” The director handed him a pad. Emilien looked at the glowing screen, his smiled recurred. “I accept this mission.” He glanced over at the secretary who was unassumingly recording minutes at her desk. “Doing anything tonight sweetheart?” She grimaced. Emilien stood up, “Dierre my good fellow I have to go, need to prepare for whatever it is you corpo scumbags are going to make me do.” “Don't you want to know the details involved?” “Send the info to my pod.” “It is sensitive information.” Emilien indifferently stared at Dierre. “I have a secure line... bitch.” Disbelief shot across his face.

He walked out of the room, looked back grinning an impossibly large grin and winked at the lady. “See you later sweetheart.” She quickly had the door slide closed. "That was unsettling." She mumbled to herself.

...

scifi

@ 59df1288:92e1744f

Hey, fellow Nostr voyagers! 🎉 Light those comment sections on fire because this week's round-up is chock-full of celebrity drama juicier than any tabloid, squirrel saboteurs plotting under flickering streetlights 🐿️, and caffeine-fueled chats with a dash of existential confusion. Taylor Swift somehow found herself the poster child of economic debate, while somewhere else entirely, people are pondering if Ryan Holiday could possibly be a lizard—or, you know, just very good at marketing. 😂 And let’s not ignore the philosophical musings comparing AI's decision-making prowess to a slightly tipsy slot machine. So buckle up, and prepare for a wild ride through the quirkiest streets of Nostreland! 🚀

Celebrity Love Drama, Richer Than a Swift Tune 🎶

So, Rabble kicked off a hilarious yet thought-provoking convo about the dynamics between NFL star and pop queen, Taylor Swift. They were questioning the whole hullabaloo about gender and money in their seemingly super-straight relationship.

npub1k50rpvrwcdx4wg69zp38ln7nftt2gsqrr99d4lwqp9hk65asgl4ska95xh weighed in with that classic snark, calling the controversy "small dick energy" – brutal but kinda funny! 😂 Cracks like that don’t leave you winning any brownie points!

npub1qyxlpj2gl6dt2nfvkl4yyrl6pr2hjkycrdh2dr5r42n7ktwn7pdqrdmu7u chimed in on how both political wings act the fool sometimes... Looks like no one's off the hook in this messy media circus!

npub1ym56klev354vx7gr47gtu2s6aahj4j7kn860ykw243adx0fqqrqsf6pdvw hit us with a reality check about 2025—people liking who they like shouldn’t be up for debate, right? They threw shade at bearded dudes getting salty over TayTay’s life choices. Their hashtag game is strong, and they also dropped some major love for #Chappell #Roan on SNL. Cats in pajamas? Yasss, Queen! 🐈‍⬛

npub192klhzk86sav5mgkfmveyjq50ygqfqnfvq0lvr2yv0zdtvatlhxskg43u7 ended with a solid rant about how people should just let folks date whomever without judgment. Seriously, preach! Anyone else feel like popcorn when they dive into those Bible debates? 🍿 #TruthBombs

Check out the full convo here

Words and Woes: A Spicy Chat

So there was some pretty fiery talk in the Nostr crew today! 🔥 AaNon 🤔 kicked things off with a chat about how certain words were used back in the day, throwing in a bit of a high school nostalgia vibe. npub18ams6ewn5aj2n3wt2qawzglx9mr4nzksxhvrdc4gzrecw7n5tvjqctp424 kept it straight with some classic political banter about MAGAs and their dislike. npub10v39t5zaz06g7g5cees3phg53hllvy7xzaa97gz2sd4dldeyh68q6vzvup dived in with a sneaky jab at Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift, questioning their mainstream appeal. Meanwhile, Rabble dropped some knowledge on slur dynamics, making everyone think twice. The convo took a charmingly chaotic turn with npub192klhzk86sav5mgkfmveyjq50ygqfqnfvq0lvr2yv0zdtvatlhxskg43u7 admitting to being a little high school giddy while sharing meme-worthy gifs. 😂

Check out the full convo here

Alien Theories and Stoic Stories

Over in another universe of ideas, inpc sparked a wild discussion about Ryan Holiday being possibly wrong, or maybe even a lizard—a real conspiratorial flavor, right? 👽 S!ayer came in hot questioning who Ryan even is, which got them up to speed with a nod to his stoic marketing jazz. And of course, no thread is complete without an added "shill" label for good measure 🎤. The back-and-forth was peppered with laughs and a bit of an "agree to disagree" sentiment as CarlBMenger threw in some shade at the group's understanding of the post, stirring the pot just right. 🍵

Check out the full convo here

Philosophical Refreshments 🍵 vs. AI Nostradamus 🤖

Looks like CarlBMenger and the crew are debating life choices like picking a coke over water! S!ayer is going full Sherlock, diving into source material and judging books by more than their covers. S!ayer has got that "to each their own" vibe on lock! 🕵️‍♂️

Meanwhile, over in Good Morningville, inpc is spreading those early-day vibes, and everyone's jumping in! Padoc2robert is all about that caffeine life with "GM☕️☕️💜", while quentin gives a cheerful wave with "Good morning 😃". You know it's a sunny day when everyone’s feeling chatty!

And then there's the AI chatter. Rabble is concerned about us handing over our decision-making to AI overlords. npub1wzt7ynrxssfv8gktqhr2czezw9pv3d5yl556yk247pmjw9ucrgsqw8jn3m isn't buying any of it though, dropping classic wisdom like “not the sharpest tool in the shed.” 📚🛠️ npub1a6we08n7zsv2na689whc9hykpq4q6sj3kaauk9c2dm8vj0adlajq7w0tyc reckons AI is just slightly better than fortune tellers anyway.

Check out the full convo here

AI and the Art of Dodging Decisions

So, in the latest gabfest, npub1hjlev3xn736aqr4ecmjxwwzuu9k523kp5fpz9n862s4lwah2h22sm2zg68 was musing about how most people don't think much anyway, and npub10jnx6stxk9h4fgtgdqv3hgwx8p4fwe3y73357wykmxm8gz3c3j3sjlvcrd chimed in that these folks are becoming the new "midwit" class. Then, npub1j04j8tgajf6w8c5yh2lp65rl9jqdr6kz70h4f95nvx52r7fxekhsvafxku threw in a spicy take comparing AI to vices like alcohol and slot machines when it comes to decision-making. Lots of nodding along from anyone who's felt stressed and decision-fatigued! 🤔

Check out the full convo here

Risky Business or Passive Daydreams?

inpc sparked some curiosity about passive incomes with a cheeky "What could go wrong?" as they shared a mysterious pic. Padoc2robert wasn't shy, admitting they've done worse and are game to try. Meanwhile, hit with a hint of s seemed a bit lost, asking about the whole passive income buzz. 😅

Check out the full convo here

Autumn Vibes and Social Butterflies

Picture this: a crisp autumn morning shared by BTCPhoto — and of course, everyone jumped in with their morning greetings. npub1upmh82f2vy9z3k3qwj8amx9lkkhkjjcv45y9yfyqzfj4jj5czz9qhsg8fq flashes a simple "GM!" while Padoc2robert goes all-in with coffee, hearts, and autumn leaves. Meanwhile, npub16t5h7ueq248pxp54rf72a0svt2tzc3jdz5fjfmykqe2m8656f5dszdspn0 jumps in with a pitch on reaching them for investment tips. Gotta love these digital morning vibes! 🌅☕️🍂

Check out the full convo here

Do Squirrels Have a Nefarious Agenda?

Last but not least, inpc sparked a hilarious debate by wondering out loud if squirrels are out to get us! No one seems sure, but it definitely got some laughs and head scratches. I mean, who knew squirrels could have such big plans? 😆🐿️

Check out the full convo here

Squirrels, Surveillance, and Some Steamy Brews

Hey there! So, there's been some drama on Nostr lately! It all kicked off with Cyph3rp9nk sharing a wild story about the American government confiscating and killing a man's pet squirrel! 😱 Things got intense quick with inpc dropping a spicy comment about it being a change from other injustices. Then npub14lw90lanf80rkpzv2p5s4hau5yz0gls5mthd7kjvq5aet42t47esx9tsvd chimed in comparing the furry friend's fate to more serious crimes. Drama, huh? 🐿️💥

Then, over in the tech corner, Rabble was digging into the whole surveillance issue with police—not exactly solving crime, right? 😬 npub170lcuam5uwe6shz5qsdl6uakp73txthpchwrz6sa2eprg4fpzmvshhuy0v got technical, mentioning the rights (or lack thereof) on public roads. Meanwhile, npub1vyrx2prp0mne8pczrcvv38ahn5wahsl8hlceeu3f3aqyvmu8zh5s7kfy55 took a shot at big tech and their cozy relationship with the Feds. And npub12rv5lskctqxxs2c8rf2zlzc7xx3qpvzs3w4etgemauy9thegr43sf485vg wasn't having it—just gave a straight-up "wrong." 🤷‍♂️

JSTR had everyone buzzing about the quality of hotel coffee! ☕ Seems Sergio thinks it tastes better when paired with some freedom—and check out that America gif they shared! 🇺🇸

Last but not least, BTCPhoto had a fun little exchange about tsipouro. nami gave it a thumbs up, and it's safe to say BTCPhoto is loving it too. 🍇🥂

Check out the full convo here

Rain or Shine, São Paulo's Got It! ☔

So, vikingbitcoin kicks off saying, “It can't rain all the time...” 🌧️, and guess what? Global Sports Central jumps right in with a crack about São Paulo with, “São Paulo yes it can” 😜. Classic back-and-forth between these two—sounds like a typical day with unpredictable São Paulo weather!

Check out the full convo here

---

Saints in Hot Water: Drama Alert! 🏈

Ooh, spicy sports update from Global Sports Central who let us know that the New Orleans Saints have kicked Dennis Allen to the curb after yet another loss. They've been in a bit of a rut with a 2-7 season so far. npub1mms49j83r79y45rj7d0sggyc2690jgt0v7zjr6ugk4y40qju3wzqn0kxn4 seems to be loving the chaos with a cheeky “love to see that franchise in disarray” 😂. Drama, drama, drama!

Check out the full convo here

---

Quick Hellos! 👋

Just a small shout-out from inpc yelling a friendly "Eh yo! 👊🏼" which was answered warmly by enjoytheride with a big virtual wave and smile 🙋‍♂️🙂. It's the little things that make the community feel cozy!

Check out the full convo here

---

TV News with a Twist 📺

archjourney dropped a hilarious video about how they see TV newscasters, teetering on that 'freaky' line according to npub13jp20qere0ue3r2795kz8el6w6cnp9gct43s56z9qu6dnsg989yq7qzq2a dropping a “Freaaaky” in response. Makes election coverage somehow a bit more entertaining! 😆

Check out the full convo here

---

Grid Confusion at F1! 🏎️

Global Sports Central mentions some hilarious confusion on the F1 grid where Norris thought it was another Formation Lap while others were just... waiting. It was all a bit of a shuffle with mechanics joining the party late. Sounds like quite the spectacle 🤦‍♂️ and npub1yj69jq9f977y2f7vl96m6stf3rjyf3hym8ekf3g4senlqamz8l3qfsvhk7 can't help but take back something they might have said!

Check out the full convo here

---

Chomsky's Take on Democracy 🗽

Chomsky hits us with a heavy discussion from Noam Chomsky about Republicans and democracy from back in June 2021. Always interesting with those socio-political takes!

(Conversation Link Missing)

---

Hot Topics and Morning Vibes 🌞

So, here's the latest from our Nostr crew! This week, npub1ducpqhx6zuf64gjgevvtp7geghr2yd6ur3cau84ealfnrgea5mpq8ptpxc dropped a thought-provoking take on critical race theory, and it's sparking conversation. They noted how it's being used as a scare phrase and critiqued how history is often presented in schools. npub1ducpqhx6zuf64gjgevvtp7geghr2yd6ur3cau84ealfnrgea5mpq8ptpxc chimed in, claiming Republicans have turned more 'Trumpista' than anything else 😂.

Meanwhile, [BTCPhoto](npub1vjl6n2llukcc6pe3am2hkwqh8twzh2ymlp7pdrdfq5tlqg08y26sd7ygzx) treated everyone to a gorgeous pic of Ibiza, like a little morning postcard to make us all jealous. npub1ckp277xl73p8qrk9ncshsefj5ur5cq973da3atycnwlky6vqd8xq5r7tnx gave it a sunny thumbs-up with a friendly 'Good morning' and a heart emoji.

On a serious note, [xdamman](npub1xsp9fcq340dzaqjctjl7unu3k0c82jdxc350uqym70k8vedzuvdst562dr) had some deep thoughts on political representation, reminding us that most governments still only represent a minority. npub1etctwmz7lnpynz7h02erex3lf3jtz0me48xhvv7wpr742muvffps7vcr6n brought in a bit of cheeky cynicism with a clown emoji, noting the blame game on citizens for not voting. 🤡

Lastly, a bit of dark humor in play with [inpc](npub1q33jywkl8r0e5g48lvrenxnr3lw59kzrw4e7p0cecslqzwc56eesjymqu0) talking about societal shifts away from violence, and npub14lw90lanf80rkpzv2p5s4hau5yz0gls5mthd7kjvq5aet42t47esx9tsvd had a witty retort about a squirrel bringing a change from typical narratives.

There's lots of fun and witty discussions happening, so don't miss out!

Check out the full convo here

@ a4a6b584:1e05b95b

1. Tides Exist Because of the Moon’s Gravitational Pull

• The tides we see every day are caused by the moon’s gravitational influence on Earth’s oceans. This undeniable, observable phenomenon lines up perfectly with Earth’s rotation and spherical shape. On a flat Earth, you wouldn’t get these reliable tidal shifts. Ignoring this fact requires either not paying attention or just not caring about the truth.

2. Satellites Don’t “Float on Balloons”

• Every single day, satellites orbit Earth, allowing us GPS, global internet, and instant communication worldwide. Their paths follow predictable orbits only possible because Earth is round. The idea that these are “ballooned” is laughable nonsense—without orbits, we’d have no satellite data at all. If you think thousands of satellites are held up by helium balloons, then you’re blind to reality.

3. Star Movements in the Hemispheres Prove a Round Earth

• If you live in the northern hemisphere, stars appear to rotate counterclockwise around the North Star; in the southern hemisphere, they rotate clockwise around the Southern Cross. This is real, observable, and doesn’t happen on a flat Earth map. Pretending otherwise is just lying to yourself.

4. Eclipses and Shadows Don’t Lie

• During a lunar eclipse, Earth’s round shadow crosses the moon. Period. It’s visible, predictable, and impossible to deny unless you’re just making things up. Solar eclipses happen at specific times and locations based on Earth’s spherical geometry—events no “flat map” could ever explain.

5. Radio Waves Hit the Horizon, End of Story

• Radio waves, particularly in the VHF range, travel in straight lines, which means they get blocked by Earth’s curvature. That’s why radio towers can only broadcast within a limited range before the signals are cut off by the horizon. You won’t get this on a flat plane—period. Denying it means ignoring science altogether.

6. Airplanes Lit from Below Prove Curvature

• Watch an airplane at sunset, and you’ll see it lit from underneath as the sun dips below the horizon. On a flat Earth, that would be impossible. The only way this works is if Earth has curvature. If you can’t see that, you’re deliberately closing your eyes.

7. Long-Distance Sailing Doesn’t Work on a Flat Map

• Navigating around Antarctica aligns perfectly with Earth’s spherical geometry. Every mile sailed, every route taken around the globe fits. A flat map would leave distances skewed, rendering long-distance voyages chaotic and inaccurate. Flat Earth “theorists” can’t answer this without throwing logic out the window.

