@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Nostr: a quick introduction, attempt #2

Nostr doesn't subscribe to any ideals of "free speech" as these belong to the realm of politics and assume a big powerful government that enforces a common ruleupon everybody else.

Nostr instead is much simpler, it simply says that servers are private property and establishes a generalized framework for people to connect to all these servers, creating a true free market in the process. In other words, Nostr is the public road that each market participant can use to build their own store or visit others and use their services.

(Of course a road is never truly public, in normal cases it's ran by the government, in this case it relies upon the previous existence of the internet with all its quirks and chaos plus a hand of government control, but none of that matters for this explanation).

More concretely speaking, Nostr is just a set of definitions of the formats of the data that can be passed between participants and their expected order, i.e. messages between clients (i.e. the program that runs on a user computer) and relays (i.e. the program that runs on a publicly accessible computer, a "server", generally with a domain-name associated) over a type of TCP connection (WebSocket) with cryptographic signatures. This is what is called a "protocol" in this context, and upon that simple base multiple kinds of sub-protocols can be added, like a protocol for "public-square style microblogging", "semi-closed group chat" or, I don't know, "recipe sharing and feedback".

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Why relay hints are important

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

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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

How to do curation and businesses on Nostr

Suppose you want to start a Nostr business.

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

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

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

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

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

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

If it's a music sharing thing, then the client will have a way to play the audio and so on; if it's a restaurant sharing it will have maps with the locations of the restaurants or whatever, you get the idea. Hopefully there will be a NIP or a NUD specifying how to create and interact with events relating to this niche, or you will write or contribute with the creation of one, because without interoperability none of this matters much.

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

1. Run a relay that does all the magic

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

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

---

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

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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

About Nostr, email and subscriptions

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Nostr is not decentralized nor censorship-resistant

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

Nostr today is indeed centralized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

See also:

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Censorship-resistant relay discovery in Nostr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 7ecd3fe6:6b52f30d

I normally try to avoid the noise that is the crypto market only because I've been in that situationship before back in 2016, got rugged in the ICO phase and learned my lesson. There is nothing left for me to take from crypto apart from watching from the sidelines and enjoying the endless amount of schadenfreude it produces.

So every so often I find myself checking in on the ugly step-child of Bitcoin just to see what the left side of the bell curve are up to and you know what?

I wasn't disappointed.

In fact, I'm kind of impressed at the number of times shitcoiners can come up with a new meta to get the degens excited enough to take another spin at the casino, it's honestly pretty impressive.

After ordinals were cooked, the shitcoiners were left to head back to the drawing board, and the obvious pivot was AI tokens. AI and LLMs were the new hotness and try they did but AI tokens didn't really take off in 2024.

Sure there's tokens like NEAR, Internet Computer, and RENDER all with a few billion in market cap and according to CoinGecko there's around 50 billion in AI shitcoins, but for these coins to pump they need to provide some sort of product.

That requires investment and some thinking and who has time for that?

F AI, AI Agents are the future

Wtf are AI agent tokens you ask? Bad question, but I'll edify you anyway.

AI agents are autonomous software programs designed to perform very specific tasks and make decisions independently. Hardly very AI and more repetitive loops, cronjobs if you will.

Using an AI agent and giving a blockchain wallet these agents can interact with smart contracts, dApps and DEXs and start to get up to some shenanigans, or at least distance the agent creator from the actions.

No, I didn't rug pull you, that was the AI Agent malfunctioning.

I guess the killer app for AI agents is plausible deniability when you have to plead your case with the SEC.

As this new batch of vapourware gains popularity, every moron with a ChatGPT pro subscription and a dream is going after this market of suckers. Right now there are several AI agent tokens you can speculate on with a combined market cap of $16 billion according to CoinGecko

It's all about the meta-baby

I'm old enough to remember when the idea for a shitcoin was

• Utility, it had to do something and wall it off, so you needed to token to access a feature, that failed
• Then we went into culture and community, its all about the memes, that failed
• Then it was all about etching in on Bitcoin block space, using that rare commodity made my shitcoin valuable, that failed

Now we've got a bit of a mish-mash of memes + AI utility equals new grift.

To illustrate the unserious nature of this nonsense, AI agents, associated meme coins, and the protocols used to create these agents are among the top five best-performing crypto assets of the day, according to CoinGecko.

For example, Truth Terminal—the agent that started much of this wave—has promoted Goatseus Maximus (GOAT) and Fartcoin (FARTCOIN) causing both to skyrocket.

Fartcoin surged to a new all-time high price of $1.3 and a market cap of $1.5 billion as a result, FML, what a complete waste.

Growth in the FART coin Market Cap

ChatGPT-wrapped crypto scams

The Truth Terminal chatbot is a customized version of Anthropic's Claude 3 LLM, that tweets out random nonsense and somehow shitcoiners take this text as gospel and try to bet on tokens it shills or creates tokens based on its tweets as if it were Elon himself.

Can't wait for Elon to pump your bags, well, let's all dogpile on the random brain farts of a chatbot.

Again this just seems like a way to obscure insider trading and pump and dump influencer scams by hiding the human element behind a bot.

In fact, shitcoiners are creating tokens or sending tokens to a known wallet tied to this AI agent, hoping it uses this data to formulate it's next round of bullshit, I mean bullish tweets.

AI in name only

Still, most agent autonomy is limited. Truth Terminal, for example, still has creator Andy Ayrey looking over it's shoulder before it's thoughts and decisions go out to the public.

So if there's someone watching it, there's someone with access to the wallet and master access to prod it in a certain direction no?

Sigh! Reading up on this all just made my brain hurt and not in a good way.

“Do you want to be right or do you want to make money”

99% of it is a scam and the AI agent wrapper grifts are probably worse than other past trends tbh.

bc at least meme coins promise nothing whereas AI coins try to larp as much as possible to appear legit to unsuspecting…

— ZachXBT (@zachxbt) January 6, 2025

This AI agent field itself is still relatively nascent and doesn't seem to provide any value other than being a filter for random tweet generation, and we all know computers aren't good with being random.

Most if not all projects promising AI-powered solutions will not deliver on their promises, potentially leading to significant losses for investors.

But that's the game they choose to play.

The cryptocurrency market is primarily driven by hype and speculation, and AI agent tokens are no exception. Many projects are overvalued based on potential rather than actual achievements.

Is this the future?

@ 00cfe60d:2819cc65

Lets start with the money talk, at its core, a good form of money is created from two key ingredients: time and energy.

**Money = Time + Energy ** This simple idea explains why money has value. Time is something we can never get back, and energy is what powers everything we do, both mentally and physically. Together, they create value.

Why Energy is So Important Energy is what keeps life going. It’s essential for everything we use and do every day. For example:

• Food without energy to cook is raw and not very tasty.
• A car without energy doesn’t go anywhere.
• A person without energy feels tired and can’t work or play.
• Your work without energy gets nothing done.
• Football without energy means no running, no cheering, and no fun.
• A phone without energy is just a useless object.
• A house without energy is cold, dark, and uncomfortable.
• Transportation without energy means no moving buses, trains, or planes.
• The internet without energy means no websites, no games, and no communication.
• Nature without energy means plants don’t grow and animals can’t survive.

And what about money without energy? ** We often hear that “time is money” but if money is created without any time or energy, it becomes worthless. That’s why energy is so important in giving money its value.

Why Bitcoin is Different

Bitcoin is special because it follows the equation of money perfectly. It’s the best kind of money because it requires both time and energy to exist. Here’s how:

• Time: Bitcoin’s network is designed to create new bitcoins at regular intervals, so time is built into the system.

• Energy: Bitcoin is made using a process called Proof-of-Work, which uses real-world energy to produce and secure it. This ties its value to effort and cost.

Thanks to this process, Bitcoin is:

1. Scarce: There will only ever be 21 million bitcoins. It can’t be copied or faked.

2. Reliable: Its value is tied to real-world energy, making it solid and trustworthy.

3. Effort-Based: No one can create bitcoins out of thin air. It takes real work.

This makes Bitcoin an honest form of money, free from manipulation or shortcuts. It connects the digital and physical worlds through energy, just like gold was in the past, requiring time and energy to extract and maintain its value.

The Problem with Regular Money (Fiat Money)

On the other hand, fiat money, the kind printed by governments, doesn’t follow the same rules. It’s made without effort, just by pressing a button. This leads to big problems:

1. Inflation: More money is printed, making the money you already have worth less.

2. Manipulation: Governments and banks can change the rules whenever they want.

3. Unfairness: People closest to the money printers benefit the most, while everyone else pays the price.

4. Fiat money breaks the rule of time and energy. It’s just a symbol, not a true store of value.

**Henry Ford’s Energy Currency Idea ** Over 100 years ago, Henry Ford had a bold idea: What if money was based on energy? He believed energy was the ultimate resource because it’s measurable and valuable to everyone.

Bitcoin brings Ford’s vision to life. Its Proof-of-Work system ties money directly to energy. Bitcoin acts as a global, incorruptible energy currency that rewards effort and aligns money with real-world value.

Why Energy-Based Money Matters

Money that’s rooted in time and energy isn’t just an idea, it’s a principle we live by every day. To truly understand the value of energy and effort, let me share a personal story.

Every single day of the week, I train. I pour my energy and effort into CrossFit, pushing my body and mind to their limits. Last year, during a competition, I achieved something I’d never done before: 12 ring muscle-ups. Before that, my maximum was just three. Through consistent training, spending my time and energy at the gym, I earned that reward. It wasn’t easy, but it was worth it.

This is Proof-of-Work in action. Just like my training required time and energy to achieve results, Bitcoin requires time and energy to exist. Its

Proof-of-Work mechanism ensures:

• It can’t be faked or inflated.
• It rewards hard work and energy, not shortcuts or manipulation.
• It restores trust by linking value to real-world effort.

In a world where fiat money can be printed without effort, Bitcoin shines as a clear and honest form of money. Like the work I put into my training, Bitcoin ties time and energy to value, creating a system that’s fair, transparent, and built to last.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Nostr: a quick introduction, attempt #1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Anglicismos estúpidos no português contemporâneo

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

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

Palavras que existem em português com sentido diferente

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

Aportuguesamentos desnecessários

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

Expressões

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

Ver também

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Drivechain

Understanding Drivechain requires a shift from the paradigm most bitcoiners are used to. It is not about "trustlessness" or "mathematical certainty", but game theory and incentives. (Well, Bitcoin in general is also that, but people prefer to ignore it and focus on some illusion of trustlessness provided by mathematics.)

Here we will describe the basic mechanism (simple) and incentives (complex) of "hashrate escrow" and how it enables a 2-way peg between the mainchain (Bitcoin) and various sidechains.

The full concept of "Drivechain" also involves blind merged mining (i.e., the sidechains mine themselves by publishing their block hashes to the mainchain without the miners having to run the sidechain software), but this is much easier to understand and can be accomplished either by the BIP-301 mechanism or by the Spacechains mechanism.

How does hashrate escrow work from the point of view of Bitcoin?

A new address type is created. Anything that goes in that is locked and can only be spent if all miners agree on the Withdrawal Transaction (WT^) that will spend it for 6 months. There is one of these special addresses for each sidechain.

To gather miners' agreement bitcoind keeps track of the "score" of all transactions that could possibly spend from that address. On every block mined, for each sidechain, the miner can use a portion of their coinbase to either increase the score of one WT^ by 1 while decreasing the score of all others by 1; or they can decrease the score of all WT^s by 1; or they can do nothing.

Once a transaction has gotten a score high enough, it is published and funds are effectively transferred from the sidechain to the withdrawing users.

If a timeout of 6 months passes and the score doesn't meet the threshold, that WT^ is discarded.

What does the above procedure mean?

It means that people can transfer coins from the mainchain to a sidechain by depositing to the special address. Then they can withdraw from the sidechain by making a special withdraw transaction in the sidechain.

The special transaction somehow freezes funds in the sidechain while a transaction that aggregates all withdrawals into a single mainchain WT^, which is then submitted to the mainchain miners so they can start voting on it and finally after some months it is published.

Now the crucial part: the validity of the WT^ is not verified by the Bitcoin mainchain rules, i.e., if Bob has requested a withdraw from the sidechain to his mainchain address, but someone publishes a wrong WT^ that instead takes Bob's funds and sends them to Alice's main address there is no way the mainchain will know that. What determines the "validity" of the WT^ is the miner vote score and only that. It is the job of miners to vote correctly -- and for that they may want to run the sidechain node in SPV mode so they can attest for the existence of a reference to the WT^ transaction in the sidechain blockchain (which then ensures it is ok) or do these checks by some other means.

What? 6 months to get my money back?

Yes. But no, in practice anyone who wants their money back will be able to use an atomic swap, submarine swap or other similar service to transfer funds from the sidechain to the mainchain and vice-versa. The long delayed withdraw costs would be incurred by few liquidity providers that would gain some small profit from it.

Why bother with this at all?

Drivechains solve many different problems:

It enables experimentation and new use cases for Bitcoin

Issued assets, fully private transactions, stateful blockchain contracts, turing-completeness, decentralized games, some "DeFi" aspects, prediction markets, futarchy, decentralized and yet meaningful human-readable names, big blocks with a ton of normal transactions on them, a chain optimized only for Lighting-style networks to be built on top of it.

These are some ideas that may have merit to them, but were never actually tried because they couldn't be tried with real Bitcoin or inferfacing with real bitcoins. They were either relegated to the shitcoin territory or to custodial solutions like Liquid or RSK that may have failed to gain network effect because of that.

It solves conflicts and infighting

Some people want fully private transactions in a UTXO model, others want "accounts" they can tie to their name and build reputation on top; some people want simple multisig solutions, others want complex code that reads a ton of variables; some people want to put all the transactions on a global chain in batches every 10 minutes, others want off-chain instant transactions backed by funds previously locked in channels; some want to spend, others want to just hold; some want to use blockchain technology to solve all the problems in the world, others just want to solve money.

With Drivechain-based sidechains all these groups can be happy simultaneously and don't fight. Meanwhile they will all be using the same money and contributing to each other's ecosystem even unwillingly, it's also easy and free for them to change their group affiliation later, which reduces cognitive dissonance.

It solves "scaling"

Multiple chains like the ones described above would certainly do a lot to accomodate many more transactions that the current Bitcoin chain can. One could have special Lightning Network chains, but even just big block chains or big-block-mimblewimble chains or whatnot could probably do a good job. Or even something less cool like 200 independent chains just like Bitcoin is today, no extra features (and you can call it "sharding"), just that would already multiply the current total capacity by 200.

Use your imagination.

It solves the blockchain security budget issue

The calculation is simple: you imagine what security budget is reasonable for each block in a world without block subsidy and divide that for the amount of bytes you can fit in a single block: that is the price to be paid in satoshis per byte. In reasonable estimative, the price necessary for every Bitcoin transaction goes to very large amounts, such that not only any day-to-day transaction has insanely prohibitive costs, but also Lightning channel opens and closes are impracticable.

So without a solution like Drivechain you'll be left with only one alternative: pushing Bitcoin usage to trusted services like Liquid and RSK or custodial Lightning wallets. With Drivechain, though, there could be thousands of transactions happening in sidechains and being all aggregated into a sidechain block that would then pay a very large fee to be published (via blind merged mining) to the mainchain. Bitcoin security guaranteed.

It keeps Bitcoin decentralized

Once we have sidechains to accomodate the normal transactions, the mainchain functionality can be reduced to be only a "hub" for the sidechains' comings and goings, and then the maximum block size for the mainchain can be reduced to, say, 100kb, which would make running a full node very very easy.

Can miners steal?

Yes. If a group of coordinated miners are able to secure the majority of the hashpower and keep their coordination for 6 months, they can publish a WT^ that takes the money from the sidechains and pays to themselves.

Will miners steal?

No, because the incentives are such that they won't.

Although it may look at first that stealing is an obvious strategy for miners as it is free money, there are many costs involved:

1. The cost of ceasing blind-merged mining returns -- as stealing will kill a sidechain, all the fees from it that miners would be expected to earn for the next years are gone;
2. The cost of Bitcoin price going down: If a steal is successful that will mean Drivechains are not safe, therefore Bitcoin is less useful, and miner credibility will also be hurt, which are likely to cause the Bitcoin price to go down, which in turn may kill the miners' businesses and savings;
3. The cost of coordination -- assuming miners are just normal businesses, they just want to do their work and get paid, but stealing from a Drivechain will require coordination with other miners to conduct an immoral act in a way that has many pitfalls and is likely to be broken over the months;
4. The cost of miners leaving your mining pool: when we talked about "miners" above we were actually talking about mining pools operators, so they must also consider the risk of miners migrating from their mining pool to others as they begin the process of stealing;
5. The cost of community goodwill -- when participating in a steal operation, a miner will suffer a ton of backlash from the community. Even if the attempt fails at the end, the fact that it was attempted will contribute to growing concerns over exaggerated miners power over the Bitcoin ecosystem, which may end up causing the community to agree on a hard-fork to change the mining algorithm in the future, or to do something to increase participation of more entities in the mining process (such as development or cheapment of new ASICs), which have a chance of decreasing the profits of current miners.

Another point to take in consideration is that one may be inclined to think a newly-created sidechain or a sidechain with relatively low usage may be more easily stolen from, since the blind merged mining returns from it (point 1 above) are going to be small -- but the fact is also that a sidechain with small usage will also have less money to be stolen from, and since the other costs besides 1 are less elastic at the end it will not be worth stealing from these too.

All of the above consideration are valid only if miners are stealing from good sidechains. If there is a sidechain that is doing things wrong, scamming people, not being used at all, or is full of bugs, for example, that will be perceived as a bad sidechain, and then miners can and will safely steal from it and kill it, which will be perceived as a good thing by everybody.

What do we do if miners steal?

Paul Sztorc has suggested in the past that a user-activated soft-fork could prevent miners from stealing, i.e., most Bitcoin users and nodes issue a rule similar to this one to invalidate the inclusion of a faulty WT^ and thus cause any miner that includes it in a block to be relegated to their own Bitcoin fork that other nodes won't accept.

This suggestion has made people think Drivechain is a sidechain solution backed by user-actived soft-forks for safety, which is very far from the truth. Drivechains must not and will not rely on this kind of soft-fork, although they are possible, as the coordination costs are too high and no one should ever expect these things to happen.

If even with all the incentives against them (see above) miners do still steal from a good sidechain that will mean the failure of the Drivechain experiment. It will very likely also mean the failure of the Bitcoin experiment too, as it will be proven that miners can coordinate to act maliciously over a prolonged period of time regardless of economic and social incentives, meaning they are probably in it just for attacking Bitcoin, backed by nation-states or something else, and therefore no Bitcoin transaction in the mainchain is to be expected to be safe ever again.

Why use this and not a full-blown trustless and open sidechain technology?

Because it is impossible.

If you ever heard someone saying "just use a sidechain", "do this in a sidechain" or anything like that, be aware that these people are either talking about "federated" sidechains (i.e., funds are kept in custody by a group of entities) or they are talking about Drivechain, or they are disillusioned and think it is possible to do sidechains in any other manner.

No, I mean a trustless 2-way peg with correctness of the withdrawals verified by the Bitcoin protocol!

That is not possible unless Bitcoin verifies all transactions that happen in all the sidechains, which would be akin to drastically increasing the blocksize and expanding the Bitcoin rules in tons of ways, i.e., a terrible idea that no one wants.

What about the Blockstream sidechains whitepaper?

Yes, that was a way to do it. The Drivechain hashrate escrow is a conceptually simpler way to achieve the same thing with improved incentives, less junk in the chain, more safety.

Isn't the hashrate escrow a very complex soft-fork?

Yes, but it is much simpler than SegWit. And, unlike SegWit, it doesn't force anything on users, i.e., it isn't a mandatory blocksize increase.

Why should we expect miners to care enough to participate in the voting mechanism?

Because it's in their own self-interest to do it, and it costs very little. Today over half of the miners mine RSK. It's not blind merged mining, it's a very convoluted process that requires them to run a RSK full node. For the Drivechain sidechains, an SPV node would be enough, or maybe just getting data from a block explorer API, so much much simpler.

What if I still don't like Drivechain even after reading this?

That is the entire point! You don't have to like it or use it as long as you're fine with other people using it. The hashrate escrow special addresses will not impact you at all, validation cost is minimal, and you get the benefit of people who want to use Drivechain migrating to their own sidechains and freeing up space for you in the mainchain. See also the point above about infighting.

See also

• Podcast episode with Ruben Somsen and Aaron van Wirdum explaining Drivechain
• Alternatives to Drivechain
• Drivechain comparison with Ethereum

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na politika.rs

13.09.2021 / Autor: Aleksandar Apostolovski

---

Za svet virtuelne banalnosti u koji smo umarširali potrebna je i njegova moneta. Kakav svet takvo i sredstvo plaćanja.

Ni četnički jataci nisu kao što su nekada bili. Ne skrivaju se u zemunicama, ne spremaju masnu gibanicu – prste da poližeš – ne čekaju zapadne saveznike da se iskrcaju na Jadranu. Verovatno nemaju ni brade modne linije starog američkog benda „Zi Zi Top”.

Nepoznata sajber ilegalna grupa upala je u podrum kuće čiča Draže u Ivanjici. Zaista, prvorazredna vest. Instalirali su snažne procesore i mašine za rudarenje bitkoinima i daljinskim sistemom. Ko zna odakle. Možda sa Kariba, možda iz Kosjerića, možda iz Jajca – ako su ipak partizani. Trgovali su kriptovalutama. Umalo da tako rasture uličnu rasvetu tokom „Nušićijade”, pa su čelnici opštine sproveli internu istragu, tražeći ilegalce koji vrše diverziju nad elektroenergetskim sistemom grada i festivalom satire.

Upali su u Dražin dom, sišli u podrum i zatekli sofisticiranu opremu, snažne procesore i nekakve mašine za rudarenje po internetu. Kompjuterski komandosi, naravno, nisu bili prisutni. Sada ih juri policija. Potrošili su oko 55.000 kilovat-sati struje. Verovatno se skrivaju pod stripovskim kodnim imenima, poput hakera iz Niša koji su ojadili Teksašane, pa im je doakao FBI, jer Ameri možda trpe svoje prevarante koji muzu kockare na globalnom groblju kriptovaluta, ali ne dozvoljavaju da se u međunarodnu spekulativnu igru ubace mozgovi sa južne pruge, gde je dozvoljeno da se prži paprika, pravi ajvar i sluša melanholični džez na „Nišvilu”.

Jedan od članova niške hakerske grupe je Antonije Stojiljković, koji se krio iza lažnih imena „Toni Rivas” i „Džejkob Gold”, a u slobodno vreme bio je reper poznatiji kao „Zli Toni”. Stojiljković je izručen Americi zbog računarskih prevara. Dobrovoljno se prijavio kako bi se sklonio u Ameriku.

Ti momci su nudili bitkoin upola cene i stvorili takvu virtuelnu međunarodnu mrežu lažnih kompanija, menadžera, uz organizaciju video-konferencija, da su omađijali dobar deo internet investitora iz Teksasa, te je Federalni istražni biro morao da spasava čast kauboja koje su izradile Nišlije. Njihov vođa, izvesni Kristijan Krstić, prestao je da se javlja policiji, nestao je sa suprugom i ortakom Markom Pavlovićem bez traga, iako su pod istragom, što može da poremeti i diplomatske odnose između Srbije i SAD.