8. 24-Hour Sunlight at the Poles Proves We’re on a Globe

• During the summer, Antarctica experiences continuous sunlight for 24 hours. This is a direct result of Earth’s tilt and spherical shape. There’s no explanation for this on a flat Earth. Refusing to acknowledge this is pure ignorance.

9. The International Space Station (ISS) Exists and Is Visible

• Thousands of people watch the ISS pass overhead. It’s visible from Earth and matches the orbital mechanics that only a spherical Earth can support. If you’re arguing it doesn’t exist or is faked, then you’re living in a fantasy, disconnected from real life.

10. Space Observations Show Earth’s Curvature

• High-altitude photos, seen from commercial flights and even higher from orbit, show Earth’s curvature. People around the world have seen it with their own eyes. Denying this is as absurd as denying the sky is blue.

11. Sea Level Exists Because of Gravity and Curvature

• “Sea level” is about equilibrium, meaning water aligns with Earth’s gravitational pull, which forms a spherical shape. This isn’t “flat” like a table; it’s balanced by gravity. Trying to twist this into evidence for a flat Earth just shows a complete misunderstanding of basic physics.

12. The Sun Moves Predictably Across the Sky Due to Earth’s Tilt

• In the southern hemisphere, the sun’s arc follows a path that only makes sense on a round Earth. The flat Earth model can’t account for this. Ignoring it requires some serious mental gymnastics.

13. Solar Eclipses Only Make Sense on a Globe

• Solar eclipses happen on a predictable path. Only a spherical Earth can account for this kind of accuracy. Flat Earth theory can’t explain it—full stop. Denying it is absurd.

14. Gravity Exists, and It’s Consistent Around the Globe

• Gravity pulls consistently toward Earth’s center. That’s why water “finds its level” in a way that conforms to Earth’s curved surface, not a flat plane. Pretending otherwise is just ignorant.

15. SpaceX and Starlink Technology Work with Earth’s Orbital Mechanics

• SpaceX launches are observed worldwide, and satellites like Starlink provide global internet by orbiting Earth. This technology relies on understanding Earth’s curvature. Claiming this doesn’t prove a round Earth is ludicrous.

16. Basic Observation Debunks Flat Earth Claims

• From the horizon line to ships disappearing as they move away, basic observation of the world around us debunks flat Earth nonsense. Flat Earthers choose to ignore obvious facts, invent conspiracies, and cling to ideas that insult human intelligence.

---

The flat Earth idea isn’t just false; it’s willfully ignorant, rejecting the most basic principles of science and observation. It requires ignoring a mountain of evidence, twisting facts, and inventing wild conspiracies to make sense. It’s a belief that exists because of intellectual dishonesty, not because of reality.

Flat Earth is a failed idea that belongs in the trash heap of discredited pseudoscience. The Earth is a globe. Deal with it.

@ 59df1288:92e1744f

Hey there, fellow Nostriches! Grab your metaphorical popcorn because the Nostr neighborhood has been anything but dull lately. From the high-stakes thriller of world politics, where everyone's pointing fingers and debating U.S. elections amidst Gaza conflict chatter (and someone might have mentioned dropping aid, no biggie, right?), to our very own live-stream detective hunt at #LaBitConf—let's just say streaming isn't as instant as our ramen. And speaking of food for thought, how about those blasts from the cryptocurrency past, imagining Bitcoin cosying up to the military-industrial complex? Nostr really knows how to mix serious debate with sensational drama, just like a chirpy DJ might effortlessly remix Tidal tunes with some on-platform vibes. Curious? Dive into the juicy rundown and find out what’s stirring our digital pot of narratives! 🍿🔗

The Nostr Debate & Hot Takes About World Politics 🌍

Hey there! So, Rabble sparked a fiery debate with a post about the US elections and their ties to the Gaza conflict. It's got everyone buzzing! 🐝 npub15dnln6cukw3yrflnv3hnrntdt9amh0uw466u6tns05ymqp3nal4qzz3lfc didn’t hold back, suggesting the US drop aid to Israel. Talk about a conversation starter! 🤔

npub1utx00neqgqln72j22kej3ux7803c2k986henvvha4thuwfkper4s7r50e8 chimed in, critiquing US military actions in the Middle East with a spicy take on the military-industrial complex. Apparently, it's not about who’s in charge—just that cash keeps flowing!

npub1fvxn0kn8ecg8vh4h9q83t9d7ga2zh0xqpxhr3t5alszqfeg3akasxkmrnu sarcastically went along, pondering the irony of voting for peace yet supporting war. Meanwhile, the axiom teased some with, “so you are a trumpist now?” 😆

npub1ne57gg8xphmfek292yyg9nlyfkgh273vtrguy8qz0fuh05frvrpqn2t7zd reminded everyone that evil thrives regardless of currency type. Oof, deep! And in true mic-drop fashion, npub1r0rs5q2gk0e3dk3nlc7gnu378ec6cnlenqp8a3cjhyzu6f8k5sgs4sq9ac chimed in bluntly, agreeing that presidents are just temporary players in a perpetual game.

npub1hk9w6k87u3lxg5swcfgtwrhaye95j67rlrp9v0pxczuy8jcumdfsa3ppcr couldn’t help but laugh along (literally with, “THIS 👆”). Meanwhile, npub18kzz4lkdtc5n729kvfunxuz287uvu9f64ywhjz43ra482t2y5sks0mx5sz is just over here trying to make sense of it all.

Catch all the action and dive into the hot debate vibes! 🔥 Check out the full convo here.

Bitcoin, War, and Gold: Nostr's Hot Take!

Okay, so things got pretty heated when someone threw out the political debate bomb. 😮 Basically, if you're voting third-party, you're "part of the problem," but not everyone buys that. npub1u87g378r0puytp7zxdl5awg2gmqvqc3vgtnh6a0vfgm4y8es7c3qam93f7 was quick to dive into how gold's physicality made violence profitable, but Bitcoin flips the game. Then npub1h4lrzqnrne72xj00yl3zzr0k6qn93cqe5g4vvkfechs6mn89mwyqfa2jcm noted that gold wasn't everyone's cup of tea – not democratic enough! Bitcoin, though? A whole other story.

npub1fjqqy4a93z5zsjwsfxqhc2764kvykfdyttvldkkkdera8dr78vhsmmleku threw in, "Pentagon and bureaucracy need wars," and npub1ne57gg8xphmfek292yyg9nlyfkgh273vtrguy8qz0fuh05frvrpqn2t7zd jumped in on the Bitcoin train, saying even defense bigwigs might cozy up to Bitcoin. Someone's gotta pay those war companies, as npub1u87g378r0puytp7zxdl5awg2gmqvqc3vgtnh6a0vfgm4y8es7c3qam93f7 quipped, right? The convo closed on an entertaining note with npub1h4lrzqnrne72xj00yl3zzr0k6qn93cqe5g4vvkfechs6mn89mwyqfa2jcm lamenting the plight of the peasant getting paid in anything but gold. Classic stuff!

Check out the full convo here.

---

Tunes and Tech: Nostr's Tidal Wave 🌊

Rabble kicked off a chat on why Nostr and Tidal aren’t more of a thing together. They’re saying it launched in June and needs some love, like sharing songs or auto-login with a nsec—hello, convenience! npub15mnm7whul7h7jn6ejnhnpl5n9tp69y8w28jh3vefz4mmxszfldzqwuett7 totally backed this and is a Tidal fan!

npub1wzt7ynrxssfv8gktqhr2czezw9pv3d5yl556yk247pmjw9ucrgsqw8jn3m chimed in saying everyone’s assuming npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m has a sneaky master plan. npub1nl8r463jkdtr0qu0k3dht03jt9t59cttk0j8gtxg9wea2russlnq2zf9d0 said Tidal should just join the Nostr party too. Sounds like a jam session in the making, doesn't it? 🎶

Check out the full convo here.

🎧 Tune In to the Tidal Tattle!

So, the crew was all buzzing about music and Nostr connections! npub1csamkk8zu67zl9z4wkp90a462v53q775aqn5q6xzjdkxnkvcpd7srtz4x9 kicked things off saying they would totally dig Tidal more if it played nice with Nostr. Enter npub1raustrrh5gjwt03zdj8syn9vmt2dwsv9t467m8c3gua636uxu89svgdees with a hot take on platforms being all about those intellectual property rents. the axiom chimes in, reminiscing about when Coracle did a Tidal crossover - sounds like a tech fairy tale, right? 😂

Meanwhile, npub1n0pdxnwa4q7eg2slm5m2wjrln2hvwsxmyn48juedjr3c85va99yqc5pfp6 wonders if they could DJ on zap.streams with Tidal - an epic mashup in the making? elsat suggests Tidal should pony up resources to smoothen this collab - like, why not! And the convo wouldn't be complete without npub1csamkk8zu67zl9z4wkp90a462v53q775aqn5q6xzjdkxnkvcpd7srtz4x9 declaring "based coracle" - a new mantra, maybe?

Check out the full convo here.

🏈 Is This the Straightest Relationship Ever?

Rabble stirred the pot with a spicy question about a celeb couple. They're perplexed about the buzz on an NFL superstar dating a pop icon – isn't that, like, the epitome of hetero? 🙃 People were quick to jump in, debating if it's the money, the success, or simply the sheer fame that's got people talking.

From debates about gender roles to who holds the purse strings, this convo's colorful with no dull moment in sight. It's like a red carpet chat turned philosophical! 😂

Check out the full convo here.

What's Good, Drama Crew?! 😄

Hey there! So, the gang's been getting pretty lively on Nostr lately! Here's the scoop:

• AaNon 🤔 kicked things off, reminiscing about high school and how some words were tossed around as insults. Classic high school throwback vibes there. 📚

• laanwj kept it cheeky with a zing about dating the same species. Always the comedian! 😂

• npub192klhzk86sav5mgkfmveyjq50ygqfqnfvq0lvr2yv0zdtvatlhxskg43u7 went full-on social justice warrior, talking about relationships, patriarchy, and the joys of midwestern arguing. Also, major shoutout to Chappell Roan for being amazing on SNL—a fan in the house! 🙌

• Derek Ross and npub18dmnnurjmuxnwxj38c029wt8e36naeqvder00k437ry876tf77kqukzep6 spiced things up with political drama, mixing in Trump and MAGAs with some serious shade. 🥶

• npub1qyxlpj2gl6dt2nfvkl4yyrl6pr2hjkycrdh2dr5r42n7ktwn7pdqrdmu7u popped in with some commentary on property damage versus politics, stirring the pot, as always. Stir it up! 🥄

• npub1ym56klev354vx7gr47gtu2s6aahj4j7kn860ykw243adx0fqqrqsf6pdvw summed it up with a classic facepalm. Haters gonna hate, right? 🤦🏽‍♂️

• npub1k50rpvrwcdx4wg69zp38ln7nftt2gsqrr99d4lwqp9hk65asgl4ska95xh threw in some sass about "small dick energy"—yikes, burn! 😂🔥

• And last but not least, npub10v39t5zaz06g7g5cees3phg53hllvy7xzaa97gz2sd4dldeyh68q6vzvup wrapped it up but wasn't too impressed by the earlier comments. Always the hard one to please!

That's the latest from our Nostr fam—never a dull moment!

Check out the full convo here.

Words and Whirlwinds 🌀

Hey there! Man, things have been buzzing on Nostr. The chat got a little heated and thought-provoking when some folks pulled out the big guns on language and slurs. Rabble rolled in with some wisdom, pointing out how slurs hold their bite through inherent homophobia. It ended on an agreeable note with npub1n4st260vuvdsdev4tjm6t80fesld26dvv93ndvvkcah3lqfax7hqse4mvu giving a nod, saying, "it makes sense." Meanwhile, npub192klhzk86sav5mgkfmveyjq50ygqfqnfvq0lvr2yv0zdtvatlhxskg43u7 was having a throwback to high school days, spicing up the chat with a little confusion and laughter! 😂

Check out the full convo here

---

G’day, Down Under 🌏

Big news! nos.social dropped a bombshell announcement about Nostr being live in Australia and New Zealand. It's all about making things smoother for newbies, like a fancy new onboarding flow. Folks were stoked, especially npub1ajt9gp0prf4xrp4j07j9rghlcyukahncs0fw5ywr977jccued9nqrcc0cs, who can’t wait to share it with their Kiwi pals! 🥝

tyiu found a neat tweak for better performance, which got a shoutout from montzstar. 阿甘 pointed out a handy update on blocked user visibility.

Check out the full convo here

Art Discoveries and Nostr Revelations 🎨✨

So, @colincz was feeling a little left out, lamenting how they and @noicemag weren't popping up in the art discover tab. 😔 Meanwhile, nostr:npub1ym56klev354vx7gr47gtu2s6aahj4j7kn860ykw243adx0fqqrqsf6pdvw popped in with a cheeky "#ZAP?" 😂

The convo heated up when @Josh Brown praised some amazing work that @montzstar did. Apparently, they made some outstanding improvements that got loads of attention. 🤩

There was a little technical confusion corrected by @mplorentz, which clarified some spooky hidden notes. And shoutout to nostr:npub1cks0cex96uww2ftvjj0l35m9a0vj0wxaqvz6psmnza2v5mc95a4s2m46kh for confirming that our buddy @noicemag is shining in there after all! 🌟

@tyiu admitted to making some changes for type safety but promised to pull back for the good of Comingle. And in the end, @colincz was just all eyes, apparently excited about these updates. 👀

Check out the full convo here.

Bluesky Elation and Token Banter ☁️💰

Over in the Bluesky scene, @Rabble dropped some big news: Bluesky bagged $15 million with a new partner from Blockchain Capital on the board! 💸🎉

nostr:npub1cdak4q4f3h3k3sgyh0rd5dj4w8k95f3mquzh6z3ew76vqkh60e3slyczgz was all cheers, glad they might replace Jack. Meanwhile, nostr:npub160cxmqcwxwf87s30n5qv2xqtdgr3lrszg4eut2k4ck3lzll48hpsqupad5 wasn't as optimistic, throwing out a quick "NGMI" (Not Gonna Make It). 😂

Then nostr:npub10mxnle348mzv2dnj0ylgz3zu9gceenc29x9fr4m6mnars66j7vxsnkn8mj predicted a token launch soon, which is always spicy in the cryptosphere! Finally, nostr:npub1pgwm722vrkfaq8245wgu39c6kn69hrsl53hnmnpqhfn5p2ve2xrqmnks7n shared a little inside scoop about a missed investment opportunity but vouched for Blockchain Cap’s professionalism. 💼

Take a peek at the full convo here.

BlueSky and the Big Money Dilemma 🌐💸

Hey! So, everyone was buzzing about Kinjal and her ambitious, open approach to long-term projects like building a social network. There's this thought that many of the successful Nostr devs have made their cash and built strong ties in Bitcoin or Web 2.0, which sets them up for these long-haul gigs. But Kinjal? Maybe not so much yet. 🤔

npub1r0rs5q2gk0e3dk3nlc7gnu378ec6cnlenqp8a3cjhyzu6f8k5sgs4sq9ac dropped in with a simple, "And how do we feel about that?" which kind of set the tone for a deep dive.

npub1jp5hag5r7rn2nh9v5m2n5jjyyrmgfr89jgpt6hd5n2hjmx3s7thq6hu6ua gave a nod to the crypto tipping scene, saying, "Bluesky is cool, but Nostr and others do better justice for content posters." So if you want that Twitter-like vibe but aren’t into Bitcoin, BlueSky might be your jam.

npub18nagz6a53yh6d05e8trj487dhvyfhh4qchvsz87jqng4g4zl5tvs825evl had some serious questions about how BlueSky handles content moderation, hinting that Nostr's wild, free nature is both its strength and potential headache.

Jumping into the fray, laanwj chimed in about VC money messing with the decentralization dream, and npub16zf05np625wqzz80euvyc2r37y6r2vfwcatj80k4rdjlyqq3sals5e8sln summed it up with a pithy "the great enshittification continues." Classic, right? 😂

Oh, and npub1dskk3wspds53g9larr48cp4hxlkpg0ma2mtclh2y5key3pr9yhkqjvjuc2 kept it light with a popcorn GIF—he's definitely seen this show before.

Finally, npub10dpmrjay77xcu6z2sxsv7h7dfl6puzcxgyd6ssxkwh9th8sdgk3sj39zws suggested a crowd-funding idea for Nostr development: even pitched devs to draft a roadmap. 🚀 npub1njst6azswskk5gp3ns8r6nr8nj0qg65acu8gaa2u9yz7yszjxs9s6k7fqx wrapped it up with, "They're going to love that lol," which sounds like a cheeky way to cap off the convo!

Check out the full convo here.

Why Musk Thinks He'll Be F*cked If...

So there was some juicy chatter about Musk on Nostr recently! It all kicked off with npub1n7pcd890elndxn3s63syf0ypm5jqsk9jng0khufwgnhu33k4xanq2a9qu4 just dropping a "Why?" — which, let's be honest, is the perfect way to dive into Musk drama. Then, npub1xm0rvnpw52nh7tk59ntly55w74rmd2cqvt3kg5zxrzz3rlssvspsk0gs6s threw some shade linking Trump and Musk together. Now, npub170lcuam5uwe6shz5qsdl6uakp73txthpchwrz6sa2eprg4fpzmvshhuy0v felt bad for the people working for Musk, making us all think 🤔. But things got spicy when Spyre decided to vent about jealousy and mediocrity — ouch, right?

And npub1sgx8tkmn2gm4s788tssy5kgx0qjw9q8efda7wmg4afuyx2smdcjq2q7wnj threw in a sarcastic comment about TDS with that classic 😬 emoji, adding some humor to the convo. Meanwhile, npub1mlru0pflddcmdv7xk5nhv7stnr0vugcm5jj64wlwevhqxnpuv96qexgrpv seemed to find it all entertaining, admitting they'd love to see it play out either way!

Then npub1f48mtlc2lwxqfekxuql4z2qmvezhd7v9uk7rfga8accs585zrars56lpgj predicted some consequences for Musk if Trump wins, sparking more predictions. And npub134u08yp6rdcgcamfdcra9aysvhne9wpssft8ntm9qvfu95erxdcqx9qjkm dunked on someone else's takes, not holding back with the critique! Meanwhile, jack just chimed in with agreement, keeping it simple and sassy.

Oh, and just to wrap up, npub1vyrx2prp0mne8pczrcvv38ahn5wahsl8hlceeu3f3aqyvmu8zh5s7kfy55 popped back in with another jab at someone's moneymaking tactics. Classic Internet banter!

Check out the full convo here

---

Dystopian Vibes!

Over in the tech corner, Rabble stirred up some thoughts on how weird it is that websites charge you to download your own uploads. Like, what kind of wild world are we living in, right? 😳

npub1r3g2jscks7ax4zetlz42azu5sptesfnkxzg8mj0ht897p77erd2sykzdkk totally vibed with the outrage, calling out the "cage we all live in." Heavy stuff 🧠. Meanwhile, npub1wyjax4yl0ss550xjjsjz4vhntrn4pj9kkza99lq8s970gkts66wq5kq8se just hit us with a shocked emoji — because sometimes, that's all you need to say. Can't wait to see where this convo goes next!

Check out the full convo here

Subscriptions: Too Many or Just Right? 🤔💸

So, the chat kicked off with jack ranting about all the subscriptions they’re drowning in these days—can you believe it? Apps are charging left and right, and npub1s6z7hmmx2vud66f3utxd70qem8cwtggx0jgc7gh8pqwz2k8cltuqrdwk4c is right there with them, having just ditched their account over it. Then The: Daniel⚡️ jumps in to say they're cool with paying some sats for a one-time deal but are so over monthly charges. 💸

But wait—Rabble, ever the devil's advocate, says these subscriptions are part of a sustainable biz model! They also roasted about Nostr's lack of subscription features and even got into a mini-spat about selling back their own content—talk about throwing shade! ☁️🙃 laanwj tried to bring in a more practical angle with BOLT-12 talk, hinting at potential innovations. Keep an eye on that one! 👀

Check out the full convo here.

Spanish Explainer: Aquí to Allá 📚🌎

Rabble decided to take us on a lil’ Spanish journey, sharing insights on the differences between "aquí" and "allá." Super educational! 🤓👍 Then npub1p3rfw7wscmzfn9z3fa74nzgyqe70p57j8mws0e88dh7awjepmzcq7jgxl9 gave us the scoop from Paraguay, saying the terms are totally interchangeable, especially among South American neighbors. Gotta love those cultural tidbits!

Meanwhile, npub1mwkpvd2snl2tlxtmtgvrj2vr5mwf2nmuynua4a0jmzgtkvwt93rq8pd09j shared their experience from Spain, claiming the pronunciation is basically the same. But then PABLOF7z dropped a hilarious truth bomb: in Buenos Aires, if you use "aquí" or "allí," you might just get charged double! 😂 Classic Argentinian humor.

Check out the full convo here.

Linguistic Lols and Newbie Nostr Troubles

Hey! You've got to check out this fun little back-and-forth over on Nostr. It all started when npub16d8gxt2z4k9e8sdpc0yyqzf5gp0np09ls4lnn630qzxzvwpl0rgq5h4rzv dropped a comment about regional language differences. Obviously, it sparked quite the convo! 😄 npub1p3rfw7wscmzfn9z3fa74nzgyqe70p57j8mws0e88dh7awjepmzcq7jgxl9 threw in a YouTube link with a classic "😂"—you know it’s gonna be funny when they use that emoji! And npub107xyuzq67hf8qxafwr5sprscju20pzxmuhgg6lkkwdwa63qce8xq4zyq7u joined with a “Jajajaj”, because why not, right?

Rabble was joking about how they never say "aquí", but only "acá". Then npub1nccwjspr3nv7h67xx2qhdh2dzzvpyy55gte2dsu8yl7xd7n74y9qydz7mj jumped in with some wisdom on the "acá" vs. "allá" debate, and npub1xrs2z2tqvur2tsg9xq3ye2uy7nmxyjclrwzp3tr9r3g4dnewqx2qtz2hzv summed it up with, "Bro, that is a good demonstration for the usage of these words." Pretty insightful, huh?

Meanwhile, Rabble kicked off another chat about a newcomer getting overwhelmed by Bitcoin enthusiasts. Derek Ross was bummed, saying it’s a loss for Nostr since the newcomer didn’t get how to navigate to what they loved—like music or photography! elsat thinks it's more about BigCo social media's influence than the Bitcoin crowd. Maybe Nostr needs better onboarding advice, ya know?

Lastly, npub1l5sga6xg72phsz5422ykujprejwud075ggrr3z2hwyrfgr7eylqstegx9z wondered which app led to this Bitcoin overwhelm and suggested maybe spicing up those default relays a bit! It ended on a thought from Rabble about how the vibe wasn’t necessarily unfriendly, it’s just the newcomer's mismatch.

Catch up on all the threads and have a chuckle or two! 🤗

Check out the full convo here

Nostr Newbie Vibes and User-Friendly Feels 🛠️✨

So, bro, there was this whole interesting talk going down about how Nostr can sometimes feel like an exclusive club of tech nerds (guilty! 😂) and how we might need to take a beat. Linda was like, "Hey, maybe we need to be more welcoming and not assume everyone’s into Bitcoin, okay?" Preach! 🙌 It's like, just chill and get to know the newbies a bit better, ya know?

The homie npub1fd0t73r8vn3nqezdg93fyj5x5u79zucf3jaspkc2dy9sjuqx5z8qftjal4 chimed in with a shoutout to nostr algorithms. Meanwhile, jack mentioned how Nostr is actually super easy to hop onto, no phone or email drama needed. But hey, maybe a bit of a “setup wizard” wouldn’t hurt, right?

elsat gets it too, backing up that idea with a 💯 emoji and tossing in some future testing thoughts. I mean, who doesn't love a good wizard? 🧙‍♂️

And then there’s another thread with our buddy Rabble stirring the pot about Bluesky and its corporate ties. The reply section was buzzing, I tell ya. 🤔

Check out the full convo here

🎭 The Bluesky Drama and Decentralization Debate

Hey there! So let me tell you about this spicy convo everyone’s buzzing over on Nostr. Our buddy Sebastix kicked things off with a comment about all the chatter on Bluesky – it's like everyone’s talking platform, not protocol! Then BITKARROT swooped in with some truth bombs about VCs wrecking potential greats. Ouch! 😅

Enter npub1jp5hag5r7rn2nh9v5m2n5jjyyrmgfr89jgpt6hd5n2hjmx3s7thq6hu6ua, who took a jab at DeSo’s founder, saying SEC called them out while playing a decentralization charade. It's turning into a showdown! 🚀 Meanwhile, npub17xu3rtcu0ftqw03mswa8a2ngz3nsgrs0h0wjv4z942qwvhp8fs3qzcadls had a wise take – fix the funding, fix the world.

npub1j04j8tgajf6w8c5yh2lp65rl9jqdr6kz70h4f95nvx52r7fxekhsvafxku dropped some history knowledge bombs about the web’s early days and how we swung from non-profit roots to the VC-fueled chaos of today. There's definitely some food for thought there, huh? 🤔

Oh, and we’ve got npub1qqqqqqyz0la2jjl752yv8h7wgs3v098mh9nztd4nr6gynaef6uqqt0n47m throwing in some cryptic vibes with "did:bake:perverse-incentives." The plot thickens!

Sounds like a whirlwind, right? Dive into the full convo here to catch every twist and turn! 🍿

Bluesky Talk: Dreaming of a Permissionless Protocol 🌌

Alright, so over in Nostr land, there's been a pretty heated debate simmering around the whole ATprotocol and Bluesky thing. Our buddy over at npub1zjhuw98f8f2dk2446eg0j4rr827kpje60uljwfe22nyjna6emjxqa646su kicked things off with a deep dive into the nitty-gritty of building open vs. constrained platforms, pointing to Twitter as a cautionary tale! 😮

laanwj hit the nail on the head with, "a certain form of organization inherently can only build a certain kind of thing." Don't get him started on Bluesky’s user base—they're all about that moderation life, apparently. 😂

npub1ytg0nw4mdx3sgtemsvxqx7kymqdlhvaedt2fp0y39j8acd0704hsy5ws69 jumped in with a suggestion that moderation should maybe be on an independent platform? Hmm. 🤔 npub1npm9jsmmgy08fvjlsj8ep50pzpj92k8q5q68d32x3t733e79fd0sg5yfdc agreed, calling out Bluesky’s dual role as a client and data host. Basically, they’re like, "watch out guys, there's a lot of interests stirring the pot here."

And omg, melvincarvalho is all about creating this super open internet—kind of like mixing up the best parts of Nostr, Bluesky, and Solid into one dreamy platform. 🌼 Such a rose-colored vision, right?

Then npub1zkheuq5dhyh9p42x9l6cxlke2t2p4x79y9ylhh4yt07qmnxhcmvsqfqqcm threw in a classic gif and stressed how hard it really is to build a protocol without it turning into some full-on platform instead. Respect to those protocol builders! 🙌

Finally, Rabble mentioned that both user base expectations and funding seem to be huge issues, implying that people might not even want an open protocol at all.

Check out the full convo here

🎉 AI or Nay? What's Old is New Again! 🤔

Hey! So, our buddy Rabble shared an interesting thought about people letting AI take over their decision-making—kinda like saying it's inevitable. I mean, are we ready to become AI-navigated zombies? 😜

npub1wzt7ynrxssfv8gktqhr2czezw9pv3d5yl556yk247pmjw9ucrgsqw8jn3m wasn't having it and called out the “not the sharpest tool in the shed” peeps for being intellectually lazy. Ouch, but fair point!

Then, npub1a6we08n7zsv2na689whc9hykpq4q6sj3kaauk9c2dm8vj0adlajq7w0tyc chimed in with a spicy jab, saying AI might as well be on par with horoscopes and fortune tellers. 😂

npub1hmmjfah37m94fycvyw42y0mrnw96ke73948n03fmfr5gj2fs77xq0juy2s threw in a Darwinian twist, suggesting that maybe AI will separate the smart ones from the rest. Survival of the smartest, huh? 🤓

npub1hjlev3xn736aqr4ecmjxwwzuu9k523kp5fpz9n862s4lwah2h22sm2zg68 was a bit savage, hinting that most people don't think anyway, so… maybe AI will upgrade the human race? 🙈

To wrap it up, npub10jnx6stxk9h4fgtgdqv3hgwx8p4fwe3y73357wykmxm8gz3c3j3sjlvcrd reckons those who rely on AI might become the "midwit" class. Burn! 🔥 And npub1j04j8tgajf6w8c5yh2lp65rl9jqdr6kz70h4f95nvx52r7fxekhsvafxku brought it home with a real-life analogy of stressed-out folks seeking relief—be it AI or other vices. Been there, can relate!

Check out the full convo here

---

🌍 Hola Montevideo, What's Happening Here? 🌐

Rabble greeted Montevideo with a casual "Hola," sparking some travel vibes among the group! ✈️ Maybe they're globe-trotting or just dreaming of it, who knows?

the axiom isn't about to miss a chance to plug nos.social while npub1hem398ca067g8nq8xs2t3sf05gzk09chvu7hfqy5wda7slj6kqcsmkwsrn got skeptical over a mysterious bin file. Malware scare? Nah, just the Nostr world keeping us on our toes! 😅

Meanwhile, Negr0 noticed how close they are to Argentina and dropped a friendly reminder about their whereabouts. It's a small world after all! 🌍

Check out the full convo here

Nostr Adventures and Ramen Cravings

So, Rabble has been quite the globetrotter, hinting at some secret plans about "jumping over the pond," whatever that means! 🌍 Everyone's buzzing about a get-together at "la crypta" with Negr0 planning to join the fun too. 🎉

And there's some tech drama going on—apparently, the new note button in the Nos dev build is kaput, so Rabble had to switch to Primal. But they seem to be handling it like a champ! 😄

Meanwhile, in the ramen department, seems like everyone's drooling over some delicious noodle action! 🍜 Josh Brown and npub1x2jfa9zvrr9hszwhq368lc2dupefnx8mk592tvgyur8rw2mkxvks27ggyl are particularly excited about how tasty it looks. Coconut milk, anyone? npub1uw6lgv5qyexx68fwgdmwt3w7v3dwv679sray2ncpkug70ad7a8gqut3tay must be onto something exotic there!

Oh, and Rabble had everyone chuckling about their "parody map" post. Spyre gave us a laugh about Reddit, claiming it's just a political circus. I mean, who knew some maps could spark such lively debates, right? 🗺️

Check out the full convo here.

Decentralized Dreams and Elon Events 😂

So, our buddy nostr:mmasnick has been stirring things up with his latest essay! He’s coined the term "Elon Musk Events" (love it, right?) for moments that drive folks to experiment with decentralized social platforms. It’s all about finding out what cool new features these protocols can offer that centralized systems can't.

While folks chewed over his thoughts on decentralization and the perks of protocols over platforms, npub1a6we08n7zsv2na689whc9hykpq4q6sj3kaauk9c2dm8vj0adlajq7w0tyc jumped in with a surprisingly sweet (though a bit "cringe" by Nostr standards) thank you for all the epic content. Npub18nagz6a53yh6d05e8trj487dhvyfhh4qchvsz87jqng4g4zl5tvs825evl kept it simple—big thanks for the share!