Taj Kristijan, ne onaj Kristijan koji se seli iz rijalitija u rijaliti, koristio je nadimke poput „Feliksa Logana” ili „Maršala Grahama” i na internet prevarama zaradio je više desetina miliona evra. Priča nije nimalo bezazlena. Veze „Zlog Tonija” dosežu, bar po dosadašnjem toku istrage, sve do klana Belivuka.

Ali, to će rešavati sudovi i policija, mada i podaci koji su procurili otkrivaju suštinu fame bitkoin i na hiljade kriptovaluta koje može stvoriti bilo koji maher, avanturista, šaljivdžija, klinac, multimilioner, tajne službe, trgovci oružjem, narko-bosovi, plaćene ubice ili Del Bojevi koji će iduće godine postati milioneri.

Virtuelni svet ne može postojati bez virtuelnih valuta, s tim što one nisu opipljive, iza njih ne stoje centralne banke i vlade. Dakle, nemate pojma ko ih je stvorio, nemate pojma s kime trgujete i ko su brokeri.

Vidim da na „Jutjubu”, u motelu „Stari Hrast” na Koridoru 10, neki momci plaćaju prebranac i vešalice bitkoinima, preko mobilnih telefona. U kafani primaju i etereume, digitalni novčić u usponu, odmah iza bitkoina. I za to čudo je potreban digitalni novčanik... Ovde ću se zaustaviti jer je za svet banalnosti u koji smo umarširali potrebna i njegova moneta. Kakav svet takvo i sredstvo plaćanja.

Kako su kompjuterski podaci svih vrsta, od pretraživača, društvenih mreža, aplikacija, do podataka kompanija, državnih i međunarodnih organizacija, i onih ličnih, koje upravo vi posedujete, postali nezamislivo ogromna baza koju je nemoguće uskladištiti, otvorena je berza za internet magacionere koji će, rudareći na internetu, postati kandidati za potencijalne šefove skladišta. Teoretski, možete izrudariti deo arhive CIA. Preporuka – ako saznate ko je ukokao Kenedija, ćutite ko zaliveni!

(Dragan Stojanović)

Da je Alija Sirotanović kojim slučajem rudario kao specijalci iz Dražinog podruma, postao bi Bil Gejts. Alija je znao da nema ’leba bez motike, odnosno krampa. Zato je ostao Sirotanović. Ovo je novo doba. Mašina krampuje u simuliranoj stvarnosti, a virtuelni homo sapijens upravlja procesorima. Bitkoin vrti gde burgija neće! Stvar ipak nije tako idilična. Te skalamerije troše ogromne količine električne energije i strahovito zagrevaju prostorije, pa je u Dražinom podrumu bilo nešto vrelije nego u sauni. Priča se da su najveći mešetari otperjali na Island da se prirodno rashlade. Sledeće stanište im je Grenland.

Kome god je stalo do računarskog kriptovalutnog avanturizma može da formira svoj mali rudnik, gde nema zlata ni dijamanata, ali ima koina, odnosno stotog dela bitkoina. Jedan trenutno vredi 50.000 dolara. Pitam se, ovako zastareo, gde su banke i menjačnice?

Sa ono malo informatičkog znanja – valjda ću uspeti nekako imejlom da pošaljem ovaj tekst – saznao sam da vrednost bitkoina vrtoglavo skače i pada na dnevnom nivou, a kako je njegov broj ograničen na globalnom nivou, a neformalni šef Federalnih rezervi bitkoina je donedavno bio jedan od najbogatijih ljudi sveta Ilon Mask, koji je na svom tviter nalogu svakodnevno formirao grafikon rasta i pada svojim opaskama, tu već naslućujem elemente bondovskog zapleta. Harizmatični superbogataš koji leti u svemir, poseduje kompaniju električnih automobila „Tesla”, upravljao je donedavno imaginarnom berzom i valutom, ali je nedavno odustao. Možda zato emigrira u kosmos?

Stvar zaista može izmaći kontroli ili će, možda, bitkoin postati naša sudbina, a mi rudari iz sauna? Salvador je pre nekoliko dana postao prva zemlja na svetu koja je usvojila bitkoin kao zakonsko sredstvo plaćanja, uz američki dolar, s planovima korišćenja vulkanske geotermalne energije za napajanje rudarenja digitalne valute. Postavili su i bankomate. Tamošnjem narodu, kao i meni, ništa nije jasno.

Međutim, broj bitkoina je ograničen i zato pomalo podseća na zlato. Ali kod zlata ipak ponešto razumem. Recimo, ako imam zlatnu polugu i neko me napadne, mogu da je koristim u samoodbrani, a onda je sklonim u trezor banke.

Mogu da učinim i nešto drugo, jednako glupo. Da stvorim sopstvenu kriptovalutu. Nazvaću je „Ser Oliver koin”. Cijena će joj, logično, biti prava sitnica. Trebaju mi saradnici. Kruži fama da se popriličan broj klinaca, mahom dvadesetogodišnjaka, pridružio kultu bitkoina. Tokom korone izgubili su poverenje u sve, naročito u nas matore. Optužuju nas za izdaju i predviđaju propast država i zvaničnih valuta, uz uspon dvoglave aždaje – saveza bogataša i političara.

Delimično su u pravu, ali nisu ukapirali ključnu stvar. Aždaja raste, a oni rudare. Na kraju će završiti još gore nego Alija Sirotanović. Likovi im neće biti na novčanicama, a kablovima će biti priključeni za superkompjuter. Njihov novi vlasnik, s kodnim imenom „Procesor”, plaćaće ih idiot-koinima. Tražili smo, gledaćemo.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

bitcoind decentralization

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

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

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

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

The event has shown that:

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

Solution: bitcoind decentralization

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

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

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

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

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

Run Bitcoin Knots

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

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

---

See also:

• How to attack Bitcoin, Anthony Towns' take

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

@ 207ad2a0:e7cca7b0

Quick context: I wanted to check out Nostr's longform posts and this blog post seemed like a good one to try and mirror. It's originally from my free to read/share attempt to write a novel, but this post here is completely standalone - just describing how I used AI image generation to make a small piece of the work.

Hold on, put your pitchforks down - outside of using Grammerly & Emacs for grammatical corrections - not a single character was generated or modified by computers; a non-insignificant portion of my first draft originating on pen & paper. No AI is ~~weird and crazy~~ imaginative enough to write like I do. The only successful AI contribution you'll find is a single image, the map, which I heavily edited. This post will go over how I generated and modified an image using AI, which I believe brought some value to the work, and cover a few quick thoughts about AI towards the end.

Let's be clear, I can't draw, but I wanted a map which I believed would improve the story I was working on. After getting abysmal results by prompting AI with text only I decided to use "Diffuse the Rest," a Stable Diffusion tool that allows you to provide a reference image + description to fine tune what you're looking for. I gave it this Microsoft Paint looking drawing:

and after a number of outputs, selected this one to work on:

The image is way better than the one I provided, but had I used it as is, I still feel it would have decreased the quality of my work instead of increasing it. After firing up Gimp I cropped out the top and bottom, expanded the ocean and separated the landmasses, then copied the top right corner of the large landmass to replace the bottom left that got cut off. Now we've got something that looks like concept art: not horrible, and gets the basic idea across, but it's still due for a lot more detail.

The next thing I did was add some texture to make it look more map like. I duplicated the layer in Gimp and applied the "Cartoon" filter to both for some texture. The top layer had a much lower effect strength to give it a more textured look, while the lower layer had a higher effect strength that looked a lot like mountains or other terrain features. Creating a layer mask allowed me to brush over spots to display the lower layer in certain areas, giving it some much needed features.

At this point I'd made it to where I felt it may improve the work instead of detracting from it - at least after labels and borders were added, but the colors seemed artificial and out of place. Luckily, however, this is when PhotoFunia could step in and apply a sketch effect to the image.

At this point I was pretty happy with how it was looking, it was close to what I envisioned and looked very visually appealing while still being a good way to portray information. All that was left was to make the white background transparent, add some minor details, and add the labels and borders. Below is the exact image I wound up using:

Overall, I'm very satisfied with how it turned out, and if you're working on a creative project, I'd recommend attempting something like this. It's not a central part of the work, but it improved the chapter a fair bit, and was doable despite lacking the talent and not intending to allocate a budget to my making of a free to read and share story.

The AI Generated Elephant in the Room

If you've read my non-fiction writing before, you'll know that I think AI will find its place around the skill floor as opposed to the skill ceiling. As you saw with my input, I have absolutely zero drawing talent, but with some elbow grease and an existing creative direction before and after generating an image I was able to get something well above what I could have otherwise accomplished. Outside of the lowest common denominators like stock photos for the sole purpose of a link preview being eye catching, however, I doubt AI will be wholesale replacing most creative works anytime soon. I can assure you that I tried numerous times to describe the map without providing a reference image, and if I used one of those outputs (or even just the unedited output after providing the reference image) it would have decreased the quality of my work instead of improving it.

I'm going to go out on a limb and expect that AI image, text, and video is all going to find its place in slop & generic content (such as AI generated slop replacing article spinners and stock photos respectively) and otherwise be used in a supporting role for various creative endeavors. For people working on projects like I'm working on (e.g. intended budget $0) it's helpful to have an AI capable of doing legwork - enabling projects to exist or be improved in ways they otherwise wouldn't have. I'm also guessing it'll find its way into more professional settings for grunt work - think a picture frame or fake TV show that would exist in the background of an animated project - likely a detail most people probably wouldn't notice, but that would save the creators time and money and/or allow them to focus more on the essential aspects of said work. Beyond that, as I've predicted before: I expect plenty of emails will be generated from a short list of bullet points, only to be summarized by the recipient's AI back into bullet points.

I will also make a prediction counter to what seems mainstream: AI is about to peak for a while. The start of AI image generation was with Google's DeepDream in 2015 - image recognition software that could be run in reverse to "recognize" patterns where there were none, effectively generating an image from digital noise or an unrelated image. While I'm not an expert by any means, I don't think we're too far off from that a decade later, just using very fine tuned tools that develop more coherent images. I guess that we're close to maxing out how efficiently we're able to generate images and video in that manner, and the hard caps on how much creative direction we can have when using AI - as well as the limits to how long we can keep it coherent (e.g. long videos or a chronologically consistent set of images) - will prevent AI from progressing too far beyond what it is currently unless/until another breakthrough occurs.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na trzisnoresenje.blogspot.com

22.12.2017 / Autor: Slaviša Tasić

---

Ovoliki uspon Bitcoina neobjašnjiv je za ekonomiste. Ne znam da li je to problem za bitcoin ili za ekonomiste, ali činjenica je da se uspeh bitcoina ne uklapa u postojeće ekonomske koncepte bar kada se radi o njemu kao valuti (blockchain kao tehnološka podloga je druga stvar). Možda su tinejdžeri koji su kupovali bitcoin 2010. i sada postali milioneri ispali pametniji od ekonomista, ali ja i dalje ne vidim odgovor bitcoina na neka standardna konceptualna pitanja. Postoji apokrifna izjava pripisana nekom profesoru ekonomije: "OK, vidim da to radi u praksi -- ali čik da vidim da li radi u teoriji?" Ovo je nešto tog tipa.

O poreklu novca, od Aristotela nasuprot Platonu pa sve do danas, postoje dve teorije. Jedna je teorija robnog novca i po njoj je novac nastao kada su neke vredne stvari počele da se češće koriste u razmeni. Plemeniti metali, naročito srebro i zlato, najpogodniji za čuvanje, oblikovanje i seckanje tako su postali novac. Kada se kasnije pojavio papirni novac on je sve do prvih decenija 20. veka bio samo hartija od vrednosti koja donosiocu daje pravo na propisanu količinu zlata.

Druga teorija je kartalizam, po kojoj neku robu novcem ne čini njena unutrašnja vrednost ili robna podloga, već država onda kada odluči da tu robu prihvata za naplatu poreza. Zbog toga je prelaz na papirni novac tokom 20. veka bio tako bezbolan i papirne valute se danas bez problema prihvataju. Današnji papirni novac nije više sertifikat koji vam daje pravo na zlato, ali vrednost ima jer u krajnjoj liniji znate da njime uvek možete platiti državi za porez ili usluge.

Bitcoin se ne uklapa ni u jednu od ovih teorija. On nema imanentnu vrednost kao robni novac, niti se može koristiti za plaćanje državi. Jedini način za bitcoin da ima neku vrednost je da ga prihvataju druge privatne strane u transakcijama. To je potpuni novitet u istoriji novca, jer se po prvi put radi o privatnom dekretnom (proklamovanom ili fiat) novcu. Postojao je privatni novac sa robnom podlogom; postoji državni dekretni novac; ali nikad privatni dekretni novac.

Najveći problem sa bitcoinom kao valutom je nestabilnost. To što njegova vrednost vrtoglavo raste nikako nije argument u prilog njemu jer nestabilnost valute isključuje mogućnost smislenog ugovaranja u njoj. Pristalice bitcoina dobro znaju da je njegova ponuda automatski ograničena i to je čest argument u odbranu bitcoina kao valute i navodno u prilog njegove stabilnosti. Ja nisam siguran da ograničenost ponude igra tako veliku ulogu.

Prvo, iako je količina bitcoina ograničena, može se napraviti neograničeno mnogo kopija bitcoina ili boljih kripto valuta. Već sada postoji na hiljade njih. Šta ograničenost ponude bitcoina uopšte znači kada ima neograničeno mnogo alternativa?

Drugo, iako je ponuda ograničena, cenu novca, kao i svega drugog, određuju ponuda i tražnja. A tražnja je kao što vidimo veoma varijabilna. Tako na jednoj strani imamo kvaziograničenost ponude a na drugoj veliku neizvesnost tražnje. To sve ukazuje na ogromnu nestabilnost.

Kod klasičnih valuta, poput evra ili dinara, ponuda je ograničena politikom centralne banke. Mnogi će reći da to nije nikakva garancija, ali zapadne valute već 30 godina nemaju nikakvu inflaciju, a u proteklih desetak godina veći problem bila je deflacija. Tražnja - želja za držanjem novca - je kod državnih valuta takođe varijabilna, ali mnogo manje jer monopolski karakter ovih valuta i naplata poreza u njima garantuju njihovu upotrebu. I kod tradicionalnih valuta ne samo da je tražnja novca relativno stabilna, već u situacijama kada tražnja novca bude nestabilna, fleksibilnost njegove ponude postaje prednost a ne mana. Na primer, tražnja za švajcarskim francima je negde oko 2009. naglo porasla. Švajcarska centralna banka je na to reagovala ogromnim povećanjem ponude, tako da je franak sačuvao bazičnu stabilnost. Jeste ojačao ali u razumnoj meri - ne desetostruko ili stostruko kao što rade kriptovalute.

Zato ne vidim kako se oscilacije bitcoina mogu zaustaviti. Jasno je da kriptovalute imaju neku korisnost u transakcijama, makar to bilo i za ilegalne aktivnosti, ali kada je ponuda neograničena a tražnja neizvesna onda nema nikakvih smernica buduće vrednosti. Ne znam koliko se to čak i može nazvati balonom jer se uopšte nemamo na šta osloniti u proceni nekakve prave vrednosti -- nema nikakvog fundamentalnog razloga ni da cena bitcoina poraste na $19,000 niti da danas padne na $12,500. Jedina vrednost koja u teoriji ima smisla je nula ili vrlo blizu nule.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na trzisnoresenje.blogspot.com

06.10.2014 / Autor: Slaviša Tasić

---

Od kako je bitcoin postao popularan vodi se rasprava među zagovornicima slobodnog tržišta oko njegovo gpravog statusa: da li je to budući novac, efikasan sistem zaobilaženja državne kontrole i garant slobode pojedinca, ili pak fikcija i pomodarstvo iza koje nema ničeg stvarnog?

Teorijski centar debate je pitanje da li je bitcoin "zapravo" novac ili ne. Jedna grupa tvrdi da jeste, pozivajući se na to da je nastao hiljadama dobrovoljnih akata potrošača na tržištu i time uspostavljen kao konvencija. Ko ste vi, teoretičari iz fotelje, da u ime naroda koji prihvata bitcoin definišete šte je "pravi" novac a šta nije? Druga škola tvrdi da je to irelevantno, da je takozvana vrednost bitcoina fiktivna i naduvana, i da će uskoro pući, jer nema nikakve realne pozadine: svaki novac kroz istoriju je uvek morao da ima podlogu nećeg realnog, najčešće plemenitog metala neke vrste, novac nikad ne nastaje nečijom naredbom ili proizvoljnom odlukom.

Vrlo često se u ovom kontekstu pominje Misesova čuena "teorema regresije". Ona kaže da je novac univerzalno razmensko sredstvo koje svoju vrednost crpe iz prethodne upotrebne vrednosti materijala od kojeg je sačinjeno. Recimo, zlato i srebro imaju vrednost kao nakit i luksuzna roba koju ljudi traže iz ne-monetarnih razloga, a njihova vrednost kao novca se onda izvodi iz te prethodne evaluacije njegove ne monetarne upotrebne "vrednosti". Tehnički rečeno, tražnja za zlatom kao monetarnim dobrom izvedena je iz tražnje za zlatom kao nemonetarnim dobrom.

Problem sa bitcoinom je što na prvi pogled on nema nikakvu ne-monetarnu vrednost. Nije zasnovan ni na kakvom fizičkom materijalu ili robi, već predstavlja kompjuterski algoritam. Bitcoin je beskoristan za bilo šta drugo osim kao sredstvo plaćanja. Ako je tome tako, onda postoje samo dve mogućnosti: ili bitcoin ne može da bude novac, ili je teorija o realnoj, nemonetarnoj osnovi novca netačna.

Izgleda da ni jedno ni drugo nije slučaj. Bitcoin jeste sredstvo razmene, iako još uvek nije novac, budući da nije univerzalno prihvaćen (što ne znači da ne može ili da neće biti prihvaćen), ali bitcoin istovremeno JESTE zasnovan na nečem realnom, tj ima vrednost i mimo svoje uloge kao novca. Ta prethodna vrednost bitcoina je njegova uloga kao efikasnog sistema plaćanja. Kao što Jeffrey Tucker naglašava u svom novom tekstu, Bitcoin je 2008 uveden kao sistem plaćanja koji bi omogućio efikasni transfer resursa između pojedinaca u raznim delovima sveta uz potpuno zaobilaženje zvaničnog finansijskog sistema. Programski dokument osnivača Bitcoina nije uopšte spominjao novac nego samo sistem plaćanja koji omogućava pouzdanost, anonimonst i operisanje izvan zvaničnih finansijkih tokova. Tehnički detalji su ovde.

Bitcoin kao sistem je lansiran 9 januara 2009, ali u tom trenutku njegova vrednost je bila nula! Sve do oktobra 2009 potenicjalni klijenti su mogli da dobiju besplatno koliko god hoće bitcoina da eksperimentišu. Ljudi su vršili prve transakcije, proveravali da li je sistem pouzdan, da li radi onako kako je obećano itd. Taj proces eksperminetisanja je trajao oko deset meseci. U tom periodu Bitcoin kao novac nije imao nikakvu tržišnu vrednost. Pre tačno pet godina, 5 oktobra 2009 postavljena je prva tržišna cena. Ona je bila 1390 bitcoina za jedan američki dolar, odnosno jedan bitcoin je vredeo manje od desetog dela penija. U tom trenutku publika je bila još uvek skeptična, što se pokazalo u vrlo niskoj ceni, ali kako je vreme prolazilo cena je rasla jer je evaluacija sistema, sa protokom vremena i daljim potvrđivanjem njegove vrednosti i pouzdanosti, kao i ulaskom mnogo šireg kurga ljudi u igru, postajala sve viša. Međutim, to je sve sa teorijske tačke gledišta irelevantno; ključna stvar je da je početna evaluacija bitcoina, prva tržišna cena objavljena 5 oktobra 2009 bila zapravo izraz evaluacije sistema plaćanja koja je vršena mesecima nezavisno od samog novca (tj njegove potencijalne vrednosti). Bitcoin kao novac "regresira" u mizesovskom smislu na bitcoin kao sistem plaćanja.

Dakle, bitcoin nije fiat novac. On predstavlja potencijalnu valutu koja je izvedena iz tržišne vrednosti specifičnog sistema plaćanja koji klijentima omogućava značajne prednosti koje drugi sistemi ne pružaju. I stoga oza njega stoji "realna vrednost" u istom smislu u kome nešto "realno" stoji iza zlata i srebra kao novca, ili iza modernih fiat valuta izvedenih iz zlata i srebra. Ja ne verujem da bi bitcoin imao velike šanse protiv zlata i srebra na slobodnom tržištu valuta, ali u ovom trenutku ne postoji slobodno tržište valuta, tj onaj ko pokuša da trguje u zlatu završiće u zatvoru. U takvim okolnostima, virtuelnost bitcoina predstavlja komparativnu prednost u odnosu na svaku vrstu robnog novca uključujući i zlato: vlasnik ne poseduje nikakvu fizičku supstancu koju vlada može da mu konfiskuje. Naravno, to bi moglo da se promeni ukoliko vlade ocene da je bitcoin značajna opasnost i krene u tehnološki rat protiv njega. U tom slučaju bi i cena verovatno pala.

@ e6817453:b0ac3c39

The Rise of Graph RAGs and the Quest for Data Quality

As we enter a new year, it’s impossible to ignore the boom of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems, particularly those leveraging graph-based approaches. The previous year saw a surge in advancements and discussions about Graph RAGs, driven by their potential to enhance large language models (LLMs), reduce hallucinations, and deliver more reliable outputs. Let’s dive into the trends, challenges, and strategies for making the most of Graph RAGs in artificial intelligence.

Booming Interest in Graph RAGs

Graph RAGs have dominated the conversation in AI circles. With new research papers and innovations emerging weekly, it’s clear that this approach is reshaping the landscape. These systems, especially those developed by tech giants like Microsoft, demonstrate how graphs can:

• Enhance LLM Outputs: By grounding responses in structured knowledge, graphs significantly reduce hallucinations.
• Support Complex Queries: Graphs excel at managing linked and connected data, making them ideal for intricate problem-solving.

Conferences on linked and connected data have increasingly focused on Graph RAGs, underscoring their central role in modern AI systems. However, the excitement around this technology has brought critical questions to the forefront: How do we ensure the quality of the graphs we’re building, and are they genuinely aligned with our needs?

Data Quality: The Foundation of Effective Graphs

A high-quality graph is the backbone of any successful RAG system. Constructing these graphs from unstructured data requires attention to detail and rigorous processes. Here’s why:

• Richness of Entities: Effective retrieval depends on graphs populated with rich, detailed entities.
• Freedom from Hallucinations: Poorly constructed graphs amplify inaccuracies rather than mitigating them.

Without robust data quality, even the most sophisticated Graph RAGs become ineffective. As a result, the focus must shift to refining the graph construction process. Improving data strategy and ensuring meticulous data preparation is essential to unlock the full potential of Graph RAGs.

Hybrid Graph RAGs and Variations

While standard Graph RAGs are already transformative, hybrid models offer additional flexibility and power. Hybrid RAGs combine structured graph data with other retrieval mechanisms, creating systems that:

• Handle diverse data sources with ease.
• Offer improved adaptability to complex queries.

Exploring these variations can open new avenues for AI systems, particularly in domains requiring structured and unstructured data processing.