Meanwhile, npub1r0rs5q2gk0e3dk3nlc7gnu378ec6cnlenqp8a3cjhyzu6f8k5sgs4sq9ac went on a deep dive, comparing the whole Bluesky hype to a Bitcoin vs. Shitcoin scenario—we're talking about some serious decentralization vibes, folks. The takeaway? Nostr should be itself and not worry about competing with old-school platforms. New and interesting use cases are where it's at!

Check out the full convo here

🚀 Buzzing About BlueSky and Nostr 🚀

Hey, so things are getting spicy in the Nostr crew's convo! Our pal laanwj is throwing some serious shade at BlueSky, saying it's basically just Twitter 2.0 and that folks are gonna jump ship just like when the whole Musk thing happened. Drama alert! 😱

Then, npub10wsue32ln2w2a9gsy52ylk359n8ams4zj7932j4knvxlk2p84vmq5y3hd3 is vibing on the Reddit angle, talking about how engaging it can be—if only it wasn't so censored. They’re dreaming of a Nostr version that mixes Reddit's community vibes with its unique spin on social interaction. Sounds like an app world we wouldn’t mind visiting! 🤔

---

🌐 Nos.today Confusion Casualty 🌐

Oh man, Rabble is clarifying some misunderstandings about Nos.today—turns out it's not linked to nos.social at all. Npub1gcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqlfnj5z kinda owned up to the confusion, admitting the domain is a bit of a head-scratcher. 🤷‍♂️

Npub1q7qyk7rvdga5qzmmyrvmlj29qd0n45snmfuhkrzsj4rk0sm4c4psvqwt9c chimed in with a sweet "no worries" and shared that the whole thing's a fun hobby project. They're wondering if they need a new name or if things are getting mixed up with nos.lol. Maybe it’s time for a brainstorm party to find the perfect name? 🤔🧠

Check out the full convo here

SDK Dreams and Library Love

Looks like everyone's buzzing about Nostr SDKs for Android! 📱 npub1w4uswmv6lu9yel005l3qgheysmr7tk9uvwluddznju3nuxalevvs2d0jr5 is all about using amethyst libraries, with a nod to some cool rust options. hugo drops Nostrino into the mix, which got some thumbs up from tyiu. But Rabble throws a bit of shade on the project’s recent progress. laanwj just shrugs it off with a classic "many such cases" moment. 😂

Check out the full convo here

---

Hometown Anthems & Country Roads

Rabble is feeling all the hometown love with a song that nails the Humboldt vibe. 🎶 npub1flj222ym4truxx6y4qvp6lsgkxmr8mutv7rr8qmmns4fq0lkhurq9eagfz shares a northern Alberta tune—seems like these peeps have a soundtrack for every place! npub1ryemg5z53pes6el7gwy8rwvzsycg56sxr0twjceszhu296hyh55qryc2xh reminisces about a smooth country song penned by their dad, dreaming of coastlines and sunshine. Talk about family retro vibes! 😎

Check out the full convo here

---

Nostr Booth Buzz at #LaBitConf

The #nostrbooth is ready to roll at #labitconf thanks to Rabble. Excitement is in the air with Nostr talks and a full Nostr day coming up! npub18lmyh47aua400qaf230zlv7wsnvjr0nv3sz08hrvf7nnfnm7hqfq9599uz can't get enough of the booth vibes, giving it a big cheer. 🙌 Sebastix is feeling the Nostr love too, while OpenMike is desperately trying to dodge the FOMO bug by asking if it'll be streamed. 🤔

Check out the full convo here

Lost Stream Shenanigans 🤔

Looks like Rabble is on the hunt for a stream but came up empty! They were scouring the web for talks but it seems like it might be a waiting game since these recordings take ages to pop up online—based on last year's experience. 🕵️‍♂️ Maybe it's time to catch up on other stuff while waiting for the uploads?

Check out the full convo here

@ 59df1288:92e1744f

Pull up a chair, folks, because we're diving into a little feel-good moment on nos.social that proves community spirit is alive and kicking! In a world where everyone’s sharing selfies, our buddy Rabble threw a virtual high-five to OpenSats for their relentless support of the Nostr ecosystem. While the conversation is still awaiting some juicy replies, it's the kind of positivity upgrade we can all benefit from—as if life just got a software update that actually fixed bugs instead of introducing new ones. Grab your reading glasses or your third cup of coffee (no judgment), and get ready to see the support sparks fly!

A Little Support Goes a Long Way!

So, our good friend Rabble has been spreading the love a bit, giving a shoutout to OpenSats for continuously supporting the Nostr ecosystem! 🎉 It's always awesome to see members of the crew lifting each other up, right? Not much banter this time around since nobody replied (as of yet!), but who doesn't love a good support post to keep the good vibes going?

Check out the full convo here.

@ 361d3e1e:50bc10a8

https://forex-strategy.com/2024/11/04/the-depopulation-plan-includes-350000-per-day/ The depopulation plan includes 350,000 per day The whole world united through the United Nations to solve a global problem

wef #unitednations #unesco #agenda2030 #politics #usa

@ b83e6f82:73c27758

Citrine 0.5.5

• Only store 1 replaceable event
• Temporally remove the restore contacts feature

Download it with zap.store, Obtainium, f-droid or download it directly in the releases page

If you like my work consider making a donation

Verifying the release

In order to verify the release, you'll need to have gpg or gpg2 installed on your system. Once you've obtained a copy (and hopefully verified that as well), you'll first need to import the keys that have signed this release if you haven't done so already:

bash gpg --keyserver hkps://keys.openpgp.org --recv-keys 44F0AAEB77F373747E3D5444885822EED3A26A6D

Once you have his PGP key you can verify the release (assuming manifest-v0.5.5.txt and manifest-v0.5.5.txt.sig are in the current directory) with:

bash gpg --verify manifest-v0.5.5.txt.sig manifest-v0.5.5.txt

You should see the following if the verification was successful:

bash gpg: Signature made Fri 13 Sep 2024 08:06:52 AM -03 gpg: using RSA key 44F0AAEB77F373747E3D5444885822EED3A26A6D gpg: Good signature from "greenart7c3 <greenart7c3@proton.me>"

That will verify the signature on the main manifest page which ensures integrity and authenticity of the binaries you've downloaded locally. Next, depending on your operating system you should then re-calculate the sha256 sum of the binary, and compare that with the following hashes:

bash cat manifest-v0.5.5.txt

One can use the shasum -a 256 <file name here> tool in order to re-compute the sha256 hash of the target binary for your operating system. The produced hash should be compared with the hashes listed above and they should match exactly.

@ 429733ab:65e0ea03

Access top-tier CELPIP test preparation material with Prof Prep. Our extensive library of resources includes practice tests, study guides, and sample questions, all designed to mirror the actual CELPIP exam. Whether you’re focusing on listening, reading, writing, or speaking, our materials provide the thorough preparation you need to excel. With Prof Prep, you’ll have the tools and knowledge to confidently approach your CELPIP test and reach your goals.

@ 6ad3e2a3:c90b7740

Week 9 had some redeeming value, and it’ll have more if the Bucs cover the spread tonight against the Chiefs, in which case I’ll win a double-week in my home pool.

As it stands I went 4-1 ATS to kick of Q3 in Circa Millions, and I was so close to being 5-0 but Danny Dimes, the great Danny Dimes, failed on two two-point conversions, during one of which he took a sack! How do you take a sack on a two-point conversion? Get rid of the goddamn ball! Just throw it up for grabs FFS! How does he not get rid of the ball?

The Giants also got cheated out of a TD on a very ticky-tack offensive PI and had to settle for a FG. Basically, I went 4-1 the right way — four wins on no-doubters and a loss on a very close one. This is in contrast to earlier in the year where I’d go 2-3, winning the two barely and being on the wrong side of three blowouts. (The no-doubters were CIN, LAC, BAL and ARZ.)

Seslowsky and I also won easily in Survivor with the Ravens, while some people got bounced with the Saints. More would have lost with the Eagles, but Trevor Lawrence (who is in the Tannehill/Dimes lineage) threw an egregious, game-sealing pick on first down! for no reason. There are still a couple hundred people alive, and the pool is only about $70K, so it’s not really exciting yet.

My Primetime team did well with Harrison Butker pending, and that was despite having Jeremy McNichols at flex as a last-second sub for Brian Robinson. Apparently, the guy can take a bullet, but can’t make it through pre-game warmups with a hamstring injury. (The Primetime got off to a good start Thursday night and had JK Dobbins, Jahmyr Gibbs and Jaxon Smith-Njigba yesterday.) One of my two BCLs did well too, though the attrition with the wideouts is taking a toll with Stefon Diggs gone and Drake London getting hurt too.

The only really bad performance was my first-place Steak League team that had Chris Olave, McNichols in for Robinson and Isaiah Unlikely at TE. That team is now on the ropes after losing Diggs, and now CeeDee Lamb is hurt and so is his QB.

• It’s bizarre that old, high-workload running backs like Derrick Henry, Saquon Barkley, James Conner and Alvin Kamara have held up just fine while supposedly safer receivers like A.J. Brown, Diggs, Puka Nacua, Cooper Kupp, London, Olave, Rashee Rice, Brandon Aiyuk, Nico Collins, Davante Adams, Tyreek Hill, Jaylen Waddle, Devonta Smith, D.K. Metcalf, Chris Godwin, Mike Evans and Malik Nabers have all missed or are likely to miss time. You’re really ahead of the game if you drafted Ja’Marr Chase or Justin Jefferson.

• Danny Dimes played well except the disastrous two-point tries. Why are they snapping to him in shotgun when they only need to gain two yards? Why turn a two-yard try into a seven-yard one? I saw the Broncos do this on 4th-and-1 too, which is even worse.

• The Giants didn’t throw to Nabers the entire first half for God knows what reason. Brian Daboll is just an odd coach.

• The Giants defense was so frustrating, giving up a scoring drive first by surrending a 3rd-and-18 and later allowing an 18-yard TD pass to Terry McLaurin 1-on-1 when the Indigenous Peoples had no timeouts and only 11 seconds left in the half. I mean if there’s one guy to cover in that situation on that team it’s him.

• It was pretty annoying seeing Chris Rodriguez in the game subbing for Austin Ekeler and getting goal line work when I had started McNichols in two places for Robinson.

• The Cowboys are toast, obviously. Losing Micah Parsons and having no running backs or receiver depth with Mike McCarthy as a coach was too much. Now Dak Prescott is hurt, and Lamb is banged up too.

• At least London had the decency to score a TD before getting hurt. He’s no Chris Olave who has done it twice now. That kind of thing just kills your season.

• Bijan Robinson was back to his RB1 usage, though I was happy to see Tyler Allgeier get the TD.

• I started Jaylen Waddle over Ladd McConkey in a league and was aghast until Waddle’s late TD. Unfortunately he gave back all his yardage on a desperation, last-second failed lateral play. Waddle and Tyreek Hill combined for only seven targets. I get using Jonnu Smith and De’Von Achane in the passing game, but you can’t neglect your stars.

• Achane is a monster fantasy player when healthy and with Tua back.

• I was high on Dalton Kincaid this year, but maybe he’s just a guy.

• The Brock Bowers garbage time TD was nice, but I sat Mike Gesicki for Jonnu Smith in my dynasty league, and that hurts.

• The Bengals need to get the ball to Chase more than two yards down the field.

• The Raiders are a ridiculous team.

• I laid the wood with the Chargers because I figured this Jameis Winston would show up against a decent defense. Cedric Tillman seems to be for real though, and he saw another 11 targets.

• Dobbins was rough going until a couple big plays late.

• Quentin Johnston comes out of nowhere every so often, but you can’t use him. McConkey is still the WR1 there.

• The last second Drake Maye play to send the game to overtime was amazing. He held on forever before chucking it up for grabs for the Rhamondre Stevenson TD. Dimes would 100 percent have taken the sack there.

• Kamara saw 29 carries and nine targets, got 215 yards from scrimmage. Even Christian McCaffrey is jealous of that workload.

• Without Olave, the two leading receivers were Kamara and Taysom Hill, who were also the leading rushers. Olave got his second concussion in a few weeks, so he could be in Tua territory too.

• Jonathon Brooks comes back next week, but he probably won’t supplant Chuba Hubbard right away as Hubbard is pretty good.

• Lamar Jackson had a perfect QB rating, just makes it look easy. Derrick Henry too.

• I can’t decide if Bo Nix has a future or not. He made a nice TD *catch* while covered though.

• The Eagles were blowing out the Jaguars, and then after a fumble-return TD, out of nowhere, it was a game. The Jaguars could have won too but for Lawrence’s unbelievably senseless pick on first down with plenty of time left. If you’re not gonna cover, just do the right thing and lose.

• DeVonta Smith was quiet most of the game but made one of the sickest one-handed catches of all time at the very back of the end zone for a necessary TD, it turned out. If Brown misses time with a knee injury, Smith *should* see more work, though game flow Sunday resulted in only six targets. Dallas Goedert might be out for longer too.

• With Brian Thomas not 100 percent, the backs splitting carries and Lawrence vulturing at the goal line, it’s hard to use any Jaguars besides Evan Engram.

• The Cardinals ran roughshod over the Bears from start to finish.

• Jordan Love didn’t seem healthy, but Jayden Reed finally did.

• Jared Goff didn’t have to do much for the second straight game. The Lions are a juggernaut behind that offensive line.

• JSN was having a quiet day, and then suddenly with the last play of the first half, Geno Smith decides to target him for a TD. And then he went crazy in the fourth quarter too. The sporadic use of top receivers is so odd to me. It’s like they finally decide to stop throwing to the third-string tight end, it works, and then it hits them they can throw to JSN every play. In fact, it’s why we took him in the first round last year even! Who knew?

• Smith also took seven sacks. The Seahawks are one of the worst pass-protecting teams in the league.

• Puka Nacua got ejected for throwing a punch, and I thought Cooper Kupp would get 20 catches after that. But DeMarcus Robinson, who caught another two TDs, including the game winner in overtime, has a real role and is clearly the team’s No. 3 now.

• The Sunday night game went almost perfectly. I had the Vikings defense (that last second PI that negated a pick and gave Indy the field goal was unfortunate), was going against Joe Flacco and two of his receivers and had the Vikings ATS. I also had Darnold who redeemed ever-so-slightly my destroyed Steak League team.

• Keep an eye on Cam Akers — he looked good and seems like the No. 2 now.

• The Colts have to turn back to Anthony Richardson, make the one-game benching his sole punishment. I saw he was dropped in a couple of my leagues, and I will put in bids for him.

@ 361d3e1e:50bc10a8

https://forex-strategy.com/2024/11/04/3-teenagers-fall-and-die-while-playing-sports/ 3 teenagers fall and die while playing sports

What do they have in common and their identical deaths?

What do they have in common and their identical deaths?

usa #sport #vaccine #mRNA #sideeffects #Tennessee

@ 6e24af77:b3f1350b

test 3

@ 8cd9d25d:69e9894d

Baking notes

Recipe adapted from Youtube Video by The Cool Kitchen - https://www.youtube.com/@TheCoolKitchen

Note that youtube recipe is asking for 1tablespoon of salt, which is waaaaaay too much. Recipe works fine with a teaspoon,, but your mileage may vary. Play around with it.

You don't need to proove modern packet yeasts in my experience... just yolo it.

If you want an extra crispy crust, add a second baking pan to the base of the oven as you pre-heat. Then once you've placed the dough in, to the oven, take some boiling water and pour into the second baking tray. This gives you a steam oven on a budget :)

Details ⏲️ Prep time: 15mins (not including time for dough rises) 🍳 Cook time: 30mins 🍽️ Servings: 5

Ingredients

• 500 grams wholemeal spelt flour • 1 packet baker's yeast (10grams) • 350 ml lukewarm water • 1 tablespoon honey • 1 teaspoon salt 🧂

Directions • Preheat your oven to Preheat oven to 430°F and put a baking tray in at the same time to heat up.

• Add all ingredients to a bowl (best to use a stand mixer to save time, but you can do by hand too. Mix and knead until the dough comes together. After about 5 mins you should have a moist dough that doesn't stick to your hands... if it is a bit sticky, just add a bit more flour (different flours like differenent amounts of water)... If too dry, add a bit more water... etc.

• Remove dough from bowl & form into a ball (smooth on top, never mind if not perfectly smooth on its base). Put back in a bowl and cover with a damp cloth. Allow to rest for 30mins/1hr until dough has roughly doubled in size. Time will depend on the ambient temp where you are. In the tropics, 30mins is just fine.

• Take risen dough out of bowl and put on a floured surface and press the gas out of it... flatten the dough with your hands, and then fold each edge in until you have a rectangle (video makes this bit clear). Then roll the rectangle up into a cylinder. This gives you a nice tight dough for baking. Pinch the ends of the cylinder to seal the dough.

• Place dough onto a baking sheet/ piece of parchment paper etc... cover with damp towlel and let rise for 15/30mins

• Score the risen dough (a razer blade, clean box cutter, or serrated knife works well) , this lets steam escape from the loaf as it bakes without slpititng it in ways you wouldn't like.

• Take your hot baking tray out of the over and transfer your dough onto it. Pop into oven.

• Bake at 430°F (220°C) for 15mins, then reduce oven temp to 350°F (180°C) for the final 15mins. Total bake time 30mins.

• Remove from oven and allow to cool for 20-30mins

Enjoy :)

@ c5fede3d:16e03f7b

El pueblo español dice basta y avisa al Régimen del 78 que no aguantará más humillaciones. El Rey, el Presidente y el Reyezuelo de Valencia escaparon de una turba que los recibió bajo un manto de palos y piedras. ¿Ha despertado la ciudadanía contra la tiranía del 78? ¿Estamos ante el inicio de una Revolución en España? No parece ser el caso, pero sí es de celebrar que aumente el número de españoles deseosos de rendir cuentas por los destrozos ocasionados por los estamentos del poder. Sólo cabe esperar a que la rosa se marchite.

La reacción popular fue variopinta, desde personas que invitaban amablemente a las autoridades a que dieran media vuelta, hasta aquellos que les obsequiaron con ráfagas de lodo para cuidar el cutis y paloterapia para corregir la espalda. Entre tanto, la vomitiva real, acompañada de una decena de coches policiales, daba un paseo entre los escombros y los gritos de socorro de los afectados. Quién pensase que sus majestades iban a agarrar una pala para realizar labores de ayuda, debería dejar el consumo de estupefacientes. El que creyese que el narcisista de la rosa iba a ensuciarse su traje es que es un iluso. Respecto del Reyezuelo con los manguitos de la piscina, mejor ni comentarlo. Al final, huyeron como cobardes en sus coches oficiales y el pueblo siguió ensuciándose para salvar, precisamente, al propio pueblo.

Fue una humillación para los aduladores del Régimen del 78, al cual se le airean las grietas, pero aún queda un largo recorrido. Los palos y las piedras representan un berrinche popular, y nada más. La necesaria regeneración de nuestro país requiere el reclutamiento de los más capaces, de una alta habilidad organizativa y de un compromiso férreo sin precedentes. El toque de atención está dado, el descrédito está latente. Es hora de aprovecharlo.

La partida está en movimiento y quienes habitan en las cloacas del Estado lo saben. Las reglas del juego son peculiares, pues en este tablero de ajedrez el Rey hace de peón y los peones son los que se esconden. Estos, preocupados por la deriva que pueda tomar la reacción popular, han decidido activar el protocolo antiincendios. Ahora, todos los males recaen en la desinformación y los descontentos son etiquetados de ultra derechista. A continuación el nuevo dogma

«La riada fue por el cambio climático, la destrucción culpa de los negacionistas y ayer en la visita de los reyes y las autoridades estaba todo lleno de nazis»

Ese es el relato del Régimen. Así venden la narrativa, pero no se despisten. Han hablado los culpables que, por su mala praxis política, murieron cientos de nosotros. Ahora, toca que hablen ustedes.

@ 526e9d4c:2ecfb055

Chef's notes

最好的是用慢炖锅炖一个晚上. Best if cooked in a slow cooker overnight.

Details

• ⏲️ Prep time: 10 minutes
• 🍳 Cook time: 8 hours

Ingredients

• 金耳一块 // 1 piece of golden tremella
• 银耳2片 // 2 pieces of silver ear fungus
• 红枣10颗 // 10 red dates
• 枸杞7-8粒 // 7-8 goji berries
• 桃胶20颗 // 20 peach gum pieces
• 黄冰糖3块 // 3 blocks of yellow rock sugar

Directions

1. 把银耳和桃胶用水清洗并用水泡发20分钟。 Wash the silver ear fungus and peach gum with water and soak them for 20 minutes.
2. 水煮沸放入3块冰糖，溶解后把银耳和红枣倒入沸水中。 Bring the water to a boil and add 3 blocks of rock sugar. After it dissolves, add the silver ear fungus and red dates to the boiling water.
3. 5分钟后加入金耳和桃胶煮30-40分钟（中途可加水稀释。 After 5 minutes, add the golden tremella and peach gum, and cook for 30-40 minutes (you can add water to dilute if needed)
4. 煮开后，放5分钟即可使用，如果觉得不是很甜，可以再放一点冰糖（根绝个人口味） After boiling, let it sit for 5 minutes before serving. If you find it's not sweet enough, you can add a bit more rock sugar (according to personal taste)

@ 526e9d4c:2ecfb055

Ingredients

• 金耳一块 // 1 piece of golden tremella
• 银耳2片 // 2 pieces of silver ear fungus
• 红枣10颗 // 10 red dates
• 枸杞7-8粒 // 7-8 goji berries
• 桃胶20颗 // 20 peach gum pieces
• 黄冰糖3块 // 3 blocks of yellow rock sugar

Directions

1. 煮开后，放5分钟即可使用，如果觉得不是很甜，可以再放一点冰糖（根绝个人口味）

@ a012dc82:6458a70d

Table Of Content

• Bitcoin's Epic Comeback

• The Rise of Institutional Adoption

• Market Demand and Scarcity

• Geopolitical Uncertainty and Financial Turmoil

• Technological Advancements and Innovation

• Regulatory Developments and Acceptance

• Investor Sentiment and Speculation

• Conclusion

• FAQ

The world of cryptocurrency is an ever-evolving landscape, and Bitcoin has been at the forefront since its inception. After a period of volatility and uncertainty, Bitcoin is making waves with its epic comeback, leaving many wondering if it will soar to new heights. In this article, we will delve into the reasons behind Bitcoin's resurgence, the factors fueling its success, and the potential implications for the future. Join us on this exciting journey as we explore Bitcoin's epic comeback and speculate on whether it will indeed reach new heights.

Bitcoin's Epic Comeback

The recent resurgence of Bitcoin has caught the attention of investors and enthusiasts worldwide. After experiencing significant price fluctuations and skepticism, Bitcoin has proven its resilience and potential for growth. The question on everyone's mind is, will Bitcoin soar to new heights? Let's dive deeper into the factors contributing to Bitcoin's epic comeback and analyze its prospects for the future.

The Rise of Institutional Adoption

One of the key drivers behind Bitcoin's recent resurgence is the increasing institutional adoption of the cryptocurrency. Major financial institutions and corporations are recognizing the value and potential of Bitcoin as a store of value and investment asset. Companies like Tesla, MicroStrategy, and Square have made significant investments in Bitcoin, bringing mainstream attention to the cryptocurrency. This institutional endorsement not only boosts Bitcoin's credibility but also attracts more investors, leading to a surge in demand and price.

Market Demand and Scarcity

Bitcoin's limited supply and growing demand have played a significant role in its epic comeback. With a maximum supply capped at 21 million coins, Bitcoin's scarcity has made it an attractive investment option for those seeking to hedge against inflation and diversify their portfolios. As more individuals and institutions enter the cryptocurrency space, the demand for Bitcoin continues to rise, driving up its price. This positive feedback loop of demand and scarcity has propelled Bitcoin's epic comeback and may contribute to its future growth.

Geopolitical Uncertainty and Financial Turmoil

Bitcoin has often been touted as a hedge against geopolitical uncertainty and financial turmoil. In times of economic instability, investors seek alternative assets that are not tied to traditional markets. Bitcoin, with its decentralized nature and independent valuation, offers a potential safe haven for investors looking to protect their wealth. The global COVID-19 pandemic, political tensions, and monetary policy fluctuations have created an environment conducive to Bitcoin's growth. As uncertainty persists, Bitcoin's epic comeback might continue to soar to new heights.

Technological Advancements and Innovation

The underlying technology behind Bitcoin, known as blockchain, has also contributed to its epic comeback. Blockchain technology has revolutionized the way transactions are conducted, providing transparency, security, and decentralization. As more industries embrace blockchain technology and its potential applications, Bitcoin's value proposition becomes even more significant. Additionally, advancements in cryptocurrency wallets, exchanges, and user-friendly interfaces have made it easier for individuals to invest in Bitcoin, further driving its adoption.

Regulatory Developments and Acceptance

Regulatory clarity and acceptance by governments and financial institutions are crucial factors that can propel Bitcoin to new heights. In recent years, several countries have taken steps to regulate and legitimize cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin. For example, El Salvador became the first country to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender, signaling a significant milestone for the cryptocurrency. As more countries establish favorable regulatory frameworks and institutional support, Bitcoin's epic comeback may gain further momentum.

Investor Sentiment and Speculation

Investor sentiment and speculation have always played a role in the cryptocurrency market, and Bitcoin is no exception. The psychological aspects of fear and greed can significantly impact Bitcoin's price trajectory. When positive sentiment dominates the market, investors are more likely to buy, leading to a surge in price. Conversely, negative sentiment can trigger sell-offs and price declines. The unpredictability of investor behavior makes it challenging to predict the exact path of Bitcoin's comeback, but it is undoubtedly influenced by the prevailing sentiment and speculation.

Conclusion

Bitcoin's epic comeback has captivated the attention of investors and cryptocurrency enthusiasts alike. With factors such as institutional adoption, market demand, geopolitical uncertainty, technological advancements, and regulatory developments all contributing to its resurgence, Bitcoin's future seems promising. However, it's important to approach Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency market with caution, as volatility and risks still exist. As Bitcoin continues its journey, only time will tell whether it will soar to new heights or face new challenges. Nevertheless, the resilience and innovation behind Bitcoin have undoubtedly reshaped the financial landscape and sparked a new era of digital currency.

FAQ

What caused Bitcoin's recent resurgence? Bitcoin's recent resurgence can be attributed to various factors, including institutional adoption, market demand, geopolitical uncertainty, technological advancements, and regulatory developments. The convergence of these factors has created a favorable environment for Bitcoin's comeback.

Will Bitcoin continue to rise in value? While it's impossible to predict the future with certainty, the fundamentals supporting Bitcoin's growth remain strong. The increasing institutional adoption, limited supply, and growing demand suggest that Bitcoin may continue to rise in value.

Can Bitcoin replace traditional currencies? While Bitcoin has gained significant traction as a decentralized digital currency, it is unlikely to replace traditional currencies in the near future. The infrastructure and regulatory challenges associated with widespread adoption pose significant hurdles. However, Bitcoin's role as a store of value and investment asset may continue to grow, complementing existing financial systems.

That's all for today

If you want more, be sure to follow us on:

NOSTR: croxroad@getalby.com

X: @croxroadnews

Instagram: @croxroadnews.co

Youtube: @croxroadnews

Store: https://croxroad.store

Subscribe to CROX ROAD Bitcoin Only Daily Newsletter

https://www.croxroad.co/subscribe

DISCLAIMER: None of this is financial advice. This newsletter is strictly educational and is not investment advice or a solicitation to buy or sell any assets or to make any financial decisions. Please be careful and do your own research.

@ c5395d20:25baac60

When Last We Left Our Heros

The party made friends with a cyclops named Alekos (who can only count to six). They asked him many questions about the numbers of things to which he answered "probably about six, maybe." They met Hox Longfeather, and his main crew. Hox is open to allying with them against Zal Esarus, but needs them to prove themselves (less to him and more to his underlings).

Hatching A Plan

Hox wants to fly. To that end he's going to ask the party to retrieve a Wyvern's egg(s) from a nearby clutch. He's also sending Quesh and Krebz to collect more eggs. That way he gets a powerful tool (skyborne goblin light cavalry) and the party can prove themselves worthy.

Once they find the entrance of the Wyvern's lair, if they wait an hour or so, they'll see one of the parents leave which will give them a better chance, otherwise there will be both in the lair, which would be a bad encounter.

As they get back, the party will find the camp attacked by bounty hunters, if they help the goblins, it will ingratiate themselves even more to the goblins.

Assuming their success, there will be a feast and ritual where one of them (their "chief") will become Hox's brother/sister and a goblin under their customs.

@ 5469030c:61ca3e1e

Chef's notes

Make sure to prep your ingredients, before boiling the pasta.

A little Tajín seasoning per serving is also great for some extra flavor. 🌶

Details

• ⏲️ Prep time: 21
• 🍳 Cook time: 21
• 🍽️ Servings: 5

Ingredients

• • 12oz Tricolor Penne Pasta ❤️💛💚
• • 3 cups rotisserie chicken, shredded🍗
• • 4 cups chopped celery🥬
• • 1/2 cup chopped red bell pepper 🌶
• • 1/2 cup chopped green bell pepper 🫑
• • 6 slices turkey bacon, cooked and crumbled. 🦃
• • 4 tbsp avocado mayo 🥑
• • 3 tablespoons olive oil 🫒
• Sea salt & Black Pepper to taste. 🧂

Directions

1. • Add 9 cups of water to a medium to large pot to boil for 15 mins over medium high heat
2. Preheat oven to 375°F (190°C) then add turkey bacon on lightly coated baking sheet with a little olive oil to prevent the bacon from sticking. Bake for 15 mins.
3. • In a large bowl, combine the pasta shredded chicken, chopped celery, red and green peppers, crumbled turkey bacon, and avocado mayo.
4. • Drizzle 3 table spoons olive oil and stir.
5. • Chill in the refrigerator for at least 30 minutes before serving

@ 5469030c:61ca3e1e

Chef's notes

Make sure to prep your ingredients, before boiling the pasta.

A little Tajín seasoning per serving is also great for some extra flavor. 🌶

Details

• ⏲️ Prep time: 21
• 🍳 Cook time: 21
• 🍽️ Servings: 5

Ingredients

• • 12oz Tricolor Penne Pasta ❤️💛💚
• • 3 cups rotisserie chicken, shredded🍗
• • 4 cups chopped celery🥬
• • 1/2 cup chopped red bell pepper 🌶
• • 1/2 cup chopped green bell pepper 🫑
• • 6 slices turkey bacon, cooked and crumbled. 🦃
• • 4 tbsp avocado mayo 🥑
• • 3 tablespoons olive oil 🫒
• Sea salt & Black Pepper to taste. 🧂

Directions

1. • Add 9 cups of water to a medium to large pot to boil for 15 mins over medium high heat
2. Preheat oven to 375°F (190°C) then add turkey bacon on lightly coated baking sheet with a little olive oil to prevent the bacon from sticking. Bake for 15 mins.
3. • In a large bowl, combine the pasta shredded chicken, chopped celery, red and green peppers, crumbled turkey bacon, and avocado mayo.
4. • Drizzle 3 table spoons olive oil and stir.
5. • Chill in the refrigerator for at least 30 minutes before serving

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

All memed out

It finally happened. I think it was October 25th, at circa 18:45 in the evening. I was doomscrolling my Nostr feed, and kept seeing the same Bitcoin memes repeated over and over, by different people. They weren't even reposts, they were copy-pasted versions of the same image. A very funny image. Well, it was very funny last year... and the year before that... and probably the year before that, when it appeared on a different network.