Ontology: The Key to Graph Construction Quality

Ontology — defining how concepts relate within a knowledge domain — is critical for building effective graphs. While this might sound abstract, it’s a well-established field blending philosophy, engineering, and art. Ontology engineering provides the framework for:

• Defining Relationships: Clarifying how concepts connect within a domain.
• Validating Graph Structures: Ensuring constructed graphs are logically sound and align with domain-specific realities.

Traditionally, ontologists — experts in this discipline — have been integral to large enterprises and research teams. However, not every team has access to dedicated ontologists, leading to a significant challenge: How can teams without such expertise ensure the quality of their graphs?

How to Build Ontology Expertise in a Startup Team

For startups and smaller teams, developing ontology expertise may seem daunting, but it is achievable with the right approach:

1. Assign a Knowledge Champion: Identify a team member with a strong analytical mindset and give them time and resources to learn ontology engineering.
2. Provide Training: Invest in courses, workshops, or certifications in knowledge graph and ontology creation.
3. Leverage Partnerships: Collaborate with academic institutions, domain experts, or consultants to build initial frameworks.
4. Utilize Tools: Introduce ontology development tools like Protégé, OWL, or SHACL to simplify the creation and validation process.
5. Iterate with Feedback: Continuously refine ontologies through collaboration with domain experts and iterative testing.

So, it is not always affordable for a startup to have a dedicated oncologist or knowledge engineer in a team, but you could involve consulters or build barefoot experts.

You could read about barefoot experts in my article :

Even startups can achieve robust and domain-specific ontology frameworks by fostering in-house expertise.

How to Find or Create Ontologies

For teams venturing into Graph RAGs, several strategies can help address the ontology gap:

1. Leverage Existing Ontologies: Many industries and domains already have open ontologies. For instance:

2. Public Knowledge Graphs: Resources like Wikipedia’s graph offer a wealth of structured knowledge.

3. Industry Standards: Enterprises such as Siemens have invested in creating and sharing ontologies specific to their fields.

4. Business Framework Ontology (BFO): A valuable resource for enterprises looking to define business processes and structures.

5. Build In-House Expertise: If budgets allow, consider hiring knowledge engineers or providing team members with the resources and time to develop expertise in ontology creation.

6. Utilize LLMs for Ontology Construction: Interestingly, LLMs themselves can act as a starting point for ontology development:

7. Prompt-Based Extraction: LLMs can generate draft ontologies by leveraging their extensive training on graph data.

8. Domain Expert Refinement: Combine LLM-generated structures with insights from domain experts to create tailored ontologies.

Parallel Ontology and Graph Extraction

An emerging approach involves extracting ontologies and graphs in parallel. While this can streamline the process, it presents challenges such as:

• Detecting Hallucinations: Differentiating between genuine insights and AI-generated inaccuracies.
• Ensuring Completeness: Ensuring no critical concepts are overlooked during extraction.

Teams must carefully validate outputs to ensure reliability and accuracy when employing this parallel method.

LLMs as Ontologists

While traditionally dependent on human expertise, ontology creation is increasingly supported by LLMs. These models, trained on vast amounts of data, possess inherent knowledge of many open ontologies and taxonomies. Teams can use LLMs to:

• Generate Skeleton Ontologies: Prompt LLMs with domain-specific information to draft initial ontology structures.
• Validate and Refine Ontologies: Collaborate with domain experts to refine these drafts, ensuring accuracy and relevance.

However, for validation and graph construction, formal tools such as OWL, SHACL, and RDF should be prioritized over LLMs to minimize hallucinations and ensure robust outcomes.

Final Thoughts: Unlocking the Power of Graph RAGs

The rise of Graph RAGs underscores a simple but crucial correlation: improving graph construction and data quality directly enhances retrieval systems. To truly harness this power, teams must invest in understanding ontologies, building quality graphs, and leveraging both human expertise and advanced AI tools.

As we move forward, the interplay between Graph RAGs and ontology engineering will continue to shape the future of AI. Whether through adopting existing frameworks or exploring innovative uses of LLMs, the path to success lies in a deep commitment to data quality and domain understanding.

Have you explored these technologies in your work? Share your experiences and insights — and stay tuned for more discussions on ontology extraction and its role in AI advancements. Cheers to a year of innovation!

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na trzisnoresenje.blogspot.com

15.12.2023 / Autor: Slaviša Tasić

---

Ovako sam pisao u aprilu kad je Bitcoin vredeo $50-100 dolara:

"Koja je budućnost Bitcoina? Većina mu predviđa propast, ali već smo videli da ima neprijatelje sa obeju strana i obe imaju svoje razloge. ... Ali ekonomski gledano, sada kad je Bitcoin došao dovde, meni se čini da može još mnogo rasti."

...

"Zato mislim da ekonomski Bitcoin više nema problem. Sa ovako ograničenom ponudom, a uz održanje sadašnje tražnje ili njen rast, njegove vrednost može i još mnogo da poraste."

U međuvremenu je otišao na preko $1,000. Ali mislite da sam kupio neki Bitcoin? Nisam, teško je baviti se takvim sitnicama kad morate da pišete blog.

Evo šta sada mislim o Bitcoinu.

Najvažnije je razumeti zašto Bitcoin uopšte ima vrednost. To što ima neku vrednost i nije tako iznenađujuće. Valute su istorijski spontano nastajale najčešće od nečega što ima istinsku vrednost, bronze, srebra ili zlata. Ali nije neviđeno ni da novac bez intristične vrednosti bude široko prihvaćen. Poznat je slučaj ostrva kamenog novca, gde je novac bilo kamenje, neka vrsta krečnjaka (vidi sliku ispod). Stanovnici jednog polinezijskog ostrva su koristili ovaj kamen kao novac zbog samo jedne osobine -- zato što nije postojao na ostrvu. Da biste nabavili takvo kamenje morali ste ići na drugo ostrvo, što je bilo skupo i naporno. I to je jedina osobina koja je krečnjak činila novcem, nisu ga koristili ni za šta drugo.

Štaviše, da ne bi kotrljali kamenje pri svakoj kupovini, trgovali su samo pravima na odrđeni kamen, a da se kamen uopšte nije morao pomeriti s mesta. To je suštinski isto kao današnje elektronsko bankarstvo, ali to je druga priča.

Bitcoin je nešto najbliže tome. Kad se uspostavi konvencija, onda novac ne mora imati imanentnu vrednost. Konvencija je, iz garantovanu retkost dovoljan uslov da nešto uspe kao novac. Kao i krečnjak na tom ostrvu, Bitcoin je suštinski bezvredan, ali 1) ne može se naći lako (ima retkost) i 2) postoji konvencija da se prihvata kao novac -- prihvatate ga jer znate da će ga i drugi prihvatiti.

Ali koliko je Bitcoin zaista redak? Sam Bitcoin jeste, jer mu je ponuda programski ograničena. Ali sada vidimo uspon drugih kripto valuta -- Litecoin, Peercoin, i drugi. Bitcoin je redak, ali svako može da napravi nešto jako slično bitcoinu i zvati ga drugačije. To se uveliko i dešava, za sada bez efekta na vrednost Bitcoina.

Za sada Bitcoin ima rastuću snagu konvencije, ili ekonomskim rečnikom, za njega radi efekat mreže. Efekat mreže postoji kada svaki dodatni korisnik povećava vrednost dobra -- vi koristite tastaturu sa početnim slovima QWERTY zato što svi drugi koriste istu tastaturu pa je glupo da počinjete nešto drugo; otvorili ste Facebook nalog ne zato što je Facebook tehnološki najbolje urađen nego zato što svi drugi imaju Facebook pa se tako nalkaše povezujete; nemate Google Plus jer niko drugi nema Google Plus što ga čini beskorisnim, i tako dalje. Uspostavljene mreže je jako teško srušiti, one se perpetuiraju i rastu na principu začaranog kruga.

Kad se jednom uspostave, mreže kao Facebook ili Bitcoin imaju ugrađenu prednost i teško ih je srušiti. Ali znate li ko je još imao efekat mreže u svoju korist? Imao je Windows i imao je MySpace. Windows se još drži ali nije ni blizu moći od pre desetak godina, a MySpace je potpuno propao -- a ljudi su 2008. MySpaceu predviđali večni monopol zbog efekta mreže. Poenta je, efekat mreže je prednost ali nikome ne garantuje monopol, pa čak ni opstanak.

Situacija sa Bitcoinom je ovakva. Sa pojavom drugih valuta retkost je izgubio. Nije bitno što nema Bitcoina, Bitcoin je samo ime. Ima ili može biti neograničeno mnogo kriptovaluta istog tipa i to je ono što je važno. Konvenciju odnosno efekat mreže Bitcoin još uvek ima, štaviše tu je i dalje u usponu. Ali to mu ne garantuje dugoročni uspeh. Kad se ta dva saberu, mislim da Bitcoin nema dobrih dugoročnih izgleda. Da sam onda u aprilu kupio Bitcoine, sada bih prodao.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

início

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

Ele ficou em silêncio por alguns instantes.

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

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

---

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

---

Nostr GitHub Telegram Donate

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na trzisnoresenje.blogspot.com

03.04.2013 / Autor: Slaviša Tasić

---

Posle kiparske epizode naglo je došlo do rasta njegove vrednosti. Bitcoin je virtuelna valuta koju ne kontroliše niko. Umesto toga, emitovanje Bitcoina ograničeno je komplikovanim programom. Kao i kod zlata, svako može da iskopa novčiće, ali kopanje je naporno i neizvesno -- jedina je razlika što se posao ne obavlja fizički već kompjuterski. Program je postavljen tako da količina iskopanih Bitcoina raste po stalno opadajućoj stopi, dok se na kraju, za nekih stotinak godina, asimptotski ne približi konačnom nivou.

Za bliže objašnjenje Bitcoina i više o tekućim dešavanima pročešljajte Nedeljni komentar, a meni ceo fenomen postaje vrlo interesantan iz nekoliko razloga.

Prvo, Bitcoin ima mnogo neprijatelja. Neprijatelji su pristalice državnog novca, jer je ovo privatni, decentralizovani novac, čije štampanje ne kontrolišu stručnjaci za monetarnu politiku već se obavlja po automatskom programu. Tokovi novca se teško kontrolišu i neke centralne banke su već "izrazile zabrinutost" zbog rastuće uloge ove valute.

Ali, neprijatelji su i libertarijanski ekonomisti kojima je bliži zlatni standard. U njihovu viziju se ne uklapa to što Bitcoin očigledno nema pravu materijalnu vrednost. Bitcoin je nešto kao privatni fiat novac -- dosada neviđeni fenomen. Po njima tako nešto ne može da postoji i zato mu od samog početka predviđaju propast, ali ih bar za ovih par godina njegovog postojanja stvarnost demantuje.

Dalje, nastanak i dosadašnji uspeh Bitcoina se kosi sa bilo kojom postojećom teorijom i štaviše, za njegov uspeh gotovo da uopšte nema racionalnog objašnjenja. Najveća tajna slobodne razmene, bilo da je to tržište ili drugi oblici slobodne i dobrovoljne saradnje, je to što iz neorganizovane akcije slobodnih pojedinaca može doći do ishoda kojima se ne možemo unapred nadati, koji prevazilaze našu moć imaginacije i koje čak i ex post teško možemo racionalno objasniti. (To je Hayekova najvažnija ideja, a ne njegov libertarijanizam po sebi).

Bitcoin je izgledao a i dalje većini ekonomista i medija izgleda nemoguće, jer iako je njegova ponuda ograničena programom, tražnja za njim je stvar pukog verovanja. Kod zlata i srebra, tražnja postoji jer ti metali imaju i stvarnu vrednost. Kod državnog novca, tražnja postoji jer vam država kaže da morate da koristite taj novac, ali i svojim autoritetom garantuje da će svi ostali prihvatati taj novac. Kod Bitcoina vam niko ne garantuje ništa. Kako je to počelo da se koristi, kako su ljudi, posebno oni u početku, prihvatali da prodaju stvari za Bitcoine, ili da razmenjuju svoje evre i dolare za Bitcoine, meni uopšte nije jasno. Sada je lakše, valuta je donekle uspostavljena, više je prodavaca koji je prihvataju, znate da ima dovoljno onih koji je koriste i zato ima nekih osnova za verovanje da će se to nastaviti. Ali da je tako nešto moglo da počne, da nastane ni iz čega, je gotovo neshvatljivo.

Koja je budućnost Bitcoina? Većina mu predviđa propast, ali već smo videli da ima neprijatelje sa obeju strana i obe imaju svoje razloge. Propast je pre svega moguća usled državne intervencije. Možda će tako nešto jednostavno biti zabranjeno i proganjano. Kad je američka Komisija za hartije od vrednosti mogla da ugasi jako korisnu onlajn kladionicu Intrade (čije smo kvote na razne događaje u svetu ovde često linkovali), navodno iz razloga finansijske sigurnosti, onda je vrlo moguće da i Bitcoin dođe na red.

Ali ekonomski gledano, sada kad je Bitcoin došao dovde, meni se čini da može još mnogo rasti. Tačno je da tražnja za njim počiva na cikličnom verovanju, na verovanju svakog korisnika da će svi drugi nastaviti da primaju Bitcoin, ali: prvo, već nas je jednom iznanadilo da je Bitcoin samo na osnovu tog verovanja došao od nule do današnjih preko 100$ za Bitcoin. Drugo, ne zaboravite da ni ostale valute nisu baš toliko drugačije. Tražnja za državnim novcen se, bez obzira na državne garancije, dobrim delom zasniva na istoj slobodnoj veri da će i drugi prihvatati taj novac. Zlato ima materijalnu vrednost, ali ta vrednost, za industrijsku upotrebu ili nakit, je obično dosta manja od njegove sadašnje cene. Nisu se u poslenjih nekoliko godina industrijska upotreba i atraktivnost zlatnog nakita promenili, već su se promenila očekivanja vrednosti zlata, koja takođe zavise od vaše pretpostavke da će i ostali nastaviti da kupuju i drže zlato.

Zato mislim da ekonomski Bitcoin više nema problem. Sa ovako ograničenom ponudom, a uz održanje sadašnje tražnje ili njen rast, njegove vrednost može i još mnogo da poraste. Mnogo realniji scenario raspada je panika posle najave država da će zabraniti njegovu upotrebu uz neki izgovor kao što su finansijska stabilnost ili sprečavanje pranja novca. Ali čak i ako se to dogodi ostaće fascinantno da je ovakva inicijativa uopšte uspela -- protivno zakonima slabašne ljudske logike.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

On "zk-rollups" applied to Bitcoin

ZK rollups make no sense in bitcoin because there is no "cheap calldata". all data is already ~~cheap~~ expensive calldata.

There could be an onchain zk verification that allows succinct signatures maybe, but never a rollup.

What happens is: you can have one UTXO that contains multiple balances on it and in each transaction you can recreate that UTXOs but alter its state using a zk to compress all internal transactions that took place.

The blockchain must be aware of all these new things, so it is in no way "L2".

And you must have an entity responsible for that UTXO and for conjuring the state changes and zk proofs.

But on bitcoin you also must keep the data necessary to rebuild the proofs somewhere else, I'm not sure how can the third party responsible for that UTXO ensure that happens.

I think such a construct is similar to a credit card corporation: one central party upon which everybody depends, zero interoperability with external entities, every vendor must have an account on each credit card company to be able to charge customers, therefore it is not clear that such a thing is more desirable than solutions that are truly open and interoperable like Lightning, which may have its defects but at least fosters a much better environment, bringing together different conflicting parties, custodians, anyone.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

The problem with ION

ION is a DID method based on a thing called "Sidetree".

I can't say for sure what is the problem with ION, because I don't understand the design, even though I have read all I could and asked everybody I knew. All available information only touches on the high-level aspects of it (and of course its amazing wonders) and no one has ever bothered to explain the details. I've also asked the main designer of the protocol, Daniel Buchner, but he may have thought I was trolling him on Twitter and refused to answer, instead pointing me to an incomplete spec on the Decentralized Identity Foundation website that I had already read before. I even tried to join the DIF as a member so I could join their closed community calls and hear what they say, maybe eventually ask a question, so I could understand it, but my entrance was ignored, then after many months and a nudge from another member I was told I had to do a KYC process to be admitted, which I refused.

One thing I know is:

• ION is supposed to provide a way to rotate keys seamlessly and automatically without losing the main identity (and the ION proponents also claim there are no "master" keys because these can also be rotated).
• ION is also not a blockchain, i.e. it doesn't have a deterministic consensus mechanism and it is decentralized, i.e. anyone can publish data to it, doesn't have to be a single central server, there may be holes in the available data and the protocol doesn't treat that as a problem.
• From all we know about years of attempts to scale Bitcoins and develop offchain protocols it is clear that you can't solve the double-spend problem without a central authority or a kind of blockchain (i.e. a decentralized system with deterministic consensus).
• Rotating keys also suffer from the double-spend problem: whenever you rotate a key it is as if it was "spent", you aren't supposed to be able to use it again.

The logic conclusion of the 4 assumptions above is that ION is flawed: it can't provide the key rotation it says it can if it is not a blockchain.

See also

• Excerpt of discussion about DIDs and ION

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

rosetta.alhur.es

A service that grabs code samples from two chosen languages on RosettaCode and displays them side-by-side.

The code-fetching is done in real time and snippet-by-snippet (there is also a prefetch of which snippets are available in each language, so we only compare apples to apples).

This was my first Golang web application if I remember correctly.

• https://rosetta.alhur.es/
• https://github.com/fiatjaf/rosetta.alhur.es

@ 2f4550b0:95f20096

Leadership is rarely a smooth ride. For every moment of success, there are setbacks and challenges that test even the most seasoned leaders. The key to sustained success isn’t avoiding difficulties but rather how effectively one can navigate through them. Resilience, the ability to bounce back from adversity, is not just a personal asset; it’s a leadership imperative.

I remember an experience earlier in my career that underscored the power of resilience in leadership. I was leading a team on a high-stakes project. We had invested countless hours, fine-tuned every detail, and had finally reached the presentation phase. Then, disaster struck: the technology we relied on for the demo failed at the last minute. The team’s morale plummeted. I saw the disappointment in their faces, and I could feel the weight of their expectations on me.

At that moment, I had a choice: I could either give in to frustration and let the team spiral, or I could model resilience and lead them through the crisis. I took a deep breath and reminded myself that setbacks are temporary and often lead to growth. We brainstormed solutions on the spot, restructured our approach, and within hours had a makeshift presentation that was just as impactful as our original plan. In the end, we delivered it successfully—and I learned one of the most valuable lessons in leadership: resilience doesn’t mean avoiding failure, but rather how we respond when things don’t go as planned.

This experience taught me that resilient leadership hinges on a few essential principles:

• Maintain a Positive Outlook: As a leader, your mindset directly influences your team. When faced with setbacks, staying calm and optimistic can help anchor the group. A positive perspective allows you to focus on solutions instead of dwelling on problems.
• Adapt and Problem-Solve: Resilience is about adaptability. Things don’t always go according to plan, and being able to quickly pivot and think creatively in the face of adversity is crucial. Resilient leaders encourage their teams to embrace change, adapt, and find alternative solutions.
• Support Your Team: Leaders cannot be resilient alone. Resilience thrives in a supportive environment. Offer your team encouragement, communicate openly, and make sure they know they have your support. By fostering a culture of mutual trust, you’ll enable everyone to recover and grow stronger together.
• Learn from Setbacks: Every challenge presents an opportunity to learn. Resilient leaders view failures as stepping stones to improvement. Reflecting on what went wrong and why, allows leaders and teams to strengthen their strategies moving forward.

In leadership, setbacks are inevitable. What sets great leaders apart is their ability to bounce back. With resilience, you can navigate through challenges with confidence and lead your team toward continued success.

@ a4a6b584:1e05b95b

The Four-Layer Framework

Layer 1: Zoom Out

Start by looking at the big picture. What’s the subject about, and why does it matter? Focus on the overarching ideas and how they fit together. Think of this as the 30,000-foot view—it’s about understanding the "why" and "how" before diving into the "what."

Example: If you’re learning programming, start by understanding that it’s about giving logical instructions to computers to solve problems.

• Tip: Keep it simple. Summarize the subject in one or two sentences and avoid getting bogged down in specifics at this stage.

Once you have the big picture in mind, it’s time to start breaking it down.

---

Layer 2: Categorize and Connect

Now it’s time to break the subject into categories—like creating branches on a tree. This helps your brain organize information logically and see connections between ideas.

Example: Studying biology? Group concepts into categories like cells, genetics, and ecosystems.

• Tip: Use headings or labels to group similar ideas. Jot these down in a list or simple diagram to keep track.

With your categories in place, you’re ready to dive into the details that bring them to life.

---

Layer 3: Master the Details

Once you’ve mapped out the main categories, you’re ready to dive deeper. This is where you learn the nuts and bolts—like formulas, specific techniques, or key terminology. These details make the subject practical and actionable.

Example: In programming, this might mean learning the syntax for loops, conditionals, or functions in your chosen language.

• Tip: Focus on details that clarify the categories from Layer 2. Skip anything that doesn’t add to your understanding.

Now that you’ve mastered the essentials, you can expand your knowledge to include extra material.

---

Layer 4: Expand Your Horizons

Finally, move on to the extra material—less critical facts, trivia, or edge cases. While these aren’t essential to mastering the subject, they can be useful in specialized discussions or exams.

Example: Learn about rare programming quirks or historical trivia about a language’s development.

• Tip: Spend minimal time here unless it’s necessary for your goals. It’s okay to skim if you’re short on time.

---

Pro Tips for Better Learning

1. Use Active Recall and Spaced Repetition

Test yourself without looking at notes. Review what you’ve learned at increasing intervals—like after a day, a week, and a month. This strengthens memory by forcing your brain to actively retrieve information.

2. Map It Out

Create visual aids like diagrams or concept maps to clarify relationships between ideas. These are particularly helpful for organizing categories in Layer 2.

3. Teach What You Learn

Explain the subject to someone else as if they’re hearing it for the first time. Teaching exposes any gaps in your understanding and helps reinforce the material.

4. Engage with LLMs and Discuss Concepts

Take advantage of tools like ChatGPT or similar large language models to explore your topic in greater depth. Use these tools to:
- Ask specific questions to clarify confusing points.
- Engage in discussions to simulate real-world applications of the subject.
- Generate examples or analogies that deepen your understanding.

Tip: Use LLMs as a study partner, but don’t rely solely on them. Combine these insights with your own critical thinking to develop a well-rounded perspective.

---

Get Started

Ready to try the Four-Layer Method? Take 15 minutes today to map out the big picture of a topic you’re curious about—what’s it all about, and why does it matter? By building your understanding step by step, you’ll master the subject with less stress and more confidence.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Thoughts on Nostr key management

On Why I don't like NIP-26 as a solution for key management I talked about multiple techniques that could be used to tackle the problem of key management on Nostr.

Here are some ideas that work in tandem:

• NIP-41 (stateless key invalidation)
• NIP-46 (Nostr Connect)
• NIP-07 (signer browser extension)
• Connected hardware signing devices
• other things like musig or frostr keys used in conjunction with a semi-trusted server; or other kinds of trusted software, like a dedicated signer on a mobile device that can sign on behalf of other apps; or even a separate protocol that some people decide to use as the source of truth for their keys, and some clients might decide to use that automatically
• there are probably many other ideas

Some premises I have in my mind (that may be flawed) that base my thoughts on these matters (and cause me to not worry too much) are that

• For the vast majority of people, Nostr keys aren't a target as valuable as Bitcoin keys, so they will probably be ok even without any solution;
• Even when you lose everything, identity can be recovered -- slowly and painfully, but still --, unlike money;
• Nostr is not trying to replace all other forms of online communication (even though when I think about this I can't imagine one thing that wouldn't be nice to replace with Nostr) or of offline communication, so there will always be ways.
• For the vast majority of people, losing keys and starting fresh isn't a big deal. It is a big deal when you have followers and an online persona and your life depends on that, but how many people are like that? In the real world I see people deleting social media accounts all the time and creating new ones, people losing their phone numbers or other accounts associated with their phone numbers, and not caring very much -- they just find a way to notify friends and family and move on.