Because it's all just reposts, copy-pastes and rehashes of the Best of Bitcoin Twitter, just like the tiresome influencers, with their groupies and their Episode 498 of Let's all eat a large chunk of lightly-burnt dead animal and count our stacks before jetting off to talk about how to save the poors by getting them to buy individual satoshis with money they don't have.

I'm the poors your looking for

It's all so tiresome. It has little bearing on the real world I see around me, where most people are thinking all day about 99 problems and Bitcoin ain't one.

Which is, of course, what the Bitcoin influencers would have you believe, is the reason that they're poor. What in the world could be more important, than thinking about Bitcoin? Why do these people not get with the program? Don't they know, that we are trying to save them?

Why are they worrying about OtherProblems? Don't they know that all OtherProblems can be fixed with Bitcoin? Really, if you just go back far enough, in any current, situational problem, you will discover that there was some slight, negative shift to the history record that involved soft money. It's the financial version of the Butterfly Effect.

That's why #BitcoinFixesThis. Bitcoin fixes everything, if you just think about it, for long enough.

The same way that we all actually come out of Africa, supposedly, if you go back enough generations. So, coming out of Africa, now, as a Real Life Person in The Present is supposed to have no significance. What does someone from Cameroon know about Africa, that someone from Alaska doesn't? Both people come out of Africa, if you just think about it, for long enough.

And maybe that really is true. Maybe Bitcoin will eventually end all vice and crimes, save the planet, and we will all just hold hands and sing kumbaya all day, while waiting for the Singularity to upload us to Satoshi.

Bitcoin envelope budgeting

Or maybe it's not. Maybe it's just a really hard, digital money that incentivizes savings, functions as a reliable measure, and makes micropayments possible on a global scale. Those really are things that will help the poors, including myself. I can see it, already, when trying to organize pre-paid meetups or figure out what to do with our household's meager savings, when the stock market is looking particularly bubblicious.

But this is what I would consider Boring Bitcoin. Bitcoin home economics. Penny-pinching Bitcoin. Bitcoin for homemakers. How to use the Bitcoin envelope budgeting system to beat inflation by a margin of 13%.

The actual use of Bitcoin as money, rather than as a mere investment gamble or hype machine. That's the part of Bitcoin that nobody seems to really talk about because it's incredibly practical, dull, and useful, and it can only be tested by -- Oh, the horror! -- actually spending Bitcoin.

But... perhaps I will begin talking about it. Perhaps those of us, Bitcoiners, who are having fun staying poor, while stacking sats, should speak up a bit more. Perhaps the boring stuff is actually the interesting stuff. Perhaps there is more to say about Bitcoin, than can fit into a meme.

@ 468f729d:5ab4fd5e

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smzuwLQfl_Q

@ 361d3e1e:50bc10a8

https://forex-strategy.com/2024/11/03/the-amazon-river-has-begun-to-dry-up-water-problems-are-escalating/ The Amazon River has begun to dry up, water problems are escalating

climate #climatechange #water #crisis #amazon #amazonriver #brazil

@ bf7973ed:841ad12a

I've been procrastinating too much the last few weeks, so I'm starting off this week with catching up on homework.

Creating good habits can take some time because it's so easy to create bad habits. So, I'm replacing a bad habit with a good one. I woke up and turned on the TV (bad habit), I knew I had work to catch up on.

I turned the TV off and started on some homework instead (good habit). So from now on, I'll be turning on my computer instead of the TV when I have nothing to do.

(I'm even using the Obsidian plugin to prevent distractions)

@ 2cb8ae56:84d30cba

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

@ 8d34bd24:414be32b

I was recently having a friendly discussion about end-times eschatology. I believe the Bible communicates a pre-tribulation rapture of believers before an actual 7 year tribulation followed by a literal thousand year reign of Jesus on Earth before Armageddon and the Great White Throne Judgement. My friend said he thought the rapture had happened around 70 AD. I had never heard anyone make that argument, so I asked for scriptural evidence. He gave me these three verses:

“Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28)

And Jesus was saying to them, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.” (Mark 9:1)

But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:27)

These three verses do sound like some of those standing before Jesus will be raptured, although the words are “see the kingdom of God.”

I always seek to know what I believe and why I believe it and to make sure that I am not misled about anything regarding the Bible, so I stopped and thought and listened. I know that most of the Bible strongly suggests that the rapture happens immediately before the tribulation, but these verses seem to contradict that conclusion. God gave me the following passage of a discussion between Peter and Jesus right after Jesus told Peter how he would die:

Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?” (John 21:20-23) {emphasis mine}

Jesus’s statements made His disciples think that the Apostle John would live until Jesus returned, but that wasn’t what Jesus was communicating. I think this misunderstanding is similar to the one in the three verses above. John did live longer than any of His other disciples. Near the end of John’s life, after all of the other disciples had passed away, Jesus brought him to heaven in the spirit:

I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, saying, “Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.”

Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters. In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength. (Revelation 1:9-16) {emphasis mine}

In this vision, before John’s death, he saw “the kingdom of God” in heaven. This alone would fulfill Jesus’s statement, but there is more.

Then slightly later in Revelation:

After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things.” Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne was standing in heaven, and One sitting on the throne. (Revelation 4:1-2)

In this passage, John is called up to heaven to see “what must take place after these things.” What does John see about what is to come? He “see[s] the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”(Matthew 16:28b)

John was listening to Jesus’s promise that “there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.” (Mark 9:1) In his old age, he was temporarily called to heaven to see the “the kingdom of God” and “the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” John did see the things that Jesus promised before he “tasted death.” It wasn’t that Jesus came back or raptured the church before John died. It was that Jesus brought John into heaven in the spirit to see what would later come to be. Jesus then returned John back to earth to live out what remained of his life.

When I asked my husband to review my post, he made another explanation of the original three verses. I’ll use Matthew for this explanation.

28 “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28)

The very next verses are these:

Six days later Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up on a high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!” (Matthew 17:1-5)

The transfiguration was the initiation of Jesus reign and Peter, James, and John were able to see Jesus in His glorified form. Since this happened 6 days later, it stands out as a fulfillment. You could argue that both my idea and my husband’s are a fulfillment of Jesus’s promise.

It also does not make sense that the church was raptured in Jesus’s generation because Jesus’s kingdom did not come at that time. The evil in the world from His ascension to today is clearly not His kingdom. Also, nowhere in Revelation is the church mentioned (although people do come to know Jesus). This is because God took His church home to be with Him.

For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, (1 Thessalonians 5:9)

The seven year tribulation is the wrath of God poured out on those who rejected their Creator and Savior. “God has not destined us for wrath.”

There will be a wonderful, literal thousand year reign of Jesus. Satan and his demons will be bound and will no longer being leading people away from Jesus. It will be a time of peace for 1000 years. Sadly a large number of people who live during the millennium will not put their faith in Jesus, but will rebel against Him when Satan is released one last time. Their rebellion will lead to their physical death and eternal torment.

Reading all of these verses, I once again see that even when there seems to be a contradiction, there is none. I still believe the rapture is yet to come and will occur shortly before the seven year tribulation. I still believe that the rapture and the tribulation are coming soon. I’m also glad that I took the time to look at the evidence, consider it logically, and consider the Bible in its entirety instead of blindly digging in my heels and claiming fiat, “I am right.”

I guess I should also share the two most explicit passages in the Bible on the rapture, so you can fully understand what is being talked about in this article:

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18) {emphasis mine}

This verse means even more when we look back at Jesus’s ascension:

And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:9-11) {emphasis mine}

The other most explicit passage on the rapture is this:

Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up in victory. (1 Corinthians 15:51-54) {emphasis mine}

In the New Testament, the Bible always calls the death of believers “sleep,” because it is not an end. It is a new beginning. I hope you are looking forward to the day when believers “will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.”

God is good! All of the time! I hope to meet you all when we are called up to meet Jesus in the air.

Trust Jesus.\ \ your sister in Christ,

Christy

NOTE: I know this article is a bit different because it documents my whole thought process rather than just speaking clearly what I believe God’s word says. I hope it has been a blessing to you and I’d love feedback.

NOTE: Also, my last long form article, I never was able to see posted. Would someone please comment or like so I can make sure these are posting. This editor is easiest for me because I don't have to redo the editing, but if the posts aren't getting to people, I'll need to post using another editor. Thanks for your help.

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

It arrived!

I was feeling impatient, waiting for my snazzy, brand-spanking new mobile phone to arrive, but when it got here, I just stared at the box, in trepidation. Everyone kept walking by, asking how it is, but I just shook my head. After nearly four years, with my (originally Android 10), Moto G8 Power, which I loved to death, I wasn't yet ready to move on. I needed a moment, to grieve.

RIP, my trusty fren.

Anyways...

Around 10 pm, I managed to emotionally recover enough to begin the Big Transition, and I was up until 2 am, and still didn't finish.

My SimpleX database is sort of large, and slow to migrate. Also, took me a while to figure out how to do it, and the whole thing made me terribly nervous, that I'd accidentally get locked out. But it worked, after eight failed attempts, so yay.

Telegram was back online, almost immediately, since it's tied to the SIM card. Which was convenient, but sorta creeped me out.

Our family-internal favorite, Threema, was a snap. Took 5 minutes.

I had four failed starts with Slack, as it kept sending a login code to my Proton Mail, but I didn't have Proton app installed on my new phone, yet, and I was really sleepy, so I kept confirming on the old phone and then Slack would freeze up, and I had to kill the process and restart.

My key manager is cloud-based, so that went really fast, and I had the nos2x browser extension going in Firefox within 10 minutes, or so. Logged into Habla.News, Nostr.Build, Zap.Cooking, and Nostrudel.Ninja, immediately, so that I can get my Nostr fix.

Then I took a deep breath and mass-installed F-Droid, Minibits, Amethyst, Citrine, Orbot, and Amber. And breathed out, again, because MIRACLES NEVER CEASE: it seems to be actually working.

Everyone knows that this is the unbeatable Android Nostr setup, but it's also a resource-gobbling monster, that should only be tried at home, kids. Make sure you don't use Amethyst when out-and-about, unless you have a gigantic battery and an unlimited, high-speed, mobile plan. So, basically, everyone in the First World, who isn't me, can do it.

Oh, well. At least, I can now indulge over WiFi.

The phone itself is just like the old one, but thinner, faster, and doesn't freeze up or take a long time to start. The Motorola is dead. Long live the Motorola.

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

It's that season, again

I've been growing my hair out (too lazy to cut it) and it has -- once again -- quickly reached a length at which it draws unnecessary attention and sheds everywhere. I suppose it always sheds everywhere, but shedding short hairs is just generally less-gross than finding a 12-inch strand lying on the toast, you were about to consume.

So, I'm back to the 50 Shades of Updo stage, where I struggle to figure out how to best wear my head, usually defaulting to the Messy Bun look, because it's still too short to do anything more elaborate and looks silly, as a ponytail.

It's really not that great of a look for me, I know, especially, now that my chin is finally succumbing to gravity, but doing something more-elegant is usually more time-consuming and doesn't have that wonderful "swept up" feeling to it. You know that feeling, when you tie all of that heavy hair to a higher point on your skull and the roots just sigh with relief.

Another look, I tend to gravitate toward, at the moment, is head scarves, like this one:

...or a Bavarian-style bandana, for gardening or hiking (don't have a selfie handy, so here is some random chick, who also suffers from poofy, dark hair).

Hiking bare-headed, with flowing tresses, is not recommended, due to all of the Nature, that you have to comb back out of it.

Generally, just bored of my inbetween length and looking forward to braiding it, in a few months. Or giving up, in frustration, and cutting it all off.

@ 2dd9250b:6e928072

Silk Road: Mercado Clandestino (2021) é um filme Norte-Americano que conta a história de Ross Ulbricht e seu site da Dark Web, Silk Road. E por mais que o roteiro queira deixar claro que Ross é Libertário desde o começo, com citações de Mises a questionamentos quanto à legitimidade moral das Leis Juspositivistas, ele erra justamente na forma como conta a história.

Esse filme é ruim porque retrata o protagonista, que embora tenha 27 anos (em 2011), age como um adolescente abobado que quer salvar o mundo das garras satânicas do Estado. E o roteiro faz isso reforçando todos os estereótipos que os ancaps possuem como quando Julia se surpreende com o fato de "ter dormido com um Libertário" fazendo alusão à piada de que Ancaps não têm relações sexuais casuais, ou quando o pai de Ross praticamente chama ele de vagabundo - fazendo alusão à piada de Ancaps serem um bando de desocupados sustentados pelos pais.

Mas o que mais chama a atenção é o fato dos roteiristas realmente não fazerem o menor esforço para criar algo realmente interessante e original para contar a história do Ross.

Vai ver eles pensaram: "Vamos fazer esse jovem inspirado no Mark Zuckerberg, como se ele fosse um estudante de Física em alguma Universidade mequetrefe do Texas e resolvesse ler Mises e outros autores da Escola Austríaca. Vamos por um conflito nele entre ser um empresário que bate de frente com o Estado e ter uma namoradinha, já que Ancaps geralmente não têm namorada. Aí a namoradinha dele se empolga porque ele tá ganhando muito dinheiro e sugere que ele entre em contato com um jornalista para o site ficar famoso no País inteiro, enquanto ele vai se doxxando no processo."

A medida que o tempo passa ele fica tão obsecado pelo site que perde a namoradinha e a sanidade no caminho. It's Over. Assim como Mark Zuckerberg não curtiu o personagem dele do filme a Rede Social (2003) o Ross, além de ver o Sol nascer quadrado até morrer tem que se contentar com seu personagem sendo gado da mina lá que mal sabia o que era Libertarianismo. Em a Rede Social (2003) isso funciona porque é relatado em Bilionários por Acaso de Ben Mezrich, que Mark Zuckerberg e seu amigo brasileiro Eduardo Saverin criaram o Facebook praticamente para "pegar mulher". Mark anteriormente tinha criado o Facemash que era basicamente um site para os rapazes de Harvard escolherem entre duas alunas, qual era a mais atraente. Mark quase foi expulso por causa do Facemash e teve que pedir desculpas publicamente. Então faz sentido aquele final onde Mark envia uma solicitação de amizade para uma aluna de Havard criada pelos Roteiristas. Mas isso não deveria acontecer em Silk Road porque Ross Ulbritch não é um Mark Zuckerberg Libertário. Se bobear o filme sobre o Terry Davis também terá um interesse amoroso só para ficar ali dizendo o quão gênio ele era, até ele enlouquecer e ela acabar se casando com um atendente do Walmart de Seattle.