We can probably come up with some specs to ease the "manual" recovery process, like social attestation and explicit signaling -- i.e., Alice, Bob and Carol are friends; Alice loses her key; Bob sends a new Nostr event kind to the network saying what is Alice's new key; depending on how much Carol trusts Bob, she can automatically start following that and remove the old key -- or something like that.

---

One nice thing about some of these proposals, like NIP-41, or the social-recovery method, or the external-source-of-truth-method, is that they don't have to be implemented in any client, they can live in standalone single-purpose microapps that users open or visit only every now and then, and these can then automatically update their follow lists with the latest news from keys that have changed according to multiple methods.

@ 8d34bd24:414be32b

I’ve known that there are references to Jesus in the Old Testament. They just don’t use the name Jesus.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” (Genesis 1:26) {emphasis mine}

Notice the references to God in the plural. These are clues to the trinitarian (3 persons in one God) nature of God.

There are also examples of theophanies (preincarnate Jesus) in the Old Testament. These theophanies are frequently referred to as “the angel of the Lord” or “the angel of God.”

But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” (Genesis 22:11-12) {emphasis mine}

In this case we know that the “angel of the Lord” is not just an angel because he says, “I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me,” equating Himself, “Me,” with God. In most cases when an angel appears, the people drop face down in worship, but the angel corrects them and tells them not to worship. When the angel is Jesus, He accepts the worship and in many cases sacrifices as well.

The angel of the Lord appeared to him and said to him, “The Lord is with you, O valiant warrior.” Then Gideon said to him, “O my lord, if the Lord is with us, why then has all this happened to us? … So Gideon said to Him, “If now I have found favor in Your sight, then show me a sign that it is You who speak with me. Please do not depart from here, until I come back to You, and bring out my offering and lay it before You.” And He said, “I will remain until you return.”

Then Gideon went in and prepared a young goat and unleavened bread from an ephah of flour; he put the meat in a basket and the broth in a pot, and brought them out to him under the oak and presented them. The angel of God said to him, “Take the meat and the unleavened bread and lay them on this rock, and pour out the broth.” And he did so. Then the angel of the Lord put out the end of the staff that was in his hand and touched the meat and the unleavened bread; and fire sprang up from the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened bread. Then the angel of the Lord vanished from his sight. When Gideon saw that he was the angel of the Lord, he said, “Alas, O Lord God! For now I have seen the angel of the Lord face to face.” (Judges 6:12=13a, 17-22) {emphasis mine}

As you can see, Gideon offered an offering. An offering to anyone other than God would be idolatry. Gideon offers a “a young goat and unleavened bread from an ephah of flour,” which is a proper sin offering to God. The angel did not eat the offering, but told Gideon to “Take the meat and the unleavened bread and lay them on this rock … Then the angel of the Lord put out the end of the staff that was in his hand and touched the meat and the unleavened bread; and fire sprang up from the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened bread. Then the angel of the Lord vanished from his sight.” Gideon’s offering was taken as a burnt offering to God and to angel of the Lord, who is Jesus.

With all of this, look at the verse I read last night:

Who has ascended into heaven and descended?\ Who has gathered the wind in His fists?\ Who has wrapped the waters in His garment?\ Who has established all the ends of the earth?\ What is His name or His son’s name?\ Surely you know! (Proverbs 30:4) {emphasis mine}

Surely this is a passage about Jesus.

This verse says, “Who has ascended into heaven and descended?” The New Testament says about Jesus, “No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.” (John 3:13)

This verse says, “Who has gathered the wind in His fists?” The New Testament says about Jesus,

And there arose a fierce gale of wind, and the waves were breaking over the boat so much that the boat was already filling up. Jesus Himself was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke Him and said to Him, “Teacher, do You not care that we are perishing?” And He got up and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Hush, be still.” And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm. (Mark 4:37-39) {emphasis mine}

This verse says, “Who has wrapped the waters in His garment?” The New Testament says about Jesus,

And in the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea. When the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” And they cried out in fear. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid.”

Peter said to Him, “Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water.” And He said, “Come!” And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus. (Matthew 14:25-29) {emphasis mine}

This verse says, “Who has established all the ends of the earth?” The New Testament says about Jesus,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. (John 1:1-3) {emphasis mine}

This verse says, “What is His name or His son’s name?” The New Testament says about Jesus,

After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased. (Matthew 3:16-17) {emphasis mine}

This verse says, “Surely you know!” As New Testament believers we know the Son of God, Jesus Christ. The Bible was pointing to the Son of God long before He came to earth as a baby.

Who has ascended into heaven and descended?\ Who has gathered the wind in His fists?\ Who has wrapped the waters in His garment?\ Who has established all the ends of the earth?\ What is His name or His son’s name?\ Surely you know! (Proverbs 30:4) {emphasis mine}

It doesn’t matter how many times we have already read the Bible. Every time we read it, we can discover new insight and knowledge of God, His eternal plans, and His commands for our lives. God is good.

Trust Jesus.

@ 2063cd79:57bd1320

Unit-Bias

Bitcoin hat in der öffentlichen Wahrnehmung und bei Menschen, die sich weniger mit dem Thema befassen, einen sogenannten Unit-Bias, also eine durch Unwissenheit hervorgerufene Voreingenommenheit gegenüber der Einheit "Bitcoin". Das bedeutet, dass viele unerfahrene Anleger//innen und Nutzer//innen der Meinung sind, dass der Besitz eines ganzen bitcoins psychologisch wichtig oder überhaupt nur als solcher möglich ist. Anders ausgedrückt, glauben viele Menschen, sie müssen Bitcoin als Ganzes kaufen, also einen ganzen "physischen" bitcoin, statt kleinerer Bruchstücke. Das lässt den Vermögenswert für die meisten zu teuer aussehen.

Dies ist für Bitcoin insofern ein Problem, als dass viele Menschen sich durch ihre Voreingenommenheit gar nicht mit Bitcoin beschäftigen ("kann ich mir nicht leisten") oder das Gefühl haben, Bitcoin sei zu teuer und deshalb gibt es kein Wertsteigerungspotential mehr ("der Zug ist abgefahren, ich hätte vor sechs Jahren investieren sollen"). Schlimmer noch, als sich nicht mit Bitcoin zu beschäftigen, ist sich dann stattdessen alternativen, "erschwinglicheren" Kryptowährungen zuzuwenden. Dieser Unit-Bias ist allerdings nichts anderes als ein Marketing-, bzw. ein Bildungsproblem. Denn wie wir wissen kann man Bitcoin in 100 Millionen Untereinheiten brechen und in kleinsten Mengen erwerben, verschicken und verkaufen. Doch haben Außenstehende von Begriffen wie Lightning oder Sats meistens noch nie gehört.

Untereinheiten

Doch auch innerhalb der Bitcoin-Szene ist die Unterteilung von Bitcoin in Untereinheiten nicht ganz unumstritten. Denn viele Nutzer//innen sind sich uneinig darüber, was der beste Weg ist, Bitcoins Untereinheiten zu bezeichnen und sogar darzustellen. Dies zeigt sich z.B. darin, dass Apps oft entweder Bitcoin oder Fiat anzeigen, manche Apps aber auch Beträge in Sats darstellen. Dies verlangt aber oft eigene Einstellungen innerhalb der App oder viele Klicks, die die Bedienung und Darstellung eher unhandlich gestalten.

Es gibt verschiedene Lösungsansätze, die dem/der Nutzer//in die ungewohnte Rechnung mit acht Nachkommastellen erleichtern sollen. Denn viele Anwender//innen denken beim Blick in ihre Wallets oft noch in lokalen Fiat-Werten, also in ganzen Einheiten (z.B. Euro oder Dollar) und Hundertsteln (z.B. Cents).

Einige Wallets versuchen diesen Spagat komplett zu umgehen, indem sie vermeiden, Beträge in Fiat darzustellen. Doch auch hier bleibt immer noch das Problem der unhandlichen Darstellung von acht Nachkommastellen, weshalb einige Anbieter einfach zwei Eingabemöglichkeiten bieten und den Betrag in Bitcoin oder Sats automatisch umrechnen.

Doch selbst das Zeichen für Sats ist nicht final geklärt. Es gibt viele verschiedene Vorschläge und Meinungen dazu, welches Symbol genutzt werden sollte. Die meisten Apps, Rechnungen und Sticker schreiben einfach das Wort "Sats" oder "sats" aus. Allerdings ist dies ein Problem, da außerhalb der Bitcoin-Szene niemand weiß, was ein Sat ist. Die meisten Menschen werden mittlerweile von Bitcoin gehört haben, auch wenn sie nicht wissen, wie es funktioniert, was es bedeutet, oder wie man damit umgeht. Doch auch das B Logo mit den Dollarstrichen (₿) werden die meisten Menschen zuordnen können.

Sats hingegen ist ein sehr nischiger Begriff und seine Verwendung noch unbekannter. Oft wird das Blitzsymbol (3 auf der unteren Grafik) verwendet, um Lightning darzustellen und auch das Symbol mit den drei horizontalen Strichen und zwei vertikalen Punkten (4 auf der unteren Grafik), das entfernt an das Dollar-Zeichen erinnern soll ($), erfreut sich immer größerer Beliebtheit. Das Problem dabei ist nur, dass es sich in geschriebener Form nicht, oder nur unzulänglich darstellen lässt: 丰 🤡

Es war lange logisch und notwendig, ganze Bitcoins zur Aufzählung und Bezahlung zu verwenden, da bei der Einführung von Bitcoin sein Geldwert sehr gering war. Es bestand also absolut keine Notwendigkeit dazu, in kleineren Einheiten als Bitcoin zu denken. Einfaches Beispiel: letzte Woche, am 22. Mai, jährte sich der Bitcoin-Pizza-Day zum 13. Mal, also jener Tag an dem Laszlo Hanyecz für zwei Pizza 10.000 bitcoins bezahlte und damit die erste offline Transaktion mit Bitcoin tätigte. 10.000 bitcoins entsprachen zu diesem Zeitpunkt also knapp $40, oder andersrum $1 entsprach 250 bitcoins Es gab also immer noch keine Notwendigkeit, kleinere Einheiten von Bitcoin zu verwenden. Diese Notwendigkeit ergab sich erst, als der Bitcoin und der Dollar Parität erlangten (1 Bitcoin = $1) und spätestens, als Bitcoin die Marke von $100 durchbrach, wurde rechnen in Bitcoin schwieriger.

Fortan überlegte man sich, Bitcoin in kleineren Einheiten darzustellen. Die zwei Möglichkeiten sind der Bit und der Sat. Ein einzelner bitcoin kann in 1.000.000 Bits oder bis zu 100.000.000 Sats unterteilt werden, also 100 Sats = 1 Bit = 0,000001 Bitcoin.

Ein weiterer Grund, weshalb eine Stückelung in bitcoin (der Begriff für einen ganzen physischen bitcoin) schwierig und verwirrend ist, und deshalb viele nach einer alternativen Bezeichnung für Untereinheiten suchten, ist dass darüber hinaus "Bitcoin" zur Beschreibung von zwei Dingen verwendet werden kann: dem monetären Netzwerk (Bitcoin - großes B) und dem monetären Vermögenswert (bitcoin - kleines B).

Bitcoin, der Vermögenswert, ist für diejenigen, die noch nichts damit zu tun hatten, sowohl verwirrend als auch fremd. Denn wie bereits erwähnt, führt der Unit-Bias dazu, dass viele Menschen denken, dass sie es sich nicht leisten können, Bitcoin zu kaufen, oder dass sie den Anschluss verpasst haben. Die Verwendung einer Bepreisung in Bruchteilen würde die Verwirrung über die Benennung des Netzwerks und des Vermögenswerts verringern, aber auch die psychologische Hürde für den Einstieg in Bitcoin senken. Vorausgesetzt, die Benennung ist logisch und intuitiv.

Bits vs. Sats

Wie schon erwähnt, gibt es zwei gängige Untereinheiten von Bitcoin, 1 Bit (= 0,000001 Bitcoin) und 1 Sat (0,00000001 Bitcoin). Seit jeher gibt es Diskussionen darüber, welche der beiden Einheiten für den täglichen Gebrauch die vernünftigere und intuitivere ist.

Die Verwendung von Bits zur Aufzählung von Bitcoin hat einige Vorteile. Ein Bit stellt ein „Bit“ eines Bitcoins dar, also der grundlegendsten und kleinsten Informationseinheit in der Informatik. Den meisten Menschen fällt es einfacher, das Wort „Bit“ mit Bitcoin zu assoziieren und daher verstehen sie eher, dass ein Bit ein Teil eines Bitcoins ist. Ein „Sat“ bedeutet für den Durchschnittsmenschen, wie oben beschrieben, nichts.

Adam Back (CEO von Blockstream und Bitcoin-Legende) ist wahrscheinlich der bekannteste Befürworter von Bits > Sats. Er argumentiert von verschiedenen Richtungen, dass z.B. Bits eine rechnerisch einfachere Variante ist, Untereinheiten von Bitcoin darzustellen, als Sats.

Weiter argumentiert er mit der historischen Entwicklung von Bitcoin, dem Protokoll und seiner Referenz-Implementierung. In den Anfangsjahren wurde in der Bitcoin Core Wallet mit Bits gearbeitet. Außerdem argumentiert er, dass die Verbindung zwischen Bitcoin der Haupteinheit und Bits oder Sats als Untereinheit zumindest semantisch gebrochen werden sollte. Da Bitcoin (im Fall eines weiter steigenden Kurses) als Recheneinheit immer unpraktischer wird, sollte man als mentales Modell auf das Rechenpaar Bits und Sats zurückgreifen - analog zur Darstellung von Dollars und Cents oder Euros und Cents. Dabei stellen die zwei Nachkommastellen eines in Bits angegebenen Preises die Sats dar.

Ganz einfaches Beispiel: Ein Kasten Bier kostet heute etwas 20€, also 0,00079758 Bitcoin. Einfacher dargestellt: 797,58 Bits, also 797 Bits und 58 Sats. “Ein Bitcoin ist zu teuer, aber Sats sind zu viele, klingen billig und verwirrend.” Es ist schwer in Sats zu denken und selbst wenn der Preis von Bitcoin 1 M US Dollar erreicht, ist ein Bit immer noch eine greifbare und günstige Einheit: 1 Bit = 1 US Dollar.

Eines von Adams Hauptargumenten ist, dass Sat als Untereinheit nicht funktioniert, weil es Dust gibt. Das Problem mit Dust besteht darin, dass es nicht möglich ist, Bitcoin unter einem bestimmten Schwellenwert auszugeben. Sein Argument ist, dass der Nutzen einer Einheit abhanden kommt, wenn diese Einheit als kleinste Recheneinheit nicht ausgegeben werden kann. Zugegeben, niemand kann mehr etwas für einen Cent kaufen, aber zumindest ist es technisch nicht unmöglich. Allerdings ist es unmöglich, 1 oder sogar 10 Sats über das Bitcoin-Netzwerk zu senden, ohne Layer-2-Skalierungstechnologien zu verwenden.

Dust

Unter Bitcoin-Dust versteht man eine sehr kleine Menge Bitcoin, typischerweise in kleinen ein- bis zweistelligen Sats-Beträgen, doch auch kommen immer öfter dreistellige Beträge vor. Sie werden Dust oder „Staub“ genannt, weil diese Beträge so gering sind, dass sie oft als unbedeutend und unpraktisch für die Verwendung bei regulären Transaktionen angesehen werden.

Es gibt keine offizielle Definition dafür wie groß/klein ein Betrag sein muss, um als Dust zu gelten, da jede Softwareimplementierung (Client, Wallet, etc.) einen anderen Schwellenwert annehmen kann. Die Bitcoin Core Referenzimplementierung definiert Dust als jede Transaktionsausgabe, die niedriger ist als die aktuellen Transaktionsgebühren.

Dust entsteht meist unbeabsichtigt bei Bitcoin-Transaktionen. Denn wenn Bitcoin von einer Adresse an eine andere gesendet wird, fällt oft eine Transaktionsgebühr an. Um Spam zu verhindern und die Sicherheit des Netzwerks zu gewährleisten, gibt es bei Bitcoin eine Mindestgröße für jede Transaktion. Dieses Limit ist der Mindestbetrag an Bitcoin, der als Ausgabe in eine Transaktion einbezogen werden kann. Der Rest ist Dust.

Oder einfacher ausgedrückt, wenn die Mindestgröße für eine Bitcoin-On-Chain-Transaktion 500 Sats (5 Bits) beträgt und ich noch 800 Sats (8 Bits) in meiner Wallet habe, kann ich nach dem Versenden von 600 Sats (6 Bits) die übrigen 200 Sats (2 Bits) nicht mehr ausgeben. Diese verbleibenden 2 Bits sind Dust.

Dust stellt aus mehreren Gründen eine Herausforderung für das Bitcoin-Netzwerk und seine Benutzer//innen dar:

UTXO-Bloat: Bei jeder Transaktion werden nicht ausgegebene Transaktionsausgaben (UTXOs) erstellt, und Dust erhöht die Anzahl der UTXOs im System. Dies kann zu einer aufgeblähten Blockchain führen und sich negativ auf die Leistung und Skalierbarkeit des Netzwerks auswirken.

➡️ Wie UTXOs funktionieren

Wallet-Management: Im Laufe der Zeit kann sich in Wallets viel Dust ansammeln, und die Verwaltung solch kleiner Beträge kann für Benutzer//innen unpraktisch sein. Bei vielen Wallets ist ein Mindestguthaben erforderlich, und die Dust-Mengen sind möglicherweise zu gering, um diese Anforderung zu erfüllen. Viele Nutzer//innen wechseln häufig zwischen Wallets und transferirien ihre Vermögen vorher auf die neuen Wallets, bei solchen Wechseln bleiben Dust-Beträge zurück und gelten langfristig als verloren.

Ein weiteres Problem besteht darin, dass Dust nicht genau definiert werden kann. Die Transaktionsgebühren hängen wesentlich von zwei Faktoren ab: Den Gebühren in sat/vB, welche von der Auslastung des Mempools abhängen und zu Zeiten von hoher Auslastung dementsprechend hoch sind, und zum anderen vom UTXO-Set des/der jeweiligen Nutzer//in. Denn wie wir wissen, werden Transaktionen aus einer oder mehreren UTXOs zusammengesetzt, je mehr UTXOs dabei benötigt werden, um den gewünschten Betrag zu versenden, desto höher sind die Kosten für diese Transaktion, da sich das Gewicht (in vBytes) erhöht. Diese beiden Faktoren können die Gebühren in Einzelfällen so strukturieren, dass größere Mengen Dust anfallen, als in anderen Fällen.

Datenschutzbedenken: Da jede Transaktion in der Blockchain gespeichert wird, können selbst winzige Mengen Dust mit der Identität oder dem Transaktionsverlauf einer Person verknüpft werden, was die Privatsphäre gefährdet. Diese Funktion wird von Angreifern in sogenannten Dust-Attacks ausgenutzt. Denn böswillige Angreifer haben schnell erkannt, dass Nutzer//innen die winzigen Dust-Beträge, die in ihren Wallet-Adressen angezeigt werden, nicht viel Aufmerksamkeit schenken oder gar bemerken. Angreifer schicken also Kleinstbeträge an eine große Anzahl von Adressen, um dann im nächsten Schritt in einer kombinierten Analyse dieser Adressen und der Beträge, versuchen herauszufinden, welche Adressen zur gleichen Wallet gehören. Dabei ist es das Ziel, diese so identifizierbaren Adressen und Wallets schließlich den jeweiligen Eigentümer//innen zuzuordnen, um diese dann durch ausgefeilte Phishing-Angriffe oder Cyber-Erpressungen zu attackieren.

Um diese Probleme zu lösen, können Nutzer//innen Dust konsolidieren, indem sie mehrere Dust-UTXOs in einer einzigen Transaktion mit einem höheren Wert kombinieren. Einige Wallets und Dienste bieten Funktionen an, mit denen Benutzer//innen ihren Dust effektiv verwalten und konsolidieren können.

Abschließende Gedanken

Der Unit-Bias ist absolut vorhanden. Ich persönlich begegne ihm immer wieder in Gesprächen mit Bitcoin-Interessierten, die sich mit der Materie noch nicht lange auseinandergesetzt haben. Die Verwunderung ist oft sehr groß, dass bitcoins nicht als Ganzes gekauft werden müssen. Die Verwendung einer Untereinheit sowohl in Wallets, als auch bei der Bepreisung kann dabei helfen.

An die Verwendung von Sats als die kleinste Einheit von Bitcoin habe ich mich gewöhnt, allerdings tendiere ich mittlerweile persönlich zum Gebrauch von Bits. Die hervorgebrachten Argumente leuchten mir ein und ich bin überzeugt, dass Bits eine größere Akzeptanz außerhalb des Bitcoin-Inner-Circles hervorrufen können, als Sats. Darüber hinaus ist das Sats-Zeichen wirklich unpraktisch.

Ich befürworte hier einige Ideen, die das Paragrafzeichen zum Symbol für Sats erheben wollen.

🫳🎤

---

In diesem Sinne, 2... 1... Risiko!‌

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

lnurl-auth explained

You may have seen the lnurl-auth spec or heard about it, but might not know how it works or what is its relationship with other lnurl protocols. This document attempts to solve that.

Relationship between lnurl-auth and other lnurl protocols

First, what is the relationship of lnurl-auth with other lnurl protocols? The answer is none, except the fact that they all share the lnurl format for specifying https URLs.

In fact, lnurl-auth is very unique in the sense that it doesn't even need a Lightning wallet to work, it is a standalone authentication protocol that can work anywhere.

How does it work

Now, how does it work? The basic idea is that each wallet has a seed, which is a random value (you may think of the BIP39 seed words, for example). Usually from that seed different keys are derived, each of these yielding a Bitcoin address, and also from that same seed may come the keys used to generate and manage Lightning channels.

What lnurl-auth does is to generate a new key from that seed, and from that a new key for each service (identified by its domain) you try to authenticate with.

That way, you effectively have a new identity for each website. Two different services cannot associate your identities.

The flow goes like this: When you visit a website, the website presents you with a QR code containing a callback URL and a challenge. The challenge should be a random value.

When your wallet scans or opens that QR code it uses the domain in the callback URL plus the main lnurl-auth key to derive a key specific for that website, uses that key to sign the challenge and then sends both the public key specific for that for that website plus the signed challenge to the specified URL.

When the service receives the public key it checks it against the challenge signature and start a session for that user. The user is then identified only by its public key. If the service wants it can, of course, request more details from the user, associate it with an internal id or username, it is free to do anything. lnurl-auth's goals end here: no passwords, maximum possible privacy.

FAQ

• What is the advantage of tying this to Bitcoin and Lightning?

  One big advantage is that your wallet is already keeping track of one seed, it is already a precious thing. If you had to keep track of a separate auth seed it would be arguably worse, more difficult to bootstrap the protocol, and arguably one of the reasons similar protocols, past and present, weren't successful.

• Just signing in to websites? What else is this good for?

  No, it can be used for authenticating to installable apps and physical places, as long as there is a service running an HTTP server somewhere to read the signature sent from the wallet. But yes, signing in to websites is the main problem to solve here.

• Phishing attack! Can a malicious website proxy the QR from a third website and show it to the user to it will steal the signature and be able to login on the third website?

  No, because the wallet will only talk to the the callback URL, and it will either be controlled by the third website, so the malicious won't see anything; or it will have a different domain, so the wallet will derive a different key and frustrate the malicious website's plan.

• I heard SQRL had that same idea and it went nowhere.

  Indeed. SQRL in its first version was basically the same thing as lnurl-auth, with one big difference: it was vulnerable to phishing attacks (see above). That was basically the only criticism it got everywhere, so the protocol creators decided to solve that by introducing complexity to the protocol. While they were at it they decided to add more complexity for managing accounts and so many more crap that in the the spec which initially was a single page ended up becoming 136 pages of highly technical gibberish. Then all the initial network effect it had, libraries and apps were trashed and nowadays no one can do anything with it (but, see, there are still people who love the protocol writing in a 90's forum with no clue of anything besides their own Java).

• We don't need this, we need WebAuthn!

  WebAuthn is essentially the same thing as lnurl-auth, but instead of being simple it is complex, instead of being open and decentralized it is centralized in big corporations, and instead of relying on a key generated by your own device it requires an expensive hardware HSM you must buy and trust the manufacturer. If you like WebAuthn and you like Bitcoin you should like lnurl-auth much more.

• What about BitID?

  This is another one that is very similar to lnurl-auth, but without the anti-phishing prevention and extra privacy given by making one different key for each service.

• What about LSAT?

  It doesn't compete with lnurl-auth. LSAT, as far as I understand it, is for when you're buying individual resources from a server, not authenticating as a user. Of course, LSAT can be repurposed as a general authentication tool, but then it will lack features that lnurl-auth has, like the property of having keys generated independently by the user from a common seed and a standard way of passing authentication info from one medium to another (like signing in to a website at the desktop from the mobile phone, for example).

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

🆕 What's changed:

---

• New bonus guide dedicated to install/upgrade/uninstall PostgreSQL
• Modified the LND guide to use PostgreSQL instead of bbolt
• Modified the Nostr relay guide to use PostgreSQL instead of SQLite (experimental)
• Modified the BTCPay Server bonus guide according to these changes
• Used the lndinit MiniBolt org fork, to add an extra section to migrate an existing LND bbolt database to PostgreSQL (🚨⚠️Experimental - use it behind your responsibility⚠️🚨)
• New Golang bonus guide as a common language for the lndinit compile
• Updated LND to v0.18
• New Bitcoin Core extra section to renovate Tor & I2P addresses
• New Bitcoin Core extra section to generate a full bitcoin.conf file
• Rebuilt some homepage sections and general structure
• Deleted the $ symbol of the commands to easy copy-paste to the terminal
• Deleted the initial incoming and the outgoing rules configuration of UFW, due to it being by default

🪧 PD: If you want to use the old database backend of the LND or Nostr relay, follow the next extra sections:

• Use the default bbolt database backend for the LND
• Use the default SQLite database backend for the Nostr relay

⚠️Attention⚠️: The migration process was tested on testnet mode from an existing bbolt database backend to a new PostgreSQL database using lndinit and the results were successful. However, It wasn't tested on mainnet, according to the developer, it is in experimental status which could damage your existing LND database.🚨 Use it behind your responsibility 🧼

🔧 PR related: https://github.com/minibolt-guide/minibolt/pull/93

---

♻️ Migrate the PostgreSQL database location

If you installed NBXplorer + BTCPay Server, it is probably you have the database of the PostgreSQL cluster on the default path (/var/lib/postgresql/16/main/), follow the next instructions to migrate it to the new dedicated location on /data/postgresdb folder:

• With user admin create the dedicated PostgreSQL data folder

sudo mkdir /data/postgresdb

• Assign as the owner to the postgres user

sudo chown postgres:postgres /data/postgresdb

• Assign permissions of the data folder only to the postgres user

sudo chmod -R 700 /data/postgresdb

• Stop NBXplorer and BTCPay Server

sudo systemctl stop nbxplorer && sudo systemctl stop btcpayserver

• Stop PostgreSQL

sudo systemctl stop postgresql

• Use the rsync command to copy all files from the existing database on (/var/lib/postgresql/16/main) to the new destination directory (/data/postgresdb)