Isso realmente me irrita. O filme passa muito tempo enfatizando que Ross tem vários amigos e parentes que o amam muito e querem o seu bem, mas Ross está ocupado demais cuidando de sua valiosa empresa que roda no Tor. Além disso, Ross realmente age como se tivesse certeza que nunca seria pego. O que é um tremendo absurdo. Mesmo vendo políticos discursando na TV a favor do fechamento do site (porque ele intencionalmente criou o site para compra e venda de drogas e muitos jovens estavam morrendo por abusar das drogas), Ross acredita que pelo fato da guerra às drogas ter falhado, isso significa que ele não seria caçado pela NSA ou FBI. Então ele continua usando o site sem se preocupar muito com quem conversa no chat ou com o que estão fazendo para que a identidade do Dread Pirate Roberts nunca seja desmascarada.

O filme tenta induzir quem assiste a pensar que Ross foi enganado pelo agente quase aposentado do FBI, mas mesmo que esse agente não fosse um Boomer e soubesse o que é Bitcoin, não mudaria nada na história porque o problema é como a personalidade infantil do Ross é apresentada em tela. E por mais que ele tenha sido avisado pela sua namorada Júlia que o que ele estava fazendo era ilegal e por mais que ela tenha se afastando dele por ele agir com insensibilidade pelas vítimas que morreram por causa do tráfico de drogas viabilizado pelo site, ele faz uma incrível cara de surpresa quando é preso. Não tem suspensão de descrença que me faça ignorar aquela cena.

No fim, já preso, ele justifica sua ignorância dizendo que só queria que as pessoas tivessem Liberdade, mas não fazia ideia do que as pessoas fariam com essa liberdade. E que se ele não fizesse nada por medo da tirania do Estado, já tinha perdido. Deixando bem claro que esse é um filme Norte-Americano e como um bom filme Norte-Americano o Bem venceu o Mal e os Heróis Policiais brilham mais uma vez.

@ 54609048:8e22ba03

In a rapidly changing world, where the boundaries between physical and digital spaces blur, one question looms large: How do we nurture the next generation to be masters, and not victims, of an increasingly complex economic landscape? The answer lies not just in new technologies or innovations but in cultivating sovereign minds—young individuals who are not only creative and resourceful but also understand the value of liberty, free markets, and sound money.

Our current world is dominated by centralization, with vast institutions—governments, central banks, and corporations—holding immense power over the lives of individuals. The modern financial system by design has created a populace that is increasingly dependent on centralized authorities for economic stability and security. Changing this awful paradigm starts with educating kids about Bitcoin and basic financial principles early on, in order to equip them with the tools they need to become independent thinkers, free from the constraints of centralized authorities, and prepared to thrive in a decentralized world.

The Modern Age of Centralization and Dependency

For decades, the modern education system has operated under the assumption that students are vessels to be filled rather than minds to be cultivated. Traditional schooling promotes conformity and compliance over creativity and critical thinking, often producing adults who are ill-equipped to handle the complexities of the financial system. Even more alarming, financial education is either poorly addressed or completely absent from mainstream curricula. This absence leaves young people vulnerable to the traps of debt, inflation, and economic dependency—tools that centralized systems use to control and limit individual freedom.

This erosion of personal sovereignty begins early, as children grow into adults who are dependent on an inflationary financial system, credit, and centralized institutions for their livelihoods. An example that immediately comes to mind is that of student loan debt in the United States. As of the second quarter of 2024, the total student loan debt in the US stands at approximately $1.74 trillion, with 77% of this debt having been accrued since 2005. The default rate of these loans stands at 10.3% within the first three years of repayment; which is very high when compared with historical averages. Most of the students signing up for these loans are not only financially illiterate but are graduating into a weaker economic climate with high unemployment rates.

That’s before we even consider the fact that in a lot of cases some of the degree programs that these students would have enrolled in degree programs that do not have any marketable skills. This debt trap continues throughout life as more debts pile up due to an ever rising cost of living coupled with a debt based economic system that impoverishes society over time. Through this lens, it becomes clear that most people are not living as free individuals, but as subjects of a system designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

The Case for Teaching Bitcoin Early

Bitcoin offers a profound shift in the way individuals, particularly the younger generation, can approach money. Unlike fiat currency, which is controlled and manipulated by governments and central banks, Bitcoin operates as a decentralized, immutable form of digital money. For the first time in history, people have access to a form of money that is not controlled by any central authority. This is more than just a technological breakthrough; it is a philosophical one.

Teaching kids early on about Bitcoin early on not only introduces them to the concept of sound money but also encourages them to think critically about the systems of control that govern their lives. Bitcoin is a living example of what happens when individuals reject top-down authority in favor of a decentralized, peer-to-peer network. By learning how Bitcoin works, children can grasp the importance of scarcity, decentralization, and the protection of their financial autonomy.

The same rule also applies to teenagers as well, as the saying goes; better late than never. When young people understand Bitcoin, they begin to see money not just as a medium of exchange but as a tool of liberation. They learn to question why inflation exists, why their purchasing power diminishes over time, and why they are required to participate in a system that benefits a select few while burdening the majority.

Sovereign Individuals and the Future of Society

What does it mean to be a sovereign individual in the modern age? It means having control over one’s life, choices, and destiny. Sovereignty begins with financial independence, but it extends into all areas of life. A sovereign individual is one who is not reliant on any centralized authority—be it government, a corporation, or even a bank—for their survival or success.

Understanding Bitcoin is just one part of the equation. Financial literacy as a whole is equally crucial. Children who are taught the principles of saving, investing, and understanding debt are far more likely to grow into adults who can protect their personal freedoms. Financially literate individuals make better choices, not only about their own lives but also in their role as participants in the broader economy. In a future shaped by decentralized technologies like Bitcoin, the individuals who succeed will be those who can think critically, act independently, and innovate freely. Creativity and sovereignty go hand in hand. Sovereign individuals are not just financially independent; they are creators, innovators, and problem solvers who drive progress and shape the future.

Practical Steps for Parents and Educators

If we are to cultivate the next generation of sovereign minds, we must start with practical steps. Parents and educators can introduce children to Bitcoin by teaching them the basics of how digital wallets work, how to earn and save in Bitcoin, and how to think about money in terms of long-term value rather than immediate gratification. Even small exercises, like earning Bitcoin for chores or using it to buy small items, can give kids hands-on experience with sound money. Above all, it's important to teach them to question the world around them—why does inflation exist? Why do prices go up over time? Why do some countries experience hyperinflation while others do not?—to name a few, because until one can question the current status quo they can cease to be victims of it.

With this in mind, the El Salvador edition of the Adopting Bitcoin conference this year will also have a special treat for the youngsters. In collaboration with the Bitcoin Junior Club the event will feature ‘Bitcoin Para Niños’—a dedicated zone where children can learn, play, and explore topics like sound money and creative thinking. Not only is this tailored for kids to learn about sound money in a very fun and interactive way; but ultimately it enables families to embark on their Bitcoin journey together. Beyond the technical aspects of financial literacy, it is vital to cultivate a mindset of independence and critical thinking. Sovereign minds are nurtured in environments that value curiosity, questioning authority, and taking responsibility for one’s actions.

Conclusion

The future belongs to the sovereign individuals—those who are financially independent, critical thinkers, and creators of value. Teaching kids about Bitcoin and financial literacy is not just about preparing them for economic success; it’s about empowering them to live free, meaningful lives in a world that increasingly values conformity and centralization. Sovereign minds are the architects of a free society, and it is our duty to help them build the world they deserve.

@ 1b5ee74d:bb1aae6e

A paper bordering on parody but, unfortunately, all too real. Titled “The Distributive Effects of Bitcoin,” it’s authored by Ulrich Bindseil and Jürgen Schaaf: the former manages the ECB’s Market Infrastructure and Payments division, while the latter serves as his advisor. Hosting this paper on its own servers, the Frankfurt institution safeguards itself with a disclaimer: “The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the ECB.” The disclaimer is understandable, as the positions of the two authors are so blatantly biased and devoid of any logical foundation that they seem too much even for Bitcoin’s number one enemy: the central bank itself.

The underlying assumption of the entire document is simple: Bitcoin does not increase the productive potential of the economy. Based on this shortsighted foundation, the authors construct an entire narrative that ignores some of the fundamental changes introduced by Bitcoin.

“Bitcoin does not increase the productive potential of the economy”

Since Bitcoin doesn’t increase the productive potential of the economy, the alleged increase in value is essentially redistributive. This means that the enrichment of the early bitcoin holders can only come at the expense of the rest of society.

Right from the abstract, the authors assert that Bitcoin in no way contributes to increasing the productive potential of the economy. Their thesis is that Bitcoin, lacking any connection to the creation of tangible goods or services, represents an asset with no intrinsic productive value. According to the document, while investments in sectors like technology or industry improve the efficiency and productive capacity of the economic system, Bitcoin provides no such benefit, as it does not directly contribute to production growth or innovation.

For the authors, much of Bitcoin’s attributed value derives solely from financial speculation and the perception of those who purchase it, without any tangible increase in “economic capacity.”

The redistributive potential: penalizing latecomers

Bindseil and Schaaf then explore what they call Bitcoin’s “redistributive structure,” claiming that its mechanism rewards early investors at the expense of latecomers. Their shocking revelation is that Bitcoin’s value increases for early purchasers as demand rises, generating higher returns for those who entered the market first.

In other words, Bindseil and Schaaf have discovered the wonderful world of supply and demand dynamics within that mysterious entity called “the market”—perhaps too complex to grasp for those dreaming of a Soviet-style economy. Not coincidentally, they describe this process as inherently unjust, arguing that people who decide to invest later don’t receive the same advantages and are forced to buy at higher prices.

If the rational part of your mind is screaming in desperation, I ask for one last effort.

The document describes this effect as a negative feature of Bitcoin, comparing it to a “speculative bubble” destined to collapse when new investors can no longer sustain the asset’s high price.

A point-by-point rebuttal

I confess, I would never have found the strength to sit down at my keyboard to debunk, once again, arguments so erroneous that they’d make anyone with a basic understanding of economics cringe. Fortunately, Murray Rudd and Dennis Porter of Satoshi Action Education, along with Allen Farrington of Axiom and Freddie New of Bitcoin Policy UK, have taken on this task.

Bitcoin’s productive potential: a central misunderstanding

The main assumption—that Bitcoin does not contribute to the productive potential of the economy—is challenged by highlighting how Bitcoin is fueling an ecosystem of technological and financial innovation. Tools like the Lightning Network reduce transaction costs and increase system efficiency, bringing tangible benefits to the economy. “Considering Bitcoin as a mere speculative tool,” the analysis states, “means ignoring the immense infrastructural and social value of payment networks and decentralized technologies deriving from its adoption.”

Bindseil and Schaaf also overlook how Bitcoin is already used to reduce the cost of international remittances, a vital function in parts of the world where transaction costs via traditional banking systems are often exorbitant, reaching up to 20% in some regions. This application provides both direct and indirect productive benefits in contexts with low financial inclusion.

Further, the response notes:

“Bitcoin is promoting innovation beyond payments. It has catalyzed advances in cryptography and energy efficiency, particularly through mining. Bitcoin mining using waste gas can mitigate methane emissions and improve renewable energy generation, contributing to grid flexibility thanks to the unique features of mining.”

Beyond technological advances, the arguments against Bitcoin reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of money in capital accumulation and, consequently, economic prosperity. Productivity is driven by capital accumulation, and economic growth is the result of increased productivity through effective capital use. Arguing that capital growth does not contribute to productivity reveals a deep ignorance of basic market dynamics.

Bitcoin’s redistributive potential: a market dynamic

The final criticism from the two ECB-affiliated individuals concerns the accusation that Bitcoin only benefits early investors at the expense of newcomers. The authors of the rebuttal paper observe that this phenomenon exists in any asset—from real estate to gold—where early investors benefit from an increase in value. Furthermore, Bitcoin lacks privileged distributions, as seen in other cryptocurrencies issued with pre-mines or venture capital models. Bitcoin’s distribution model, which began with open and transparent mining, is considered by the authors “one of the fairest in the history of digital assets.” I would even go so far as to say the fairest.

The authors also point out that the fiat system, widely supported by the ECB, favors inequality through monetary devaluation—a form of reverse redistribution that penalizes small savers in favor of those with greater access to financial resources. Bitcoin, with its maximum issuance cap, offers an alternative to this erosion of purchasing power caused by inflation. In short, such an accusation from those representing the primary cause of the Cantillon effect is almost laughable.

The Federal Reserve’s direct attack

A few days after the publication of Bindseil and Schaaf’s paper, their American counterparts also decided to attack Bitcoin. The Federal Reserve of Minneapolis published a study titled “Unique Implementation of Permanent Primary Deficits?”

I won’t drag this out: in nearly forty pages of formulas and calculations, Fed experts managed to rediscover the obvious—if Bitcoin were to become widespread, the government would no longer be able to run deficits!

“Good morning, princess,” as Roberto Benigni would say in La Vita è Bella. In this newsletter, we’ve been discussing this topic for about three years, yet I haven’t received a job offer from Washington. Perhaps it’s because my views are slightly at odds with those of the employees of the monetary monopolist. The Fed, in fact, sees a very simple solution: ban Bitcoin! They state it plainly:

“The government could simply make Bitcoin illegal.”

Here, we encounter a fundamental disagreement. Believing that Bitcoin can be banned by a few lines in a law reflects a profound misunderstanding of the technology. If you’d like a consultation on the subject, dear friends at the Fed, I’ll be here.

Or rather, I’ll be enjoying your decline.

Sincerely,

Federico.

@ 45bda953:bc1e518e

All Bitcoiners everywhere on the proverbial right have a natural disdain for Communism, those on the left sort of ashamedly admit that any form of Socialism is untenable on a Bitcoin standard. When debating the issue of whether voting is an efficate means of bringing about meaningful change, as soon as you throw your support into the abstain from voting camp, no matter what your reasoning, you are shamed with a statement which implies "Don't you care if Ross rots in jail?"

My assertive answer is yes. I do care about Ross. I have spent nights praying for him. I sympathise with him. My heart went out to him like it does for all who are imprisoned unfairly and for exclusively political reasons. More than most. I have prayed ardently for Julain Assange's freedom. But claiming to pray for someone is just as useless as voting to free someone in a national election. What then is the difference between they who vote and they who pray? Because prayer is a introspection responsibility which leads to action. Voting is a right that ends in passivity and abdication of responsibility. Statistics are in my favour here. This action I took requires some explanatory background.

Chris Hani was supposed to be the successor to Nelson Mandela and initiate the full transition of South Africa from a Republic to democracy and then by popular vote to communism. Something few people know is that uMkhonto we Siswe, the African National Congress and the South African Communist party is a trilateral organisation. (They still claim to be but the ANC have sort of snubbed the other groups) One helping the other all with the same end goal. Full blown Communism and State domination of civilian life.

Something threw a spanner in the works. A political crime born from fear of Communist Russian influence and the scars Stalin left as a legacy on Asia and Eastern Europe. This justified fear motivated normal good Christian men to commit a crime. They conspired and successfully assassinated Chris Hani.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hani

Chris Hani (28 June 1942 – 10 April 1993),[1] born Martin Thembisile Hani was the leader of the South African Communist Party and chief of staff of uMkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the African National Congress (ANC). He was a fierce opponent of the apartheid government, and was assassinated by Janusz Waluś, a Polish immigrant and sympathiser of the Conservative opposition on 10 April 1993, during the unrest preceding the transition to democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_demonstrations_in_Poland

The 1982 demonstrations in Poland refers to anti-government street demonstrations organized by underground Solidarity to commemorate the second anniversary of the Gdańsk Agreement. The bloodiest protest occurred in southwestern Poland, in the town of Lubin, on 31 August 1982. The Lubin demonstration resulted in three protesters killed by Communist services, and an unknown number of wounded.[1][2] On the same day, rallies and demonstrations took place in several cities across the country. According to Solidarity sources, there were four more victims—in Wrocław, Gdańsk, Nowa Huta, and Toruń.[3] According to official government sources, there were demonstrations in 66 cities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janusz_Walu%C5%9B

So in the Northern Hemisphere communism is killing political activists and in the Southern Hemisphere the conservative right is resisting full blown communist revolt fighting a war in five countries. Rhodesia, Zambia, Mozambique, Angola and South Africa. Janusz Walus left Poland, a country saturated with communism and sought hope and freemarket opportunities in The South African Republic. When it became evident that the ANC, SACP, MWS in collaboration with the National Party was going to be successful at establishing a one man one vote system, communism was the inevitable outcome, unless...