sudo rsync -av /var/lib/postgresql/16/main/ /data/postgresdb/

Expected output:

``` sending incremental file list ./ PG_VERSION postgresql.auto.conf postmaster.opts postmaster.pid base/ base/1/ base/1/112 base/1/113 base/1/1247 base/1/1247_fsm base/1/1247_vm base/1/1249 base/1/1249_fsm base/1/1249_vm [...] pg_wal/000000010000000000000009 pg_wal/archive_status/ pg_xact/ pg_xact/0000

sent 164,483,875 bytes received 42,341 bytes 36,561,381.33 bytes/sec total size is 164,311,368 speedup is 1.00 ```

• Edit the PostgreSQL data directory on configuration, to redirect the store to the new location

sudo nano /etc/postgresql/16/main/postgresql.conf --linenumbers

• Replace the line 42 to this. Save and exit

data_directory = '/data/postgresdb'

• Start PostgreSQL to apply changes and monitor the correct status of the main instance and sub-instance monitoring sessions before

sudo systemctl start postgresql

• You can monitor the PostgreSQL main instance by the systemd journal and check the log output to ensure all is correct. You can exit the monitoring at any time with Ctrl-C

journalctl -fu postgresql

Example of the expected output:

Nov 08 11:51:10 minibolt systemd[1]: Stopped PostgreSQL RDBMS. Nov 08 11:51:10 minibolt systemd[1]: Stopping PostgreSQL RDBMS... Nov 08 11:51:13 minibolt systemd[1]: Starting PostgreSQL RDBMS... Nov 08 11:51:13 minibolt systemd[1]: Finished PostgreSQL RDBMS.

• You can monitor the PostgreSQL sub-instance by the systemd journal and check log output to ensure all is correct. You can exit monitoring at any time with Ctrl-C

journalctl -fu postgresql@16-main

Example of the expected output:

Nov 08 11:51:10 minibolt systemd[1]: Stopping PostgreSQL Cluster 16-main... Nov 08 11:51:11 minibolt systemd[1]: postgresql@16-main.service: Succeeded. Nov 08 11:51:11 minibolt systemd[1]: Stopped PostgreSQL Cluster 16-main. Nov 08 11:51:11 minibolt systemd[1]: postgresql@16-main.service: Consumed 1h 10min 8.677s CPU time. Nov 08 11:51:11 minibolt systemd[1]: Starting PostgreSQL Cluster 16-main... Nov 08 11:51:13 minibolt systemd[1]: Started PostgreSQL Cluster 16-main.

• Start NBXplorer and BTCPay Server again

sudo systemctl start nbxplorer && sudo systemctl start btcpayserver

• Monitor to make sure everything is as you left it. You can exit monitoring at any time with Ctrl-C

journalctl -fu nbxplorer

journalctl -fu btcpayserver

Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ ed84ce10:cccf4c2a

Hackathon Summary

The YQuantum 2024 Hackathon concluded with significant participation and numerous project submissions, establishing itself as a vibrant platform for innovation. Out of 300 registrants, the on-site participants formed teams and worked on developing 28 BUIDLs, engaging in challenges across diverse tracks sponsored by prominent quantum computing organizations, such as QuEra Computing, IBM Quantum, Classiq, DoraHacks, SandboxAQ, and Capgemini/The Hartford/Quantinuum.

Participants developed groundbreaking solutions in quantum computing, driven by prize incentives, including quantum cloud credits, internships, networking opportunities, and potential speaking engagements. The grand prizes recognized exceptional projects, with the first place receiving $2000, presentation opportunities before Yale researchers, and participation in the Yale Innovation Summit.

The hackathon successfully fostered a collaborative environment that encouraged the exploration of cutting-edge technologies and ideas, advancing the quantum computing field. YQuantum 2024 underscored the potential of quantum technologies and promoted knowledge exchange among participants and sponsors.

Hackathon Winners

Held on April 13, 2024, YQuantum's inaugural event attracted 300 participants from 10 countries, featuring six industry-sponsored challenges that culminated in a series of prestigious awards.

Institute Grand Prizes Winners

• 1st Place: Quantum Consortium: Case-Duke-Lehigh-Vandy Nexus This project employs adiabatic methods to prepare antiferromagnetic energy eigenstates, with a focus on quantum many-body scarring and enhancing error correction in computing.

• 2nd Place: Sparse Quantum State Preparation The team developed efficient algorithms using Classiq APIs for sparse quantum state preparation, optimizing execution for scalability and efficiency in managing quantum data.

• 3rd Place: QuBruin This project optimizes algorithms using dynamic quantum circuits and enhances error correction. The team improved user accessibility through Qiskit-based models for better circuit performance under noise conditions.

IBM Quantum Prize Winners

• Modified IBM Challenge
  This project delves into foundational linear algebra concepts, emphasizing core principles and mastery.

QuEra Computing Prize Winners

• 3D Quantum Scars on 2D Tweezer Arrays
  The team investigates quantum scar states on a 3D lattice projected into 2D, using Julia and QuEra's Bloqade to simulate quantum dynamics.

Classiq Technologies Prize Winners

• YQuantum2024 Classiq Team 34 Wavefunction Wizards
  Focusing on optimizing sparse quantum state preparation, this project enhances algorithmic efficiency in quantum data processing.

DoraHacks Prize Winners

• Spooner_QRNG_Classifier
  The project employs Python scripts and a gradient booster classifier to predict quantum device origins of random binary data, surpassing baseline prediction accuracy.

Capgemini // Quantinuum // The Hartford Prize Winners

• Skittlez
  This partnership addresses quantum computing challenges through interdisciplinary expertise, designing innovative quantum solutions.

• Honorable Mention: BB24 - Yale Quantum Monte Carlo The project enhances Quantum Monte Carlo techniques via novel sampling and encoding schemes, improving parallel processing and computational efficiency.

SandboxAQ Prize Winners

• QuantumQuails
  This project improves solar cell efficiency through quantum chemistry, utilizing VQE to model solar energy absorption for enhanced conversion effectiveness.

• Honorable Mention: mRNA Sequence Design via Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm This project optimizes mRNA sequence design using QAOA, enhancing protein expression and structural stability through codon and nucleotide parameters.

Explore all projects at DoraHacks.

About the Organizer:

YQuantum

YQuantum is a prominent entity within the technology and blockchain sectors, recognized for its innovative approach and strategic initiatives. Specializing in utilizing quantum computing capabilities, YQuantum is committed to advancing the technological frontier. Though specific projects are not highlighted, YQuantum's role in shaping industry standards positions it as a leader in the field. Through dedication to cutting-edge research and development, YQuantum continues to drive progress in quantum technologies, aligning with its mission to propel scientific and technological advancements globally.

@ c5fede3d:16e03f7b

Hay quien dice el famoso dicho de «año nuevo, vida nueva». En este caso, iniciamos el año con el mismo propósito, seguir aprendiendo para que no nos pille el toro. En esta ocasión, toca tratar la entrada de capital a tu wallet. Sin embargo, hay que saber donde meterse sin que las arenas movedizas te engullan. ¿Preparado para comprar la hucha del cerdito?

Esta es la segunda entrega de Semanario Crypto, una serie de artículos dedicados para aquellos que desconocen los conceptos básicos del mundo de las criptomonedas. La semana pasada hicimos un barrido sin adentrarnos en territorio comanche. Si aún no tienes claro qué es una wallet o cuál es el propósito de una frase semilla, ve al punto de partida y vuelve a leerte Semanario Crypto #1 | Un nuevo paradigma, porque es el ticket de entrada para este mundillo y no lo puedes perder.

EL LÍO DEL MONTEPÍO💱

Si has llegado hasta aquí, he de felicitarte. Has dado dos grandes pasos. El primero, tener la mente abierta y querer aprender. El segundo, disponer de una wallet y tener guardada a buen recaudo la frase semilla. Ahora es el momento de la verdad, operar, no sin antes tener claro un par de conceptos más.

¿Qué son los exchanges?

Son plataformas digitales donde los usuarios pueden comprar, vender o intercambiar criptomonedas. A través de ellas, los usuarios pueden convertir su dinero tradicional en crypto, facilitando el comercio de criptoactivos.

Los exchanges son los bancos del mundo de la criptomonedas. Ambos actúan como intermediarios en las transacciones financieras y ofrecen servicios relacionados con la inversión y el comercio. Sin embargo, no todos los exchanges son iguales, se diferencian dos tipos:

1. Exchange Centralizado (CEX)

En este tipo de exchange, una entidad centralizada gestiona las transacciones y retiene los fondos los usuarios. Los CEX custodian tu dinero, cuentan con equipos profesionales de atención al cliente y están sujetos a altas regulaciones gubernamentales. Te registras, haces la verificación de identidad (KYC) y ellos te proporcionan una wallet para que la fondees con tu dinero fiduciario y operes dentro de la plataforma. Todo un ecosistema a golpe de click.

2. Exchange Descentralizado (DEX)

Aquí las transacciones se realizan entre usuarios a través de contratos inteligentes en la blockchain (P2P), es decir, las operaciones se hacen directamente desde sus propias billeteras. No requieren que se proporcionen información personal. Los usuarios mantienen el control sobre sus activos (autocustodia) y no habrá que depositar en ellas.

Sabiendo las diferencias entre un CEX y un DEX, nuevamente nos hallamos en la tesitura de tener que definirnos a nosotros mismos. En la anterior entrega de Semanario Crypto optamos por una wallet caliente o una fría en función del tipo de inversor que somos, o incluso pudimos hacer un mix emparejando la wallet fría a una extensión de navegador. Aunque, como acabamos de ver, si te registras en un CEX ellos ya te proporcionan una billetera electrónica para que operes dentro de la plataforma. La elección es tuya, pero has de tener en cuenta cómo operar de una forma u otra conforme al capital que dispongas:

Quiero operar por un monto superior a 50k euros anuales y/o soy un buen ciudadano.

• Amigo mío, quítate de problemas, y registrate en un CEX como Binance o Bit2Me. La legislación fiscal española incide especialmente en que cualquier tenencia de criptomonedas superior a 50k euros debe ser declarada. Con los exchanges que te he puesto, la información proporcionada a la Agencia Tributaria es automática y de ella se encargan ellos, no tienes que hacer nada de nada. Solo hacer tu declaración anual habitual.
• También es la opción ideal para el vago y el que no dispone de tiempo. ¿Quieres hacer un mix que te ofrezca las bondades de los CEX y los DEX? Atento al siguiente punto y atiende a las nuevas regulaciones de cara a 2025.

Quiero operar por un monto inferior a 10k euros anuales y/o considero que los CEX son neo-usureros.

• La solución son los DEX. Como ya vimos, los exchanges descentralizados no requieren de KYC para operar, de modo que dan un mayor grado de privacidad y anonimato, puesto que jamás dispondrán de tu documentación personal. Además, estás expuesto a lo que se denomina el ecosistema de las finanzas descentralizadas (DeFi).
• El mundo DeFi busca democratizar el acceso a los servicios financieros, abriendo un abanico de nuevos mercados, oportunidades de inversión y ser el primero en conocer las innovaciones financieras. Sin lugar a dudas, es donde están los más avispados y la gente pudiente, muestra de ello es el valor de su capitalización de mercado, alcanzando más de 52 mil millones de dólares, que se dice pronto.

EL CASTILLO DE DRÁCULA, LA AEAT 🧛

El año 2025 va a ser determinante para el devenir del mundo de las criptomonedas, al menos en Europa. Es el año donde entran en vigor las nuevas regulaciones fiscales. Parece ser que el mantra de que los criptoactivos eran una estafa y que no valían nada a pasado a mejor vida a partir de la entrada del gran capital, como Blackrock. Ahora, los entes fiscales reguladores quieren su porción del pastel y apuntan a tu billetera. Si quieres operar en este mundillo, debes saber un poco de fiscalidad, para que no llamen a tu puerta. Aunque, recuerda, si optaste por ser un buen ciudadano (español, en este caso) que te registraste en un CEX como Binance o Bit2Me no tendrás mayores preocupaciones, porque allí todo lo que hagas acaba registrado automáticamente en tu declaración del año fiscal. De todas formas, siempre es bueno aprender, sobre todo si operas desde los DEX con tu billetera autocustodiada.

1. La Ley MiCa y Directiva DAC8

• Reglamento europeo que establece el marco regulatorio para las criptomonedas. Obliga a que todos los servicios financieros que emitan o comercialicen criptoactivos tengan licencia y deban proporcionar información sobre sus operaciones. Los proveedores de servicios deberán informar sobre las transacciones realizadas por residentes en Europa con fines de supervisión fiscal. Los ciudadanos europeos están obligados a declarar la tenencia de criptoactivos como parte del patrimonio personal, incluyendo ganancias, la cual estará sujeta a impuestos.
• La Directiva DAC8 complementa al reglamento y se enfoca en el intercambio automático de información fiscal entre los Estados miembro de la UE (CARF). Los proveedores de criptoactivos deberán reportarán todas las transacciones y datos relevantes a las autoridades fiscales nacionales, concretamente los movimientos y saldos del usuario. Legitima a Hacienda a poder embargar las criptomonedas depositadas en un exchange, las wallets autocustodiadas son inembargables por estar en control del usuario.

2. La Travel Rule o Regla de Viaje

• Regulación que aumenta la trazabilidad entre las transacciones de criptomonedas. Exige a los servicios de activos digitales (VASP) recojan y compartan información sobre los remitentes y beneficiarios, sea a carteras custodiadas o autocustodiadas.

3. Límites y “mandamientos”

• Cualquier transferencia superior a 1.000 euros requerirá que el proveedor recopile datos personales.
• Si el monto de operaciones alcanza los 10.000 euros anuales, el proveedor informa.
• Si el monto de operaciones alcanza los 3.000 euros en un trimestre natural, el proveedor informa.
• Las ganancias deben ser declaradas en el IRPF al final del año fiscal, incluso si las criptomonedas no se han convertido a FIAT (dinero fiduciario tradicional).
• El Modelo 721 es una obligación informativa que deben cumplir los contribuyentes que poseen criptomonedas en el extranjero (exchange que no opere bajo legislación española y no presente los modelos informativos requeridos por Hacienda) y cuyo saldo supera los 50.000 euros a fecha del 31 de diciembre.
• La CNMV supervisa el mercado de criptoactivos y el Banco de España las monedas estables (dólares digitales como USDC-USDT).

¿AÚN CON FUERZAS?

Pues sabiendo todo esto, ya es hora de que deposites tu dinero en tu billetera de criptomonedas. ¿Cómo hacerlo? Eso ya lo verás en la siguiente entrega de Semanario Crypto. En él se te ofrecerá el martillo para que rompes la hucha del cerdito y le des vida a tu wallet. Aprende las rutas de entrada y de salida. Opera con conocimiento y sabiendo lo que haces. Es más fácil de lo que piensas. Recuerda que la información es poder, y tú la vas a tener.

---

Descargo de responsabilidad: Toda la información compartida forma parte de mi visión personal y no tiene como objetivo asesorar financieramente. Doy información, no consejos de inversión.

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

I just read this, and found it enlightening.

Jung... notes that intelligence can be seen as problem solving at an everyday level..., whereas creativity may represent problem solving for less common issues

Other studies have used metaphor creation as a creativity measure instead of divergent thinking and a spectrum of CHC components instead of just g and have found much higher relationships between creativity and intelligence than past studies

https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/3/3/59

I'm unusually intelligent (Who isn't?), but I'm much more creative, than intelligent, and I think that confuses people. The ability to apply intelligence, to solve completely novel problems, on the fly, is something IQ tests don't even claim to measure. They just claim a correlation.

Creativity requires taking wild, mental leaps out into nothingness; simply trusting that your brain will land you safely. And this is why I've been at the forefront of massive innovation, over and over, but never got rich off of it.

I'm a starving autist.

Zaps are the first time I've ever made money directly, for solving novel problems. Companies don't do this because there is a span of time between providing a solution and the solution being implemented, and the person building the implementation (or their boss) receives all the credit for the existence of the solution. At best, you can hope to get pawned off with a small bonus.

Nobody can remember who came up with the solution, originally, and that person might not even be there, anymore, and probably never filed a patent, and may have no idea that their idea has even been built. They just run across it, later, in a tech magazine or museum, and say, "Well, will you look at that! Someone actually went and built it! Isn't that nice!"

Universities at least had the idea of cementing novel solutions in academic papers, but that: 1) only works if you're an academic, and at a university, 2) is an incredibly slow process, not appropriate for a truly innovative field, 3) leads to manifestations of perverse incentives and biased research frameworks, coming from 'publish or perish' policies.

But I think long-form notes and zaps solve for this problem. #Alexandria, especially, is being built to cater to this long-suffering class of chronic underachievers. It leaves a written, public, time-stamped record of Clever Ideas We Have Had.

Because they are clever, the ideas. And we have had them.

@ 16d11430:61640947

At the intersection of philosophy, theology, physics, biology, and finance lies a terrifying truth: the fiat monetary system, in its current form, is not just an economic framework but a silent, relentless force actively working against humanity's survival. It isn't simply a failed financial model—it is a systemic engine of destruction, both externally and within the very core of our biological existence.

The Philosophical Void of Fiat

Philosophy has long questioned the nature of value and the meaning of human existence. From Socrates to Kant, thinkers have pondered the pursuit of truth, beauty, and virtue. But in the modern age, the fiat system has hijacked this discourse. The notion of "value" in a fiat world is no longer rooted in human potential or natural resources—it is abstracted, manipulated, and controlled by central authorities with the sole purpose of perpetuating their own power. The currency is not a reflection of society’s labor or resources; it is a representation of faith in an authority that, more often than not, breaks that faith with reckless monetary policies and hidden inflation.

The fiat system has created a kind of ontological nihilism, where the idea of true value, rooted in work, creativity, and family, is replaced with speculative gambling and short-term gains. This betrayal of human purpose at the systemic level feeds into a philosophical despair: the relentless devaluation of effort, the erosion of trust, and the abandonment of shared human values. In this nihilistic economy, purpose and meaning become increasingly difficult to find, leaving millions to question the very foundation of their existence.

Theological Implications: Fiat and the Collapse of the Sacred

Religious traditions have long linked moral integrity with the stewardship of resources and the preservation of life. Fiat currency, however, corrupts these foundational beliefs. In the theological narrative of creation, humans are given dominion over the Earth, tasked with nurturing and protecting it for future generations. But the fiat system promotes the exact opposite: it commodifies everything—land, labor, and life—treating them as mere transactions on a ledger.

This disrespect for creation is an affront to the divine. In many theologies, creation is meant to be sustained, a delicate balance that mirrors the harmony of the divine order. Fiat systems—by continuously printing money and driving inflation—treat nature and humanity as expendable resources to be exploited for short-term gains, leading to environmental degradation and societal collapse. The creation narrative, in which humans are called to be stewards, is inverted. The fiat system, through its unholy alliance with unrestrained growth and unsustainable debt, is destroying the very creation it should protect.

Furthermore, the fiat system drives idolatry of power and wealth. The central banks and corporations that control the money supply have become modern-day gods, their decrees shaping the lives of billions, while the masses are enslaved by debt and inflation. This form of worship isn't overt, but it is profound. It leads to a world where people place their faith not in God or their families, but in the abstract promises of institutions that serve their own interests.

Physics and the Infinite Growth Paradox

Physics teaches us that the universe is finite—resources, energy, and space are all limited. Yet, the fiat system operates under the delusion of infinite growth. Central banks print money without concern for natural limits, encouraging an economy that assumes unending expansion. This is not only an economic fallacy; it is a physical impossibility.

In thermodynamics, the Second Law states that entropy (disorder) increases over time in any closed system. The fiat system operates as if the Earth were an infinite resource pool, perpetually able to expand without consequence. The real world, however, does not bend to these abstract concepts of infinite growth. Resources are finite, ecosystems are fragile, and human capacity is limited. Fiat currency, by promoting unsustainable consumption and growth, accelerates the depletion of resources and the degradation of natural systems that support life itself.

Even the financial “growth” driven by fiat policies leads to unsustainable bubbles—inflated stock markets, real estate, and speculative assets that burst and leave ruin in their wake. These crashes aren’t just economic—they have profound biological consequences. The cycles of boom and bust undermine communities, erode social stability, and increase anxiety and depression, all of which affect human health at a biological level.

Biology: The Fiat System and the Destruction of Human Health

Biologically, the fiat system is a cancerous growth on human society. The constant chase for growth and the devaluation of work leads to chronic stress, which is one of the leading causes of disease in modern society. The strain of living in a system that values speculation over well-being results in a biological feedback loop: rising anxiety, poor mental health, physical diseases like cardiovascular disorders, and a shortening of lifespans.

Moreover, the focus on profit and short-term returns creates a biological disconnect between humans and the planet. The fiat system fuels industries that destroy ecosystems, increase pollution, and deplete resources at unsustainable rates. These actions are not just environmentally harmful; they directly harm human biology. The degradation of the environment—whether through toxic chemicals, pollution, or resource extraction—has profound biological effects on human health, causing respiratory diseases, cancers, and neurological disorders.

The biological cost of the fiat system is not a distant theory; it is being paid every day by millions in the form of increased health risks, diseases linked to stress, and the growing burden of mental health disorders. The constant uncertainty of an inflation-driven economy exacerbates these conditions, creating a society of individuals whose bodies and minds are under constant strain. We are witnessing a systemic biological unraveling, one in which the very act of living is increasingly fraught with pain, instability, and the looming threat of collapse.

Finance as the Final Illusion

At the core of the fiat system is a fundamental illusion—that financial growth can occur without any real connection to tangible value. The abstraction of currency, the manipulation of interest rates, and the constant creation of new money hide the underlying truth: the system is built on nothing but faith. When that faith falters, the entire system collapses.

This illusion has become so deeply embedded that it now defines the human experience. Work no longer connects to production or creation—it is reduced to a transaction on a spreadsheet, a means to acquire more fiat currency in a world where value is ephemeral and increasingly disconnected from human reality.

As we pursue ever-expanding wealth, the fundamental truths of biology—interdependence, sustainability, and balance—are ignored. The fiat system’s abstract financial models serve to disconnect us from the basic realities of life: that we are part of an interconnected world where every action has a reaction, where resources are finite, and where human health, both mental and physical, depends on the stability of our environment and our social systems.

The Ultimate Extermination

In the end, the fiat system is not just an economic issue; it is a biological, philosophical, theological, and existential threat to the very survival of humanity. It is a force that devalues human effort, encourages environmental destruction, fosters inequality, and creates pain at the core of the human biological condition. It is an economic framework that leads not to prosperity, but to extermination—not just of species, but of the very essence of human well-being.

To continue on this path is to accept the slow death of our species, one based not on natural forces, but on our own choice to worship the abstract over the real, the speculative over the tangible. The fiat system isn't just a threat; it is the ultimate self-inflicted wound, a cultural and financial cancer that, if left unchecked, will destroy humanity’s chance for survival and peace.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

A Causa

o Princípios de Economia Política de Menger é o único livro que enfatiza a CAUSA o tempo todo. os cientistas todos parecem não saber, ou se esquecer sempre, que as coisas têm causa, e que o conhecimento verdadeiro é o conhecimento da causa das coisas.

a causa é uma categoria metafísica muito superior a qualquer correlação ou resultado de teste de hipótese, ela não pode ser descoberta por nenhum artifício econométrico ou reduzida à simples antecedência temporal estatística. a causa dos fenômenos não pode ser provada cientificamente, mas pode ser conhecida.

o livro de Menger conta para o leitor as causas de vários fenômenos econômicos e as interliga de forma que o mundo caótico da economia parece adquirir uma ordem no momento em que você lê. é uma sensação mágica e indescritível.

quando eu te o recomendei, queria é te imbuir com o espírito da busca pela causa das coisas. depois de ler aquilo, você está apto a perceber continuidade causal nos fenômenos mais complexos da economia atual, enxergar as causas entre toda a ação governamental e as suas várias consequências na vida humana. eu faço isso todos os dias e é a melhor sensação do mundo quando o caos das notícias do caderno de Economia do jornal -- que para o próprio jornalista que as escreveu não têm nenhum sentido (tanto é que ele escreve tudo errado) -- se incluem num sistema ordenado de causas e consequências.

provavelmente eu sempre erro em alguns ou vários pontos, mas ainda assim é maravilhoso. ou então é mais maravilhoso ainda quando eu descubro o erro e reinsiro o acerto naquela racionalização bela da ordem do mundo econômico que é a ordem de Deus.

em scrap para T.P.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

A biblioteca infinita

Agora esqueci o nome do conto de Jorge Luis Borges em que a tal biblioteca é descrita, ou seus detalhes específicos. Eu tinha lido o conto e nunca havia percebido que ele matava a questão da aleatoriedade ser capaz de produzir coisas valiosas. Precisei mesmo da Wikipédia me dizer isso.

Alguns anos atrás levantei essa questão para um grupo de amigos sem saber que era uma questão tão batida e baixa. No meu exemplo era um cachorro andando sobre letras desenhadas e não um macaco numa máquina de escrever. A minha conclusão da discussão foi que não importa o que o cachorro escrevesse, sem uma inteligência capaz de compreender aquilo nada passaria de letras aleatórias.

Borges resolve tudo imaginando uma biblioteca que contém tudo o que o cachorro havia escrito durante todo o infinito em que fez o experimento, e portanto contém todo o conhecimento sobre tudo e todas as obras literárias possíveis -- mas entre cada página ou frase muito boa ou pelo menos legívei há toneladas de livros completamente aleatórios e uma pessoa pode passar a vida dentro dessa biblioteca que contém tanto conhecimento importante e mesmo assim não aprender nada porque nunca vai achar os livros certos.

Everything would be in its blind volumes. Everything: the detailed history of the future, Aeschylus' The Egyptians, the exact number of times that the waters of the Ganges have reflected the flight of a falcon, the secret and true nature of Rome, the encyclopedia Novalis would have constructed, my dreams and half-dreams at dawn on August 14, 1934, the proof of Pierre Fermat's theorem, the unwritten chapters of Edwin Drood, those same chapters translated into the language spoken by the Garamantes, the paradoxes Berkeley invented concerning Time but didn't publish, Urizen's books of iron, the premature epiphanies of Stephen Dedalus, which would be meaningless before a cycle of a thousand years, the Gnostic Gospel of Basilides, the song the sirens sang, the complete catalog of the Library, the proof of the inaccuracy of that catalog. Everything: but for every sensible line or accurate fact there would be millions of meaningless cacophonies, verbal farragoes, and babblings. Everything: but all the generations of mankind could pass before the dizzying shelves – shelves that obliterate the day and on which chaos lies – ever reward them with a tolerable page.

Tenho a impressão de que a publicação gigantesca de artigos, posts, livros e tudo o mais está transformando o mundo nessa biblioteca. Há tanta coisa pra ler que é difícil achar o que presta. As pessoas precisam parar de escrever.

@ 2063cd79:57bd1320

Ich hatte vor ein paar Wochen die Gelegenheit mich mit Micheal Hassard persönlich zu unterhalten. Mike ist Verteidiger im Fall von Roman Sterlingov. Der Fall ist haarsträubend und beängstigend. Mike und ich haben uns einige Zeit unterhalten und er hat mir einige Details aus diesem wirklich spannenden Prozess verraten. Ich wollte versuchen die Informationen in einem Artikel zusammenzufassen, um auch anderen Leuten, die mit dem Fall noch nicht betraut sind, die Möglichkeit zu geben, zu verstehen, was für absurde Methoden und ungerechte Beweismittel in diesem noch komplett neuen rechtlichen Umfeld angewendet werden.

LAX

Am 27. April 2001 landet ein Direktflug aus Moskau am Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Bei der Passkontrolle an der Immigration wird ein junger Passagier dieses Fluges von Kriminalermittlern des Internal Revenue Service (IRS) verhaftet. In seinem Gepäck befinden sich vier Reisepässe und allerhand technisches Equipment. Darunter Laptops, externe Festplatten und Bitcoin Signing Devices (Hardware Wallets). Der junge Mann wird festgenommen, seine mitgeführten Besitztümer und Pässe konfisziert, dann wird er in Untersuchungshaft gebracht. Der Vorwurf: Die Gründung und der Betrieb eines Bitcoin Mixers. Konkret wird ihm vorgeworfen, Bitcoin Fog gegründet und betrieben zu haben, darüber hinaus wird er in drei Punkten angeklagt: Geldwäsche, Betrieb eines nicht lizenzierten Geldtransfergeschäfts und Geldtransfer ohne Lizenz. Die IRS behauptet, dass über 1,2 Millionen Bitcoin, im Wert von etwa 336 M US Dollar zum Zeitpunkt der Transaktionen, über Bitcoin Fog verschickt wurden.

Bitcoin Fog

Bitcoin Fog war ein beliebter Custodial Bitcoin Mixer, der von Nutzer//innen für ihre Privatsphäre genutzt wurde. Mixer sind Services die entwickelt wurden, um das Problem der "Common-Input-Ownership-Heuristik" zu brechen. Vereinfacht ausgedrückt beschreibt dieses Problem die Annahme, dass mehrere Inputs einer Transaktion relativ sicher dem gleichen Besitzer gehören. Ich habe Bitcoin Mixer schon mal detailliert beschrieben:

https://www.genexyz.org/post/23-block-772315-bitcoin-mixing-q6i7y4/

TL;DR: Die Grundidee besteht darin, dass man einen Coin nimmt, der aus mehreren UTXOs besteht, und diesen mit Hilfe eines Dienstes einem Pool zuführt. Diese Dienste erhalten für die Vermittlung, Zusammenführung und das Stellen der Infrastruktur eine kleine Gebühr. Transaktionen werden dann so aufgebaut, dass sie es Überwachungsfirmen oder anderen Beobachtern sehr schwer machen, genau zu wissen, welcher Transaktion-Output zu welchem der Input-Steller gehört.

Bitcoin Fog wurde 2011 gegründet und ist ein Custodial Service, was bedeutet, dass Nutzer//innen ihre Bitcoin an eine Wallet des Betreibers senden, und im Gegenzug dann von Bitcoin Fog andere Bitcoin zurück erhalten, um die Spur der On-Chain-Transaktionen zu verwischen.

Roman Sterlingov

Roman war schon früh Benutzer von Bitcoin. Als er 14 Jahre alt war, zog er mit seiner Mutter von Russland nach Schweden und beschäftigte sich ab etwa 2011 mit Bitcoin. Dies ist wichtig, denn als russischer und schwedischer Staatsbürger ist Roman im Besitz von vier offiziell ausgestellten Reisepässen. Russland hat zwei Pässe, einen für das Reisen innerhalb und einen für das Reisen außerhalb Russlands. Schweden stellt auch zwei Reisepässe aus. Als der Bitcoin-Kurs stieg, wurde er Millionär. Er kündigte seinen Job und versuchte, sich selbstständig zu machen. Unter anderem gründete er ein VPN-Geschäft, das nicht erfolgreich war, und entschied sich später aufgrund der Volatilität von Bitcoin und fehlenden Einnahmen aus seinen Projekten, Pilot bei einer kommerziellen Fluggesellschaft zu werden.

Er meldete sich bei einer kalifornischen Flugschule an und 2021, als Roman nach Kalifornien zur Flugschule flog, wurde er von der Regierung am Flughafen LAX verhaftet. Er sitzt seit über zwei Jahren im Gefängnis und wartet auf seinen Prozess. Neben seinen Pässen und seinem Equipment wurden auch die seit 2011 angesammelten Bitcoin beschlagnahmt, da diese auf Konten bei u.a. Kraken lagen.

Die Anklage

Kalifornien hat Roman Sterlingov wegen des Vorwurfs verhaftet, über einen Zeitraum von 10 Jahren Bitcoin im Wert von fast 336 M US Dollar gewaschen zu haben. Ihm wird vorgeworfen, über sein Konto und seine IP-Adressen mit der Bitcoin Fog-Domain und mit Mt. Gox-Konten, die in Verbindung zu Bitcoin Fog stehen, an Bitcoin Fog beteiligt zu sein.

Vor dem Start des Dienstes nutzte der Administrator seinen echten Namen auf seinem Mt. Gox-Konto, um die Plattform einem Betatest zu unterziehen. Sein persönliches Google-Konto wurde auch zum Speichern der Schritte zur Bezahlung der Domain verwendet. Dies sind jedoch zum heutigen Zeitpunkt nur Anschuldigungen ohne konkrete Beweise. Der Fall stützt sich stark auf digitale Forensik und Blockchain-Analyse ohne Zeugenaussagen oder ähnliche konkrete Beweisstücke. Selbst wenn Roman die Domain gekauft hätte, wäre dies nicht illegal. Die Verjährungsfrist für die angeblichen Verbrechen ist ebenfalls abgelaufen. Was bleibt, sind von der Anklage angeführte "Beweise", die sich komplett auf die Blockchain-Analyse der Firma Chainalysis stützen.

Chainalysis

Chainalysis ist die wohl bekannteste Blockchain-Analyse Firma. In einem früheren Artikel habe ich schon mal beschrieben, wie diese Firmen operieren:

https://www.genexyz.org/post/19-block-765505-on-chain-analytics-mhcumo/

TL;DR: Unter On-Chain Analytics versteht man die Analyse von Daten, die auf jeder beliebigen Blockchain vorhanden sind. Diese Daten sind auf der Chain, also on-chain und somit für jedermann jederzeit und von überall abrufbar. Genauer bieten Blockchains Daten über Adressen, Transaktionen und in gewisser Weise auch über Wallets. Diese Informationen können verwertet werden, um verschiedene Sachverhalte darzustellen. Dieses Verfahren wird auch Heuristik genannt und bedient sich wahrscheinlicher Annahmen, also z.B. wiederkehrender Muster. Dabei werden sogenannte Cluster erstellt, also Verbindungen zwischen Adressen und Transaktionen gezogen.

So nutzen nutzen Analyse-Firmen wie Chainalysis Heuristiken und Wahrscheinlichkeitsanalysen, um Bitcoin-Transaktionen und Eigentümerwechsel zu verfolgen. Sie versuchen, Adressen auf der Grundlage dieser Heuristiken zu gruppieren, jedoch stimmen die Ergebnisse verschiedener Unternehmen oft nicht überein. Dies kann zu vagen Beweisen und Schuldunterstellungen führen.

„Während die Identität eines Besitzers einer Bitcoin-Adresse im Allgemeinen anonym ist (es sei denn, der Besitzer entscheidet sich dafür, die Informationen öffentlich zugänglich zu machen), können Strafverfolgungsbehörden den Besitzer einer bestimmten Bitcoin-Adresse oft durch Analyse der Blockchain identifizieren“ - Devon Beckett, Special Agent, IRS

Chainalysis betreiben einen sogenannten Reactor, der diese Analysen vornimmt. Diese Analyse dient als Grundlage für das Argument, Roman habe Geld von seinem Mt Gox-Konto abgebucht und verwendet, um die Bezahlung der DNS-Registrierung für Bitcoin Fog zu tätigen und zu verbergen. Es wird so versucht, Roman mit Aufzeichnungen im Bitcoin Talk-Forums in Verbindung zu bringen, die wiederum Bitcoin Fog mit illegalen Aktivitäten in Verbindung bringen.

Konkret wird anhand dieser Analyse eine Verbindung zu Roman und weiter zu Bitcoin Fog hergestellt, die beweisen soll, dass Zahlungen im Wert von 336 M US Dollar gewaschen wurden, die für Drogengeschäfte verwendet wurden.

Es gibt keine objektiven Standards für diese Art der Analyse und Strafverfolgungsbehörden stützen ihre Beweise auf diese privaten Ermittlungen. Im konkreten Fall vo Chainalysis spielen Beziehungen zu Strafverfolgungsbehörden wie dem britischen Serious Crimes Office und dem US-Justizministerium, sowie den damit einhergehenden Geldquellen eine entscheidende Rolle beim Aufstieg des Unternehmens zum größten Anbieter dieser Dienstleistungen mit einer Marktkapitalisierung von 8,6 Milliarden US Dollar.

Verteidigung

Roman wird in diesem Fall von der Kanzlei Ekeland Law, PLLC vertreten. Die Anwälte, Tor Ekeland und Michael Hassard sind der festen Überzeugung, dass Roman unschuldig ist und dass er in diesem Fall aufgrund fehlerhafter digitaler Forensik in Bedrängnis geraten ist.

Roman gibt zu, Bitcoin Fog aus Datenschutzgründen verwendet zu haben, um seine Bitcoin zu waschen, bevor er diese in sein Konto bei Kraken einzahlte. Das Mischen an sich ist nicht illegal, denn während der Anhörung erkannte der Richter sogar an, dass die Verwendung eines Mixers wie Bitcoin Fog nicht grundsätzlich verboten sei. Dies war sogar das erste Mal, dass ein Richter ausdrücklich erklärte, dass das Mischen von Bitcoin nicht illegal ist und dass es auch nicht illegal ist, Nutzer//in eines Mischdienstes zu sein. Es ist jedoch zu beachten, dass sich dieser Fall speziell gegen den Betreiber von Bitcoin Fog richtet und versucht, den Dienst mit Drogenmarktplätzen in Verbindung zu bringen.

Argumente für Romans Unschuld beinhalten unter anderem, dass Bitcoin Fog in der gesamten Zeit von Romans Inhaftierung aktiv geblieben ist, was darauf schließen lässt, dass die eigentlichen Betreiber immer noch auf freiem Fuß sind. Roman wurde vor seiner Verhaftung überwacht, es wurden Abhör- und Überwachungsmaßnahmen durchgeführt, jedoch keine Beweise gefunden, die ihn mit dem Betrieb von Bitcoin Fog in Verbindung bringen, selbst nachdem Server beschlagnahmt wurden.

Darüber hinaus ignoriert die Anklage auch die Tatsache, dass die DNS-Registrierung der Bitcoin Fog Domain seit Romans Verhaftung zweimal erneuert wurde. Trotzdem versucht die Anklage eine Verbindung zu Roman auf der Grundlage von IP-Adressen herzustellen, die mit anderen E-Mails verknüpft sind, die zur Registrierung der DNS und zur Erstellung eines Kontos im Bitcoin Talk Forum verwendet wurden.

Roman wird Verschwörung vorgeworfen, es wurde jedoch kein einziger Mitverschwörer genannt. Bei den von der Anklage behaupteten Transaktionen handelt es sich um Lizenzzahlungen des Mixers, die jedoch nicht durch Beweise gestützt werden. Wenn Roman ein Drahtzieher wäre, der 336 M US Dollar an Drogengeldern gewaschen hätte, würde es für ihn keinen Sinn machen, sein Geld mit seinem richtigen Namen und Passfoto auf ein KYC-Konto bei Kraken einzuzahlen.

An dieser Stelle ist es vielleicht interessant festzustellen, dass Michael Gronager, einer der Mitbegründer von Chainalysis, auch einer der Mitbegründer von Kraken war.

Mt Gox Daten

Es gibt eine Verbindung zwischen Kraken, Chainalysis und Mt Gox. Denn nicht nur war der Gründer von Kraken, Jesse Powell, als Berater für Mt. Gox bei der Lösung eines Sicherheitsproblems tätig und begann in Erwartung seines Kollapses mit der Arbeit an Kraken als Ersatz, auch Chainalysis wurde als direkte Reaktion auf den Mt. Gox-Skandal gegründet.

Chainalysis wurde in den offiziellen Ermittlungen im Insolvenzverfahren von Mt. Gox genutzt, um den Verbleib der "gestohlenen" bitcoins zu untersuchen. Allerdings gibt es Anzeichen dafür, dass die dabei verwendeten Daten falsch und unzuverlässig seien. Angebliche Transaktionsnummern und Wallet-Adressen existieren nicht, werden verwechselt oder sind schlichtweg fehlerhaft. Genau dieser Datensatz wird aber nun benutzt, um Fälle wie den von Roman zu beweisen.

Ankläger

Einer der Staatsanwälte des Falles ist jetzt leitender Rechtsberater für Chainalysis, und ein IRS-Ermittler gründete während seiner Tätigkeit für den IRS ein privates Unternehmen namens Exigent LLC. Die Pressemitteilungen und Fundraising-Runden von Chainalysis stehen eng im Zusammenhang mit dem Fall. Exigent LLC erhält in der Pressemitteilung des US-Justizministeriums die höchste Auszeichnung für Romans Verhaftung, und fünf Monate später kaufte Chainalysis Exigent LLC. Dieser Fall scheint von Karrierismus und Profitstreben getrieben zu sein.

Problem

Neben den Verbindungen der Ermittler und Ankläger mit Chainalysis und der Problematik der fehlenden Beweise, ist dieser Fall zutiefst beunruhigend und wirft Bedenken hinsichtlich des geltenden Computerrechts auf.

Die meisten Blockchain-Strafverfolgungen folgen dem gleichen Muster: Einspruchsvereinbarungen, Gerichtsverfahren oder Entlassungen. Unschuldige Menschen gehen oft auf Plädoyer-Deals ein, weil ihnen die Ressourcen fehlen, um gegen die unbegrenzten Ressourcen des Department of Justice zu kämpfen. Roman kann keinen Deal annehmen, weil er nichts weiß und lügen müsste.

Es ist beunruhigend, dass der Fall in Washington D.C. verhandelt wird, obwohl Roman keine Verbindungen zu dieser Stadt hat. Die einzige Grundlage dafür, die Gerichtsbarkeit nach D.C. zu legen, ist darin begründet, dass eine verdeckte Operation gegen Roman aus Washington D.C. geleitet wurde. Dies gibt Anlass zur Sorge, weil es Staatsanwälten ermöglicht, Angeklagte auf der Grundlage von Online-Interaktionen vor jedes Bundesgericht zu ziehen - ob US Staatsbürger oder nicht. Dies ist ein direkter Verstoß gegen die Gerichtsstandsklausel und entfernt wichtige Elemente des Strafrechtssystems, da es jede/n Nutzer//in von Bitcoin-Mixern in die gefährliche Lage versetzen kann, vor einem US-Gericht angeklagt zu werden, wenn eine auch nur dünne Beweislage gegen ihn/sie vorliegt.

Ein weiteres Problem besteht in den vorgebrachten Beweisen. Denn die Verteidigung hat bis heute keinen Einblick in den Code oder die verwendeten Datensätze, die von Chainalysis verwendet wurden, erhalten. Chainalysis beruft sich dabei auf seine proprietären Geschäftsdaten und lehnt eine Offenlegung ab. Es wird vermutet, dass die Datensätze falsch sind, insbesondere angesichts der fragwürdigen Mt. Gox-Aufzeichnungen, auf die sie sich stützen.

Die bereitgestellten Daten sind begrenzt, unvollständig und werden in komplizierten Flussdiagrammen dargestellt. Die verwendete Software, wie z.B. der Chainalysis Reactor, steht nicht für eine unabhängige Prüfung zur Verfügung. Der Mangel an Transparenz und Zugang zu dieser Software gibt Anlass zu Bedenken hinsichtlich ihrer Genauigkeit und den daraus gezogenen Schlussfolgerungen.

Es bestehen Zweifel am Zusammenhang zwischen Roman, dem Betreiber von Bitcoin Fog, und den mutmaßlichen Straftaten. Roman sitzt derzeit im Gefängnis, ihm droht eine Haftstrafe von 50 Jahren. Die Freiheit einer Person wird durch eine kommerzielle proprietäre Software gefährdet, die vor Gericht erwirken kann, dass Quellen und Datensätze nicht offengelegt werden.

Auch wirft der Fall Bedenken hinsichtlich fehlender Standards, des gewinnorientierten Charakters des forensischen Bereichs, der Weigerung, Beweise auszutauschen, und der Möglichkeit von Justizirrtümern auf, die durch fehlerhafte Software und fragwürdige Praktiken verursacht werden.

Wie geht es weiter?

Das Verteidigungsteam hat finanzielle Probleme, da alle Gelder von Roman beschlagnahmt wurden. Der Antrag auf Freigabe der Mittel wurde abgelehnt. Romans Verteidigung muss öffentliche Mittel beantragen und hofft auf Spenden. Ich habe in einem früheren Artikel schon auf die Spendenseite aufmerksam gemacht. Wer anhand der aufgelisteten Fakten das Gefühl bekommt, dass hier jemand zu Unrecht verhaftet wurde und helfen möchte, kann die Verteidigung mit einer Spende unterstützen.

https://www.torekeland.com/roman-sterlingov

https://geyser.fund/project/usvsterlingov

FREEROMAN

🫳🎤

---

In diesem Sinne, 2... 1... Risiko!‌

@ 609899dc:13493d8d