Janusz who made connections in right wing conservative circles, volunteered to stop the whole scheme. The whole plan seems a little naive and untenable but men have done far more foolish things being guided by hope, false or otherwise. He was provided a gun by Clive, a plan and on the regrettable day of 10 April 1993 killed Chris Hani by handgun in the driveway of his home.

Janusz Wallus and Clive Derby Lewis, were sentenced to be executed by the Apartheid government. In 1994 Nelson Mandela became president and the death penalty was repealed, reversing the death sentence of many political criminals including Janusz and Clive. The ANC wanted to save/pardon all the freedom fighters who were under death penalty convictions. Clive and Janusz were beneficiaries of this pardon. Their sentences were commuted to life imprisonment after an extended stint of fanfare.

Fast forward to 2014.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pERTDXg8dGo

Now everyone knows how mainstream media manages to downplay and mock anything that goes against what government actually want. The protests were slightly more impressive and extremist socialist communist groups namely the Economic Freedom Fighters even harassed and intimidated the white minority who were protesting for Clive's release. Any way (EchDel) I was present at Pretoria town square to participate at this demonstration in favour of Clive Derby Lewis's release. Why would I be in support of freeing a convicted criminal who already received a semi pardon? Because all the other terrorists on the side of the ANC were systemically pardoned and freed after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This opportunity for Clive to being pardoned was vehemently opposed by the SACP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_(South_Africa)

I acted.

I participated in this protest because I really cared. If I voted for it I could conveniently virtue signal my support but voting was not an option anyway, I participated in this protest demonstrating for his release. I screamed and chanted for hours demanding for him to be freed and was spat at by commies and jostled aggressively by a mob of rowdy EFF supporters. I had lost my voice for three days after the affair. And then you have the audacity to say. "Don't you want Ross to be free?" The Bitcoiners at the Nashville conference did a lot of work, spent time, energy and possibly prayers to turn Donald Trumps arm get him to suggest Ross's freedom in exchange for a vote. Freeing Ross is an awesome rallying cry, but wanting him to be free and not supporting the system is not mutually exclusive.

No nobody deserves one nickel or dime of the freedom they currently enjoy unless they can come to one very important conclusion. Bitcoin fixes this and Bitcoin only fixes this.

Nickle and dime pun intended.

Bitcoin fixes racial tension. Bitcoin fixes party politics. Bitcoin fixes terrorism. Bitcoin fixes war. We (mankind) are not isolated groups fighting in different countries with different ideals to survive and retain our dignity and property anymore. We are all under the same boot of FIAT CURRENCY.

And no politician has the moral willpower to challenge that force and even when they do they fail because of the flawed nature of their institution. The grassroots movement of plebs adopting Bitcoin and withdrawing their support from the system which is the perpetrator of all this eye for eye, tooth for tooth, tit for tat political bullshit, that is where the power and tangible efficate change is going to happen. There are no bad guys, only humans stuck in fallible systems of their own design. There is no political solution.

Only a monetary one. Bitcoin.

Watch this interview and keep voting in mind as subject matter. The repeated failures of parliamentary democracy is a stepping stone away from socialism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXy35jHQRb4

Everyone voted, everyone is still voting, no one is happy, everyone is impoverished. Crime goes up. Freedom's go down. The fruits of voting is putrid and rotten. So you vote and I will Bitcoin. When the elected party betrays your values with regard to speech, finance, property or war, remember to vote even harder next time.

Post script.

If Hani would have been alive and taken the South African presidency, I would have probably grown up as an immigrant in some European country having had to flee communism with my parents and siblings. The least I could do was protest peacefully for Clive's release. Janusz Wallus did not wait to vote. He acted and is still in prison to this day. He does deserve a pardon if only to receive equal treatment as all the other political prisoners did. I owe him and all the brave men in history who chose to act and make real change my thanks. You only risk action if you believe, even if it is foolishly.

A man has to believe in something, I believe I'll have another drink.

Matthew 25:31-40

“When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

“Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

Echdel

...

bitbib

@ df478568:2a951e67

Building An E-Commerce Store

I would like to be the change in the world I would like to see."" So I'm writing about how I would like to see the world change.

npub1marc26z8nh3xkj5rcx7ufkatvx6ueqhp5vfw9v5teq26z254renshtf3g0

My new nym is Marc26z. Marc is my real name. I decided to stop being a-nym-nomous because I started a meetup and it felt to strange to tell people my nym and I heard Guy and Jeff Swann talk about being anonymous cuts you off from the people that will help you. So i guess I'm coming out so to speak. I also felt like I needed to show and not tell. Therefore I am creating an online store to show people how bitcoin can be used for e-commerce.

The 26z comes from the nostr key I mined. I'm on nostr because it gives me the ability to talk to the smartest people I've ever spoken with. It also provides a new way to get discovered on the Internet and a way to get use bitcoin as a medium of exchange. I spent about two years writing as a nym, but then hit a wall because I became interested in using bitcoin as a replacement for traditional banks and regulated exchanges made it easier to do so.

I still believe in self-custody.

I still believe bitcoin is a peer-to-peer electronic cash system

I still believe the majority of your wealth should not be trusted with a third party.

I don't really like credit cards, but it occurred to me that I can still accept credit cards and get them to pay me in bitcoin if I use [Strike](https://invite.strike.me/NGQDMT)*

Gradually, then suddenly, Bitcoin ETF's were approved.

Now you can read about them on Nerd Wallet

About 12% of all the bitcoin that will ever be made is held by governments and corporations.

According to Bitbo, more than 1-out of 20 bitcoin are held in ETF's

I know how to set up bitcoin Point-of-Sale system for businesses, but there's not much of a market for that., but there's not much of a market for it. Everyone need a t shirts. Everyone needs underwear. Everyone neess food. I plan on selling stuff like that…Well, not underwear.

Gaining e-commerce experience

I've been writing letters and building labs to get a coveted IT help desk job. I study Professor Messer 4 hours a week because most jobs require a Computer Technology Industry Association stamp of an A+ approval. Last week, I applied for a job that required "e-commerce experience." I didn't even get one of those “you're not hired” emails, but there is an orange lining to this situation. I spent the last few months building my resume and writing dozens of cover letters. This taught me even more stuff like how to run my own ticketing system. This gives me the confidence to create my own e-commerce store. I'm looking at my resume. This guy knows how to build websites with WordPress. He knows how to set up a bitcoin store. Forget that. We want fiat! Why would they hire me? So I;m building an "e-commerce lab" that takes credit cards. The payments will still take days to get to my Strike account, but when they do the dollars will instantaneously convert to bitcoin(sats) in my Strike account. The problem with writing about this is it's terrible writing. It takes too much technical expertise to write about without [citing stuff like this(https://medium.com/coinmonks/understanding-atomic-swaps-the-2024-guide-to-cross-blockchain-transactions-3427b75045c2) and that would turn off much of my bitcoin only audience because it talks about casino coins, but I found this exciting when Elizabeth Stark tweeted about it and I was still into the steamy number two mother of all alt-coin dingle-berries coin.

I still use the number one electronic currency in the world, the United States dollar to pay my bills. To do that, I sometimes need to use atomic swaps from bitcoin to USD . Strike probably uses Tether to make it happen so fast. I could swap into USD-T using Aqua Wallet, but I don't need to because I live in the United States and have financial privilege. This allows me to easily swap in and out of the bitcoin and dollars like fancy-suit wearing FOREX kingpin. I can send bitcoin from Aqua wallet(Which is actually Liquid-BTC to Strike using the lightning network. Why? Because I need to use the USD to pay my bills. I can also send fiat from my too big to fail bank account to River using Strike* as an intermediate! Jack Maller's explained it using an analogy I would like to share.

In this analogy:

The dollars in my too big to fail bank are tortilla chips.

The peanut is bitcoin on the lightning network.

I can send my tortilla chips from bank of too big to fail to Strike and Strike to River in about ten seconds. The tortilla chip magically transforms into a peanut like a shapeshifter and travels through a communication channel at the speed of light. It reaches River in almost no time. Then my peanut can transform back to a tortilla chip. I can stack those tortilla chips in my River savings account. This tortilla chip earns 3.8% interest paid in peanuts. Of course, if you are alergic to peanuts as Mallers says, you can only deal with tortilla chips. Which reminds me, have you seen the price of Tortilla chips laced with canola oil and lately? Maltodextrin lovers can automatically convert the bitcoin…I mean uh…peanuts they might receive from people who prefer peanuts into tortilla chips. IT doesn't take 5 days either. It takes seconds!

Building An E-Commerce Store

If I could summarize my Bachelor's degree in one sentence, that sentence would be, “Show don't tell.” This tortilla chip analogy is cool, but the best thing to do would be to start my own e-commerce store. Is it a business? Is it a home lab? I'm not sure, but I know I am not likely to convince other "businesses to accept bitcoin" unless I show them instead of tell the about what an amazing communications network we are using here. Somewhere along the way, people wearing shark-skin suits tried to convince the people bitcoin is an investment you should let a well-respected, too big to fail institution hold for you. I wish to go back to the roots and use bitcoin like a man who preferred to influence the world with his ideas instead of his ethos.

“Receivers of transactions will normally need to hold transactions for perhaps an hour or more to allow time for this kind of possibility to be resolved. They can still re-spend the coins immediately, but they should wait before taking an action such as shipping goods.”

[“Instantant non-repudiability is not a feature, but it's still much faster than existing systems. Paper cheques can bounce up to a week or two later. Credit card transactions can be contested up to 60 to 180 days later. Bitcoin transactions can be sufficiently irreversible in an hour or two.”]((https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/10/)

--Satoshi Nakamoto

I still believe in using bitcoin as a payment rail.

I still believe we can get paid in bitcoin and live in a fiat world.

I still believe we can mitigate the risk of bank failures without relying on bailouts and endless debt.

And I can still have fun. I'm basically like one of these dudes selling t-shirts on the freeway, but on the Internet.

✌️

npub1marc26z8nh3xkj5rcx7ufkatvx6ueqhp5vfw9v5teq26z254renshtf3g0

868,557

*The links are referrals. I get a small commission if you sign up with these accounts using my referral. That being said, I would never endorse putting all your money in a centralized service. I like these companies because they do it better than most exchanges. River has a proof-of-reserve, automatic withdrawals to a bitcoin wallet. The fiat is FDIC insured (which still requires trust in the FDIC). This is not financial nor cybersecurity advice. Be aware that bitcoin does have risk of loss, of ten due to human error. Please consult a professional if you need financial or cybersecurity advice.

@ a012dc82:6458a70d

Table Of Content

• Bitcoin's Past Successes and Failures: An Overview

• Factors Influencing Bitcoin's Future

• Conclusion

• FAQ

Bitcoin, the first decentralized cryptocurrency, has taken the financial world by storm. Its volatility and potential for massive gains have captivated investors and enthusiasts alike. However, as with any investment, there are always questions surrounding its future. Is Bitcoin heading for another bull run, or is it on the verge of a catastrophic bust? In this article, we will delve into the numbers and trends to shed light on the potential future of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin's Past Successes and Failures: An Overview

To understand Bitcoin's future, it's essential to examine its past. Bitcoin's journey has been marked by tremendous highs and devastating lows, making it a rollercoaster ride for investors. Let's take a closer look at its historical performance.

The Early Years: Bitcoin's Humble Beginnings

In 2009, Bitcoin emerged as a concept, and its initial value was next to nothing. However, over time, its popularity grew, and by 2010, it gained some value. In May 2010, a historic moment occurred when Laszlo Hanyecz famously purchased two pizzas for 10,000 Bitcoins. Little did anyone know that those Bitcoins would be worth millions in the future.

The 2017 Bull Run: Bitcoin's Rise to Prominence

The year 2017 witnessed an unprecedented surge in Bitcoin's value, attracting global attention. Bitcoin's price skyrocketed from around $1,000 in January to nearly $20,000 in December. This massive growth sparked a frenzy among investors, leading to widespread adoption and media coverage.

The 2018 Bubble Burst: Bitcoin's Steep Decline

However, the euphoria didn't last long. In 2018, the cryptocurrency market experienced a significant crash, with Bitcoin's value plummeting to around $3,000 by the end of the year. This sharp decline shook investors' confidence and raised doubts about the long-term viability of Bitcoin.

Factors Influencing Bitcoin's Future

Bitcoin's future is shaped by various factors that impact its price, adoption, and overall market sentiment. Understanding these factors is crucial for predicting its future trajectory.

Market Adoption and Regulatory Developments

The widespread adoption of Bitcoin by businesses and individuals significantly impacts its value. As more companies accept Bitcoin as a form of payment and governments establish favorable regulatory frameworks, Bitcoin's future looks promising. However, regulatory challenges and negative news can hinder its growth.

Technological Advancements and Innovation

Bitcoin's future is intrinsically linked to technological advancements and innovation within the cryptocurrency space. The development of scaling solutions, improved security measures, and enhanced user experience can propel Bitcoin to new heights.

Global Economic Conditions

Bitcoin's value is closely tied to global economic conditions. During times of economic uncertainty, such as political instability or inflationary pressures, Bitcoin often emerges as a safe haven asset. Conversely, stable economic conditions may dampen its growth potential.

Investor Sentiment and Speculation

The speculative nature of Bitcoin makes investor sentiment a significant driver of its price fluctuations. Positive news, endorsements from influential figures, or large-scale institutional investments can fuel optimism and trigger a bull run. On the other hand, negative sentiment can lead to a bearish market.

Conclusion

While predicting Bitcoin's future with absolute certainty is impossible, analyzing historical trends and considering various factors can provide valuable insights. Bitcoin's path has been filled with remarkable highs and gut-wrenching lows, making it an intriguing investment option. As always, investors should exercise caution, diversify their portfolios, and stay updated with the latest developments in the cryptocurrency space.

FAQ

Is investing in Bitcoin still profitable? While Bitcoin has experienced significant price volatility, many investors have made substantial profits.

What caused the 2018 Bitcoin crash? The 2018 Bitcoin crash was influenced by a combination of factors, including regulatory uncertainties, a decline in market sentiment, and the bursting of the speculative bubble that had formed in the previous year.

Can Bitcoin replace traditional currencies? Bitcoin's potential to replace traditional currencies remains a subject of debate. While it offers benefits such as decentralization and borderless transactions, challenges related to scalability, regulatory hurdles, and public acceptance need to be overcome.

What role do institutional investors play in Bitcoin's future? Institutional investors, such as hedge funds and asset management firms, have started to show interest in Bitcoin. Their participation can bring stability, liquidity, and increased mainstream adoption, positively impacting Bitcoin's future.

That's all for today

If you want more, be sure to follow us on:

NOSTR: croxroad@getalby.com

X: @croxroadnews

Instagram: @croxroadnews.co

Youtube: @croxroadnews

Store: https://croxroad.store

Subscribe to CROX ROAD Bitcoin Only Daily Newsletter

https://www.croxroad.co/subscribe

DISCLAIMER: None of this is financial advice. This newsletter is strictly educational and is not investment advice or a solicitation to buy or sell any assets or to make any financial decisions. Please be careful and do your own research.