Simplify your Arlo security system setup with Myarlosetup.From connecting devices to setting up settings for maximum security, our professional assistance guarantees a seamless installation experience. We assist you in smoothly integrating your floodlights, doorbells, and cameras into your system. Get improved protection and real-time monitoring for your house or place of business. You can rely on Myarlosetup to offer detailed guidance and guarantee a simple and effective Arlo security system setup. Easily secure your home now!

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

IPFS problems: Shitcoinery

IPFS was advertised to the Ethereum community since the beggining as a way to "store" data for their "dApps". I don't think this is harmful in any way, but for some reason it may have led IPFS developers to focus too much on Ethereum stuff. Once I watched a talk showing libp2p developers – despite being ignored by the Ethereum team (that ended up creating their own agnostic p2p library) – dedicating an enourmous amount of work on getting a libp2p app running in the browser talking to a normal Ethereum node.

The always somewhat-abandoned "Awesome IPFS" site is a big repository of "dApps", some of which don't even have their landing page up anymore, useless Ethereum smart contracts that for some reason use IPFS to store whatever the useless data their users produce.

Again, per se it isn't a problem that Ethereum people are using IPFS, but it is at least confusing, maybe misleading, that when you search for IPFS most of the use-cases are actually Ethereum useless-cases.

See also

• Bitcoin, the only non-shitcoin

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Why IPFS cannot work, again

Imagine someone comes up with a solution for P2P content-addressed data-sharing that involves storing all the files' contents in all computers of the network. That wouldn't work, right? Too much data, if you think this can work then you're a BSV enthusiast.

Then someone comes up with the idea of not storing everything in all computers, but only some things on some computers, based on some algorithm to determine what data a node would store given its pubkey or something like that. Still wouldn't work, right? Still too much data no matter how much you spread it, but mostly incentives not aligned, would implode in the first day.

Now imagine someone says they will do the same thing, but instead of storing the full contents each node would only store a pointer to where each data is actually available. Does that make it better? Hardly so. Still, you're just moving the problem.

This is IPFS.

Now you have less data on each computer, but on a global scale that is still a lot of data.

No incentives.

And now you have the problem of finding the data. First if you have some data you want the world to access you have to broadcast information about that, flooding the network -- and everybody has to keep doing this continuously for every single file (or shard of file) that is available.

And then whenever someone wants some data they must find the people who know about that, which means they will flood the network with requests that get passed from peer to peer until they get to the correct peer.

The more you force each peer to store the worse it becomes to run a node and to store data on behalf of others -- but the less your force each peer to store the more flooding you'll have on the global network, and the slower will be for anyone to actually get any file.

---

But if everybody just saves everything to Infura or Cloudflare then it works, magic decentralized technology.

Related

• How IPFS is broken

@ d830ee7b:4e61cd62

การเผชิญหน้า (The Collision Point)

กลางปี 2017 ที่ร้านคราฟท์เบียร์เล็ก ๆ ในย่านเกาะเกร็ด นนทบุรี อากาศร้อนจนเครื่องปรับอากาศ (ที่ยังไม่มี) ในร้านทำงานหนักแทบไหม้ "แจ๊ก กู้ดเดย์" (Jakk Goodday) นั่งลงบนเก้าอี้ไม้ที่เจ้าของร้านกันไว้ให้เป็นประจำ ราวกับเขาเป็นลูกค้าขาประจำระดับวีไอพี

กลิ่นกาแฟคั่ว ลอยผสมกับไอความร้อนจากนอกหน้าต่าง (ผิดร้านหรือเปล่า?) เกิดเป็นบรรยากาศขมติดปลายลิ้นชวนให้คนจิบแล้วอยากถอนใจ

เขาเหลือบมองออกไปนอกหน้าต่าง.. เห็นแสงแดดแผดเผาราวกับมันรู้ว่าสงคราม Blocksize กำลังคุกรุ่นขึ้นอีกครั้ง

บรรยากาศนอกหน้าต่างกับใน ฟอรัม Bitcointalk ช่างเหมือนกันจนน่าขนลุก มันร้อนแรง ไร้ความปรานี

แจ๊กเปิดแล็ปท็อป กดเข้าเว็บฟอรัม พอเสียงแจ้งเตือน “—ติ๊ง” ดังขึ้น คิ้วของเขาก็ขมวดเล็กน้อย คล้ายได้กลิ่นดินปืนกลางสนามรบ

“โรเจอร์ แวร์ (Roger Ver) ไลฟ์เดือดลั่นเวที!” “ปีเตอร์ วูเล (Pieter Wuille) โต้กลับเรื่อง SegWit!” “Hard Fork ใกล้ถึงจุดปะทะแล้ว!”

แจ๊กคลิกเข้าไปในลิงก์ของไลฟ์ทันที เหมือนมือของเขาไม่ต้องการคำสั่งจากสมอง ความคุ้นเคยกับเหตุการณ์แบบนี้บอกเขาว่า นี่ไม่ใช่ดีเบตธรรมดา แต่มันอาจเปลี่ยนอนาคตของ Bitcoin ได้จริง ๆ

เห็นแค่พาดหัวสั้น ๆ แต่ความตึงเครียดก็ชัดเจนขึ้นเรื่อย ๆ ทุกข้อความเหมือนสุมไฟใส่ใจกองหนึ่งที่พร้อมระเบิดได้ทุกเมื่อ

โทรศัพท์ของแจ๊กดังพร้อมปรากฏชื่อ แชมป์ ‘PIGROCK’ ลอยขึ้นมา เขาหยิบขึ้นมารับทันที

“ว่าไงวะแชมป์… มีอะไรด่วนหรือเปล่า?” น้ำเสียงแจ๊กฟังดูเหมือนง่วง ๆ แต่จริง ๆ เขาพร้อมจะลุกมาวิเคราะห์สถานการณ์ให้ฟังทุกเมื่อ

“พี่แจ๊ก.. ผมอ่านดีเบตเรื่อง SegWit ในฟอรัมอยู่ครับ บางคนด่าว่ามันไม่ได้แก้ปัญหาจริง ๆ บ้างก็บอกถ้าเพิ่ม Blocksize ไปเลยจะง่ายกว่า... ผมเลยสงสัยว่า Hard Fork ที่เค้าพูดถึงกันนี่คืออะไร ใครคิดอะไรก็ Fork กันได้ง่าย ๆ เลยเหรอ"

"แล้วถ้า Fork ไปหลายสาย สุดท้ายเหรียญไหนจะเป็น ‘Bitcoin ที่แท้จริง’ ล่ะพี่?”

“แล้วการ Fork มันส่งผลกับนักลงทุนยังไงครับ? คนทั่วไปอย่างผมควรถือไว้หรือขายหนีตายดีล่ะเนี่ย?”

แจ๊กยิ้มมุมปาก ชอบใจที่น้องถามจี้จุด

“เอางี้… การ Fork มันเหมือนแบ่งถนนออกเป็นสองสาย ใครชอบกติกาเก่าก็วิ่งถนนเส้นเก่า ใครอยากแก้กติกาใหม่ก็ไปถนนเส้นใหม่"

"แต่ประเด็นคือ... นี่ไม่ใช่เรื่องเล็ก ๆ เพราะมีผลต่ออัตลักษณ์ของ Bitcoin ทั้งหมดเลยนะมึง—ใครจะยอมปล่อยผ่านง่าย ๆ”

"คิดดูสิ ถ้าครั้งนี้พวกเขา Fork จริง มันอาจไม่ได้เปลี่ยนแค่เครือข่าย แต่เปลี่ยนวิธีที่คนมอง Bitcoin ไปตลอดกาลเลยนะ"

"แล้วใครมันจะอยากลงทุนในระบบที่แตกแยกซ้ำแล้วซ้ำเล่าวะ?"

“งั้นหมายความว่าตอนนี้ก็มีสองแนวใหญ่ ๆ ชัวร์ใช่ไหมครับ?” แชมป์ถามต่อ

“ฝั่ง โรเจอร์ แวร์ ที่บอกว่าต้องเพิ่ม Blocksize ให้ใหญ่จุใจ กับฝั่งทีม Core อย่าง ปีเตอร์ วูเล ที่ยืนยันต้องใช้ SegWit ทำให้บล็อกเบา ไม่กระทบการกระจายอำนาจ?”

“ใช่เลย” แจ๊กจิบกาแฟดำเข้ม ๆ ผสมน้ำผึ้งไปหนึ่งอึก

“โรเจอร์นี่เขาเชื่อว่า Bitcoin ต้องเป็นเงินสดดิจิทัลที่ใช้จ่ายไว ค่าธรรมเนียมไม่แพง ส่วนปีเตอร์กับ Bitcoin Core มองว่าการเพิ่มบล็อกเยอะ ๆ มันจะไปฆ่า Node รายย่อย คนไม่มีทุนก็รัน Node ไม่ไหว สุดท้าย Bitcoin จะกลายเป็นระบบกึ่งรวมศูนย์ ซึ่งมันผิดหลักการเดิมของ ซาโตชิ ไงล่ะ”

“ฟังแล้วก็ไม่ใช่เรื่องง่ายนะพี่… งั้นที่ผมได้ยินว่า จิฮั่น อู๋ (Jihan Wu) เจ้าของ Bitmain ที่ถือ Hashrate เกินครึ่งนี่ก็มาอยู่ฝั่งเดียวกับโรเจอร์ใช่ไหม?"

"เพราะยิ่งบล็อกใหญ่ ค่าธรรมเนียมยิ่งเพิ่ม นักขุดก็ได้กำไรสูงขึ้นใช่ป่ะ?”

“ไอ้เรื่องกำไรก็ส่วนหนึ่ง...” แจ๊กถอนหายใจ

“แต่ที่สำคัญกว่านั้นคืออำนาจต่อรอง… ตอนประชุมลับที่ฮ่องกงเมื่อปีที่แล้ว พี่เองก็ถูกชวนให้เข้าไปในฐานะคนกลาง เลยเห็นภาพน่าขนลุกอยู่หน่อย ๆ"

"จิฮั่นนั่งไขว่ห้างด้วยสีหน้ามั่นใจมาก ด้วย Hashrate ราว 60% ของโลก สั่งซ้ายหันขวาหันเหมือนเป็นแม่ทัพใหญ่ได้เลย พอโรเจอร์ก็ไฟแรงอยู่แล้ว อยากให้ Bitcoin ครองโลกด้วยวิธีของเขา สองคนนี่จับมือกันทีจะเขย่าชุมชน Bitcoin ได้ทั้งกระดาน”

"พี่รู้สึกเหมือนนั่งอยู่ในศึกชิงบัลลังก์ยุคใหม่ คนหนึ่งยึดพลังขุด คนหนึ่งยึดความศรัทธาในชื่อ Bitcoin แต่สิ่งที่พี่สงสัยในตอนนั้นคือ… พวกเขาสู้เพื่อใครกันแน่?"

แชมป์เงียบไปครู่เหมือนกำลังประมวลผล “แล้วตอนนั้นพี่คิดยังไงบ้างครับ? รู้สึกกลัวหรือว่ายังไง?”

“จะไม่กลัวได้ไง!” แจ๊กหัวเราะแห้ง ๆ แวบหนึ่งก็นึกถึงสีหน้าที่ยิ้มเยาะของทั้งคู่ตอนประกาศความพร้อมจะ Fork

“พี่อดคิดไม่ได้ว่าถ้า Core ยังไม่ยอมขยายบล็อก พวกนั้นจะลากนักขุดทั้งกองทัพแฮชเรตไปทำเครือข่ายใหม่ให้เป็น ‘Bitcoin สายใหญ่’ แล้วทิ้งเครือข่ายเดิมให้ซวนเซ"

"แค่คิดก็นึกถึงสงครามกลางเมืองในหนังประวัติศาสตร์แล้วน่ะ.. แตกเป็นสองฝ่าย สุดท้ายใครแพ้ใครชนะ ไม่มีใครทำนายได้จริง ๆ”

พูดจบ.. เขาเปิดฟอรัมดูไลฟ์ดีเบตจากงานในปี 2017 ต่อ โรเจอร์ แวร์ กำลังพูดในโทนร้อนแรง

“Bitcoin ไม่ใช่ของคนรวย! ถ้าคุณไม่เพิ่ม Blocksize คุณก็ทำให้ค่าธรรมเนียมพุ่งจนคนธรรมดาใช้ไม่ได้!”

ขณะเดียวกัน ปีเตอร์ วูเล่ ยืนอยู่ฝั่งตรงข้าม สีหน้าเยือกเย็นราวกับตั้งรับมานาน “การเพิ่มบล็อกคือการทำลายโครงสร้าง Node รายย่อยในระยะยาว แล้วมันจะยังเรียกว่ากระจายอำนาจได้หรือ?”

"ถ้าคุณอยากให้ Bitcoin เป็นของคนรวยเพียงไม่กี่คน ก็เชิญขยายบล็อกไปเถอะนะ แต่ถ้าอยากให้มันเป็นระบบที่คนทุกระดับมีส่วนร่วมจริง ๆ ..คุณต้องฟังเสียง Node รายเล็กด้วย" ปีเตอร์กล่าว

เสียงผู้คนในงานโห่ฮากันอย่างแตกเป็นสองฝ่าย บ้างก็เชียร์ความตรงไปตรงมาของโรเจอร์ บ้างก็เคารพเหตุผลเชิงเทคนิคของปีเตอร์

ข้อความจำนวนมหาศาลในฟอรัมต่างโหมกระพือไปต่าง ๆ นานา มีทั้งคำด่าหยาบคายจนแจ๊กต้องเบือนหน้า ตลอดจนการวิเคราะห์ลึก ๆ ถึงอนาคตของ Bitcoin ที่อาจไม่เหมือนเดิม

ในระหว่างนั้น.. แชมป์ส่งข้อความ Discord กลับมาอีก

“พี่ ถ้า Fork จริง ราคาจะป่วนแค่ไหน? ที่เขาว่าคนถือ BTC จะได้เหรียญใหม่ฟรี ๆ จริงไหม? ผมกลัวว่าถ้าเกิดแบ่งเครือข่ายไม่รู้กี่สาย ตลาดอาจมั่วจนคนหายหมดก็ได้ ใช่ไหมครับ?”

"แล้วถ้าเครือข่ายใหม่ล้มเหลวล่ะครับ? จะส่งผลอะไรต่อชุมชน Bitcoin เดิม?"

"ไอ้แชมป์มึงถามรัวจังวะ!?" แจ๊กสบถเพราะเริ่มตั้งรับไม่ทัน

“ก็ขึ้นกับตลาดจะเชื่อว่าสายไหนเป็น ‘ของจริง’ อีกนั่นแหละ” แจ๊กพิมพ์กลับ

“บางคนถือไว้เผื่อได้เหรียญใหม่ฟรี บางคนขายหนีตายก่อน"

"พี่เองก็ยังไม่กล้าการันตีเลย แต่ที่แน่ ๆ สงครามนี้ไม่ได้มีแค่ผลกำไร มันกระทบศรัทธาของชุมชน Bitcoin ทั้งหมดด้วย"

"ถ้าชาวเน็ตเลิกเชื่อมั่น หรือคนนอกมองว่าพวกเราทะเลาะกันเองเหมือนเด็กแย่งของเล่น ต่อให้ฝั่งไหนชนะ ก็อาจไม่มีผู้ใช้เหลือให้ฉลอง”

แล้วสายตาแจ๊กก็ปะทะกับกระทู้ใหม่ที่เด้งขึ้นมาบนหน้าฟอรัม

“โรเจอร์ แวร์ ประกาศ: ถ้าไม่เพิ่ม Blocksize เราจะฟอร์กเป็น Bitcoin ที่แท้จริง!”

ตัวหนังสือหนาแปะอยู่ตรงนั้นส่งแรงสั่นสะเทือนราวกับจะดึงคนในวงการให้ต้องเลือกข้างกันแบบไม่อาจกลับหลังได้

แจ๊กเอื้อมมือปิดแล็ปท็อปช้า ๆ คล้ายยอมรับความจริงว่าหนทางประนีประนอมอาจไม่มีอีกแล้ว..

“สงครามนี่คงใกล้ระเบิดเต็มทีล่ะนะ” เขาลุกจากเก้าอี้ สะพายเป้ พึมพำกับตัวเองขณะมองกาแฟดำที่เหลือครึ่งแก้ว “ถ้าพวกเขาฟอร์กจริง โลกคริปโตฯ ที่เราเคยรู้จักอาจไม่มีวันเหมือนเดิมอีกต่อไป”

เขามองออกไปนอกหน้าต่าง แสงแดดที่แผดเผาราวกับกำลังบอกว่า.. อนาคตของ Bitcoin อยู่ในจุดที่เส้นแบ่งระหว่างชัยชนะกับความล่มสลายเริ่มพร่าเลือน... และอาจไม่มีทางย้อนกลับ

ก่อนเดินออกจากร้าน เขากดส่งข้อความสั้น ๆ ถึงแชมป์

“เตรียมใจกับความปั่นป่วนไว้ให้ดี ไม่แน่ว่าเราอาจจะได้เห็น Bitcoin แตกเป็นหลายสาย.. ใครจะอยู่ใครจะไปไม่รู้เหมือนกัน แต่เรื่องนี้คงไม่จบง่าย ๆ แน่”

แจ๊กผลักประตูออกไปพบกับแดดจัดที่เหมือนแผดเผากว่าเดิม พายุร้อนไม่ได้มาแค่ในรูปความร้อนกลางกรุง แต่มาในรูป “สงคราม Blocksize” ที่พร้อมจะฉีกชุมชนคริปโตออกเป็นฝักฝ่าย และอาจลามบานปลายจนกลายเป็นศึกประวัติศาสตร์

ทว่าสิ่งที่ค้างคาใจกลับเป็นคำถามนั้น…

เมื่อเครือข่ายแบ่งเป็นหลายสายแล้ว เหรียญไหนจะเป็น Bitcoin จริง?

หรือบางที... ในโลกที่ใครก็ Fork ได้ตามใจ เราจะไม่มีวันได้เห็น “Bitcoin หนึ่งเดียว” อีกต่อไป?

คำถามที่ไม่มีใครตอบได้ชัดนี้ส่องประกายอยู่ตรงปลายทาง ราวกับป้ายเตือนว่า “อันตรายข้างหน้า” และคนในชุมชนทั้งหมดกำลังจะต้องเผชิญ…

โดยไม่มีใครมั่นใจเลยว่าจะรอด หรือจะแตกสลายไปก่อนกันแน่...

สองเส้นทาง (The Forked Path)

กลางปี 2017 ท้องฟ้าเหนือบุรีรัมย์ยังคงคุกรุ่นด้วยไอแดดและความร้อนแรงของสงคราม Blocksize แจ๊ก กู้ดเดย์ ก้าวเข้ามาในคาเฟ่เล็ก ๆ แห่งหนึ่งในย่านเทศบาลด้วยสีหน้าครุ่นคิด เขาพยายามมองหามุมสงบสำหรับนั่งตั้งหลักในโลกความเป็นจริง ก่อนจะจมดิ่งสู่สงครามในโลกดิจิทัลบนฟอรัม Bitcointalk อีกครั้ง

กลิ่นกาแฟคั่วเข้มลอยกระทบจมูก แจ๊กสั่งกาแฟดำแก้วโปรดแล้วปลีกตัวมาที่โต๊ะริมกระจก กระจกบานนั้นสะท้อนแสงอาทิตย์จัดจ้า ราวกับจะบอกว่าวันนี้คงไม่มีใครหนีความร้อนที่กำลังแผดเผา ทั้งในอากาศและในชุมชน Bitcoin ได้พ้น

เขาเปิดแล็ปท็อปขึ้น ล็อกอินเข้า Bitcointalk.org ตามเคย ข้อความและกระทู้มากมายกระหน่ำแจ้งเตือน ไม่ต่างอะไรจากสมรภูมิคำพูดที่ไม่มีวันหลับ “Hong Kong Agreement ล้มเหลวจริงหรือ?” “UASF คือปฏิวัติโดย Node?” เหล่านี้ล้วนสะท้อนความไม่แน่นอนในชุมชน Bitcoin ที่ตอนนี้ ดูคล้ายจะถึงจุดแตกหักเต็มที...

“ทั้งที่ตอนนั้นเราก็พยายามกันแทบตาย…” แจ๊กพึมพำ มองจอด้วยสายตาเหนื่อยใจพร้อมภาพความทรงจำย้อนกลับเข้าในหัว เขายังจำการประชุมที่ฮ่องกงเมื่อต้นปี 2016 ได้แม่น ยามนั้นความหวังในการประนีประนอมระหว่าง Big Block และ Small Block ดูเป็นไปได้ หากแต่กลายเป็นละครฉากใหญ่ที่จบลงโดยไม่มีใครยอมถอย...

---

...การประชุม Hong Kong Agreement (2016)

ภายในห้องประชุมหรูของโรงแรมใจกลางย่านธุรกิจฮ่องกง บรรยากาศตึงเครียดยิ่งกว่าการเจรจาสงบศึกในสมัยโบราณ

โรเจอร์ แวร์ ยืนเสนอว่า “การเพิ่ม Blocksize สำคัญต่ออนาคตของ Bitcoin — เราอยากให้คนทั่วไปเข้าถึงได้โดยไม่ต้องจ่ายค่าธรรมเนียมแพง ๆ”

“จิฮั่น อู๋ (Jihan Wu)” จาก Bitmain นั่งฝั่งเดียวกับโรเจอร์ คอยเสริมว่าการเพิ่มบล็อกคือโอกาสสำหรับนักขุด และหากทีม Core ไม่ยอม พวกเขาก็พร้อม “ดัน Fork” ขึ้นได้ทุกเมื่อ ด้วย Hashrate มหาศาลที่พวกเขาคุมไว้

ฝั่ง ปีเตอร์ วูเล (Pieter Wuille) กับ เกร็ก แมกซ์เวลล์ (Greg Maxwell) จาก Bitcoin Core เถียงกลับอย่างใจเย็นว่า “การขยายบล็อกอาจดึงดูดทุนใหญ่ ๆ แล้วไล่ Node รายย่อยออกไป ชุมชนอาจไม่เหลือความกระจายอำนาจอย่างที่ Satoshi ตั้งใจ”

สุดท้าย บทสรุปที่เรียกว่า Hong Kong Agreement ลงนามได้ก็จริง แต่มันกลับเป็นแค่ลายเซ็นบนกระดาษที่ไม่มีฝ่ายไหนเชื่อใจใคร

แจ๊กเบือนสายตาออกนอกหน้าต่าง สังเกตเห็นผู้คนเดินขวักไขว่ บ้างก็ดูรีบร้อน บ้างเดินทอดน่องเหมือนว่างเปล่า นี่คงไม่ต่างอะไรกับชาวเน็ตในฟอรัมที่แบ่งฝ่ายกันใน “สงคราม Blocksize” อย่างไม่มีทีท่าจะหยุด

แค่ไม่กี่นาที... เสียงโทรศัพท์ก็ดังขึ้น ชื่อ แชมป์ ‘PIGROCK’ โชว์หราเต็มจออีกครั้ง

“ว่าไงเจ้าแชมป์?” แจ๊กกรอกเสียงในสายด้วยอารมณ์เหนื่อย ๆ ทว่าพร้อมจะอธิบายเหตุการณ์ตามสไตล์คนที่ชอบครุ่นคิด

“พี่แจ๊ก.. ผมเข้าใจแล้วว่าการประชุมฮ่องกงมันล้มเหลว ตอนนี้ก็มีคนแยกเป็นสองขั้ว Big Block กับ SegWit แต่ผมเจออีกกลุ่มในฟอรัมเรียกว่า UASF (User-Activated Soft Fork) ที่เหมือนจะกดดันพวกนักขุดให้ยอมรับ SegWit..."

"อยากรู้ว่าตกลง UASF มันสำคัญยังไงครับ? ทำไมใคร ๆ ถึงเรียกว่าเป็น การปฏิวัติโดย Node กัน?”

แจ๊กอมยิ้มก่อนจะวางแก้วกาแฟลง พูดด้วยน้ำเสียงจริงจังกว่าเดิม “UASF น่ะหรือ? มันเปรียบได้กับการที่ ‘ชาวนา’ หรือ ‘ประชาชนตัวเล็ก ๆ’ ออกมาประกาศว่า ‘ฉันจะไม่รับบล็อกของนักขุดที่ไม่รองรับ SegWit นะ ถ้าแกไม่ทำตาม ฉันก็จะตัดบล็อกแกทิ้ง!’ เสมือนเป็นการปฏิวัติที่บอกว่าแรงขุดมากแค่ไหนก็ไม่สำคัญ ถ้าคนรัน Node ไม่ยอม… เชนก็เดินต่อไม่ได้”

“โห… ฟังดูแรงจริง ๆ พี่ แล้วถ้านักขุดไม่ร่วมมือ UASF จะเกิดอะไรขึ้น?” แชมป์ถามต่อเสียงสั่นนิด ๆ

“ก็อาจเกิด ‘Chain Split’ ยังไงล่ะ"

"แยกเครือข่ายเป็นสองสาย สุดท้ายเครือข่ายเดิม กับเครือข่ายใหม่ที่รองรับ SegWit ไม่ตรงกัน คนอาจสับสนหนักยิ่งกว่า Hard Fork ปกติด้วยซ้ำ"

"แต่นั่นแหละ... มันแสดงพลังว่าผู้ใช้ทั่วไปก็มีสิทธิ์กำหนดทิศทาง Bitcoin ไม่ได้น้อยไปกว่านักขุดเลย”

“เข้าใจแล้วครับพี่… เหมือน การปฏิวัติโดยประชาชนตาดำ ๆ ที่จับมือกันค้านอำนาจทุนใหญ่ใช่ไหม?” แชมป์หยุดครู่หนึ่ง “ผมเคยคิดว่า Node รายย่อยน้อยรายจะไปสู้อะไรไหว แต่ตอนนี้ดูท่าจะเปลี่ยนเกมได้จริงว่ะพี่…”

“ใช่เลย” แจ๊กตอบ

“นี่เป็นความพิเศษของ Bitcoin ที่บอกว่า ‘เราคุมเครือข่ายร่วมกัน’ แม้แต่ Bitmain ที่มี Hashrate มากกว่า 50% ก็หนาวได้ถ้าผู้ใช้หรือ Node รายย่อยรวมพลังกันมากพอ”

แชมป์ฟังด้วยความตื่นเต้นปนกังวล “แล้วแบบนี้ เรื่อง SegWit กับ Blocksize จะจบยังไงครับ? เห็นข่าวว่าถ้านักขุดโดนกดดันมาก ๆ คนอย่าง จิฮั่น อู๋ อาจออกไปสนับสนุน Bitcoin Cash ที่จะเปิดบล็อกใหญ่”

แจ๊กเลื่อนดูฟีดข่าวในฟอรัม Bitcointalk อีกครั้ง ก็เห็นพาดหัวชัด ๆ

“Bitmain ประกาศกร้าวพร้อมหนุน BCH เต็มพิกัด!”

เขาถอนหายใจเฮือกหนึ่ง “ก็ใกล้เป็นจริงแล้วล่ะ… โรเจอร์ แวร์ เองก็ผลักดัน BCH ว่าคือ Bitcoin แท้ที่ค่าธรรมเนียมถูก ใช้งานได้จริง ส่วนฝั่ง BTC ที่ยึดเอา SegWit เป็นหลัก ก็ไม่ยอมให้ Blocksize เพิ่มใหญ่เกินจำเป็น.."

"ต่างคนต่างมีเหตุผล... แต่อุดมการณ์นี่คนละทางเลย”

“แล้วพี่คิดว่าใครจะเป็นฝ่ายชนะครับ?”

“เฮ้ย.. มึงถามยากไปหรือเปล่า” แจ๊กหัวเราะหึ ๆ “ทุกคนมีโอกาสได้หมด และก็มีโอกาสพังหมดเหมือนกัน ถ้า UASF กดดันนักขุดให้อยู่กับ Core ได้ พวกเขาอาจยอมแพ้ แต่ถ้า Bitmain เทใจไป BCH นักขุดรายใหญ่คนอื่น ๆ ก็คงตาม"

"แล้วถ้าฝั่ง BCH เริ่มได้เปรียบ... อาจดึงคนไปเรื่อย ๆ สุดท้ายจะเหลือไหมล่ะฝั่ง SegWit ตัวจริง?”

“งั้น Node รายย่อยจะยืนอยู่ตรงไหนล่ะครับพี่?” แชมป์ถามอย่างหนักใจ

“Node รายย่อยและชุมชนผู้ใช้นี่แหละ คือ ตัวแปรชี้ขาด ทุกวันนี้คนกลุ่ม UASF พยายามโชว์พลังว่าตัวเองมีสิทธิ์ตั้งกติกาเหมือนกัน ไม่ใช่แค่นักขุด"

"อย่างที่บอก.. มันคือการ ‘ลุกขึ้นปฏิวัติ’ โดยชาวนา ต่อสู้กับเจ้าที่ที่ถือ ‘แฮชเรต’ เป็นอาวุธ”

แจ๊กตบบ่าตัวเองเบา ๆ ก่อนจะหัวเราะเล็กน้อย

“นี่แหละความมันของ Bitcoin ไม่มีเจ้าไหนสั่งได้เบ็ดเสร็จจริง ๆ ทุกฝั่งต่างถือไพ่คนละใบ สงครามยังไม่รู้จะจบยังไง ถึงอย่างนั้นมันก็สะท้อนวิญญาณ ‘decentralization’ ที่แท้จริง กล้ายอมรับสิทธิ์ทุกฝ่ายเพื่อแข่งขันกันตามกติกา”

จู่ ๆ ในหน้าฟอรัมก็มีกระทู้ใหม่เด้งเด่น “Bitmain หนุน Bitcoin Cash ด้วย Hashrate กว่า 50%! สงครามเริ่มแล้ว?” ข้อความนั้นดังโครมครามเหมือนระเบิดลงกลางวง

แจ๊กนิ่งไปชั่วขณะ สัมผัสได้ถึงความปั่นป่วนที่กำลังปะทุขึ้นอีกครั้ง เหงื่อบางเบาซึมบนหน้าผากแม้อากาศในคาเฟ่จะเย็นฉ่ำ เขาหันมองโทรศัพท์ที่ยังค้างสายกับแชมป์ แล้วเอ่ยด้วยน้ำเสียงจริงจัง

“นี่ล่ะ.. จุดเริ่มของสองเส้นทางอย่างชัดเจน… บล็อกใหญ่จะไปกับ BCH ส่วน SegWit ก็อยู่กับ BTC แน่นอนว่าทั้งสองฝ่ายไม่คิดถอยง่าย ๆ นักขุดจะเลือกข้างไหน? Node รายย่อยจะยอมใคร?"

"เมื่อสงครามครั้งนี้นำไปสู่การแบ่งเครือข่าย ใครกันแน่จะเป็นผู้ชนะตัวจริง? หรืออาจไม่มีผู้ชนะเลยก็เป็นได้”

ปลายสายเงียบงัน มีแต่เสียงหายใจของแชมป์ที่สะท้อนความกังวลปนอยากรู้อย่างแรง

“พี่… สุดท้ายแล้วเรากำลังยืนอยู่บนรอยแยกที่พร้อมจะฉีกทุกอย่างออกเป็นชิ้น ๆ ใช่ไหมครับ?”

“อาจจะใช่ก็ได้... หรือถ้ามองอีกมุม อาจเป็นวัฏจักรที่ Bitcoin ต้องเจอเป็นระยะ ทุกคนมีสิทธิ์ Fork ได้ตามใจใช่ไหมล่ะ? ก็ขอให้โลกได้เห็นกันว่าชุมชนไหนแน่จริง” แจ๊กพูดทิ้งท้ายก่อนจะแย้มยิ้มเจือรอยอ่อนล้า

ภาพบนจอคอมพิวเตอร์ฉายกระทู้ถกเถียงกันไม่หยุด ประหนึ่งเวทีดีเบตที่ไม่มีวันปิดไฟ แจ๊กจิบกาแฟอึกสุดท้ายเหมือนจะเตรียมพร้อมใจก่อนเข้าสู่สนามรบครั้งใหม่ สงครามยังไม่จบ.. ซ้ำยังดูหนักข้อยิ่งขึ้นเรื่อย ๆ

เขาลุกขึ้นจากโต๊ะ ชำเลืองมองแสงแดดจัดจ้าที่สาดลงมาไม่หยุด เปรียบเหมือนไฟแห่งข้อขัดแย้งที่เผาผลาญทั้งชุมชน Bitcoin ไม่ว่าใครจะเลือกอยู่ฝั่งไหน กลุ่ม UASF, กลุ่ม Big Block, หรือ กลุ่ม SegWit ทางเดินข้างหน้าล้วนเต็มไปด้วยความไม่แน่นอน

“สุดท้ายแล้ว… เมื่อกระดานแบ่งเป็นสองเส้นทางอย่างเด่นชัด สงคราม Blocksize จะจบลงด้วยใครได้บทผู้ชนะ?"

"หรือบางที… มันอาจไม่มีผู้ชนะที่แท้จริงในระบบที่ใครก็ Fork ได้ตลอดเวลา”

คำถามนี้ลอยติดค้างอยู่ในบรรยากาศยามบ่ายที่ร้อนระอุ ชวนให้ใครก็ตามที่จับตาดูสงคราม Blocksize ต้องฉุกคิด

เมื่อไม่มีใครเป็นเจ้าของ Bitcoin อย่างสมบูรณ์ ทุกคนจึงมีสิทธิ์บงการและเสี่ยงต่อการแตกแยกได้ทุกเมื่อ แล้วท้ายที่สุด ชัยชนะ–ความพ่ายแพ้ อาจไม่ใช่จุดสิ้นสุดของโลกคริปโตฯ

แต่เป็นเพียงจุดเริ่มต้นของการวิวัฒน์ที่ไม่มีวันจบสิ้น…

เมาท์แถมเรื่อง UASF (User-Activated Soft Fork)

นี่สนามรบยุคกลางที่ดูเหมือนในหนังแฟนตาซี ทุกคนมีดาบ มีโล่ แต่จู่ ๆ คนตัวเล็กที่เราไม่เคยสังเกต—พวกชาวนา ช่างไม้ คนแบกน้ำ—กลับรวมตัวกันยกดาบบุกวังเจ้าเมือง พร้อมตะโกนว่า “พอเถอะ! เราก็มีสิทธิ์เหมือนกัน!”

มันอาจจะดูเวอร์ ๆ หน่อยใช่ไหมครับ?

แต่ในโลก Bitcoin ปี 2017 นี่คือสิ่งที่เกิดขึ้นในรูปแบบ “User-Activated Soft Fork” หรือ UASF การปฏิวัติด้วยพลังโหนด ซึ่งทำให้นักขุดยักษ์ใหญ่ตัวสั่นงันงกันมาแล้ว!

แล้ว UASF มันคืออะไรล่ะ?

“User-Activated Soft Fork” หรือเรียกย่อ ๆ ว่า “UASF” ไม่ใช่อัปเกรดซอฟต์แวร์สวย ๆ แต่เป็น “ดาบเล่มใหม่” ที่คนตัวเล็ก—หมายถึง โหนด รายย่อย—ใช้ต่อรองกับนักขุดรายใหญ่ โดยกติกาคือ.. ถ้านักขุดไม่ทำตาม (เช่น ไม่รองรับ SegWit) โหนดก็จะปฏิเสธบล็อกของพวกเขาอย่างไม่เกรงใจใคร

สมมุติว่าคุณคือโหนด..

คุณรันซอฟต์แวร์ Bitcoin คอยตรวจสอบธุรกรรม วันดีคืนดี คุณประกาศ “ต่อไปถ้าใครไม่รองรับ SegWit ฉันไม่ยอมรับบล็อกนะ!” นี่ล่ะครับ “UASF” ตัวเป็น ๆ

คำขวัญสุดฮิตของ UASF

“No SegWit, No Block”

หรือแปลว่าถ้าบล็อกไม่รองรับ SegWit ก็เชิญออกไปเลยจ้า..

มันเหมือนการที่ชาวนาโผล่มาตบโต๊ะอาหารท่านขุนว่า “นายใหญ่จะปลูกอะไรก็ปลูกไป แต่ไม่งั้นฉันไม่รับผลผลิตนายนะ!”

ความเชื่อมโยงกับ BIP 148

ถ้าจะพูดถึง UASF ต้องรู้จัก BIP 148 ไว้นิดนึง มันเปรียบเหมือน “ธงปฏิวัติ” ที่ตีตราว่าวันที่ 1 สิงหาคม 2017 คือเส้นตาย!

BIP 148 บอกไว้ว่า.. ถ้าถึงวันนั้นแล้วยังมีนักขุดหน้าไหนไม่รองรับ SegWit บล็อกที่ขุดออกมาก็จะถูกโหนดที่ใช้ UASF “แบน” หมด

ผลลัพธ์ที่ตั้งใจ นักขุดไม่อยากโดนแบนก็ต้องทำตาม UASF กล่าวคือ “นายต้องรองรับ SegWit นะ ไม่งั้นอด!”

หลายคนกลัวกันว่า “อ้าว ถ้านักขุดใหญ่ ๆ ไม่ยอมแล้วหันไปขุดสายอื่น จะไม่กลายเป็นแยกเครือข่าย (Chain Split) หรือ?”

ใช่ครับ.. มันอาจเกิดสงครามสายใหม่ทันทีไงล่ะ

ทำไม UASF ถึงสำคัญ?

ย้อนกลับไปก่อนปี 2017 Bitcoin มีปัญหาโลกแตกทั้งค่าธรรมเนียมแพง ธุรกรรมหน่วง บวกกับความขัดแย้งเรื่อง “จะเพิ่ม Blocksize ดีไหม?” ทางกลุ่มนักขุดรายใหญ่ (นำโดย Bitmain, Roger Ver ฯลฯ) รู้สึกว่า “SegWit ไม่ใช่ทางออกที่แท้จริง” แต่อีกฝั่ง (ทีม Core) ชี้ว่า “Blocksize ใหญ่มากไปจะรวมศูนย์นะ โหนดรายย่อยตายหมด”

UASF เลยโผล่มา เหมือนชาวนาตะโกนว่า

“หุบปากได้แล้วไอ้พวกที่สู้กัน! ถ้าพวกแกไม่รองรับ SegWit พวกข้า (โหนด) ก็จะไม่เอาบล็อกแก”

สาระก็คือ.. มันคือตัวบ่งชี้ว่าคนตัวเล็กอย่างโหนดรายย่อยก็มีพลังต่อรอง เป็นกลไกที่ดึงอำนาจจากมือทุนใหญ่กลับสู่มือชุมชน (Decentralization ที่แท้ทรู)

วิธีการทำงานของ UASF

ลองจินตนาการตาม..

1. การกำหนดเส้นตาย BIP 148 ประกาศไว้ “ถึงวันที่ 1 สิงหาคม 2017 ถ้านายยังไม่รองรับ SegWit โหนด UASF จะไม่รับบล็อกนาย”

2. ถ้าคุณเป็นนักขุด… คุณขุดบล็อกออกมา แต่ไม่ได้ตีธง “ฉันรองรับ SegWit” UASF โหนดเห็นปุ๊บ พวกเขาจะจับโยนทิ้งไปเลย

3. ผลกระทบ? นักขุดที่ไม่ยอมทำตามจะเจอปัญหา บล็อกที่ขุดออกมาไม่มีใครรับ—เสียแรงขุดฟรี

อาจเกิด Chain Split คือ แยกเครือข่ายเลย ถ้านักขุดเหล่านั้นไปตั้งสายใหม่

ความสำเร็จและความท้าทายของ UASF

ความสำเร็จ.. หลังการรวมพลังผู้ใช้ โหนดรายย่อยกดดันนักขุดได้ไม่น้อย จนกระทั่ง SegWit เปิดใช้งานจริงใน Bitcoin วันที่ 24 สิงหาคม 2017 ช่วยให้ธุรกรรมเร็วขึ้น แก้ Transaction Malleability และเปิดทางสู่ Lightning Network ในอนาคต

ความท้าทาย.. นักขุดบางค่ายไม่โอเค.. โดยเฉพาะ Bitmain ซึ่งคาดว่าจะสูญรายได้บางส่วน ก็นำไปสู่การสนับสนุน “Bitcoin Cash (BCH)” แยกสาย (Hard Fork) ของตัวเองตั้งแต่วันที่ 1 สิงหาคม 2017 นั่นเอง

ว่าแล้วก็เปรียบง่าย ๆ

UASF เหมือนปฏิบัติการยึดคฤหาสน์เจ้าเมืองมาเปิดให้ชาวบ้านเข้าอยู่ฟรี.. แต่อีกฝ่ายบอก

“งั้นฉันออกไปตั้งคฤหาสน์ใหม่ดีกว่า!”

บทเรียนสำคัญ UASF เป็นตัวอย่างชัดว่า “ผู้ใช้” หรือ โหนดรายย่อย สามารถสร้างแรงกดดันให้นักขุดต้องยอมเปลี่ยนได้จริง ๆ ไม่ใช่แค่ยอมรับเงื่อนไขที่ขุดกันมา

ผลกระทบระยะยาวหลังจากนั้นล่ะ?

SegWit ถูกใช้งาน ทำให้ค่าธรรมเนียมธุรกรรมลดลง (ช่วงหนึ่ง) เกิด Lightning Network เป็น Layer 2 สุเฟี้ยวของ Bitcoin เกิด BCH (Bitcoin Cash) เป็นสายแยกที่อ้างว่า Blocksize ใหญ่คือทางออก

สรุปแล้ว UASF ทำให้โลกได้รู้ว่า..

Bitcoin ไม่ใช่ของนักขุด หรือของฝ่ายพัฒนาใดฝ่ายเดียว แต่มันเป็นของทุกคน!

“Bitcoin เป็นของทุกคน”

ไม่มีใครมีอำนาจเบ็ดเสร็จ ไม่ว่าคุณจะถือ Hashrate มากแค่ไหน ถ้า Node ทั่วโลกไม่เอา ก็จบ!

“แรงขุดใหญ่แค่ไหน ก็แพ้ใจมวลชน!”

(น่าจะมีตอนต่อไปนะ.. ถ้าชอบก็ Zap โหด ๆ เป็นกำลังใจให้ด้วยนะครับ)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Who will build the roads?

Who will build the roads? Em Lagoa Santa, as mais novas e melhores ruas -- que na verdade acabam por formar enormes teias de bairros que se interligam -- são construídas pelos loteadores que querem as ruas para que seus lotes valham mais -- e querem que outras pessoas usem as ruas também. Também são esses mesmos loteadores que colocam os postes de luz e os encanamentos de água, não sem antes terem que se submeter a extorsões de praxe praticadas por COPASA e CEMIG.

Se ao abrir um loteamento, condomínio, prédio um indivíduo ou uma empresa consegue sem muito problema passar rua, eletricidade, água e esgoto, por que não seria possível existir livre-concorrência nesses mercados? Mesmo aquela velha estória de que é ineficiente passar cabos de luz duplicados para que companhias elétricas possam competir já me parece bobagem.

@ 7ed5bd1c:4caa7587

Bitcoin เป็นเกราะป้องกันจากการควบคุมของรัฐบาล

ในโลกที่การควบคุมทางการเงินของรัฐมีผลกระทบต่อชีวิตของประชาชน การปกป้องทรัพย์สินส่วนบุคคลจึงเป็นประเด็นสำคัญที่หลายคนกังวล Bitcoin ได้เข้ามามีบทบาทสำคัญในฐานะเครื่องมือที่ช่วยป้องกันการอายัดทรัพย์สินและการแทรกแซงทางการเงินจากรัฐบาลและองค์กรต่างๆ

กรณีศึกษาที่น่าสนใจ

1. เวเนซุเอลา: เมื่อประเทศประสบภาวะเงินเฟ้อสูงและรัฐบาลมีการควบคุมการแลกเปลี่ยนเงินตราต่างประเทศ ประชาชนบางส่วนใช้ Bitcoin เพื่อรักษามูลค่าทรัพย์สินของพวกเขาและทำธุรกรรมข้ามพรมแดนโดยไม่ต้องผ่านการตรวจสอบจากรัฐบาล

2. แคนาดา: ในปี 2022 รัฐบาลแคนาดามีการอายัดบัญชีธนาคารของผู้ประท้วงในการเคลื่อนไหวทางการเมืองบางอย่าง Bitcoin กลายเป็นช่องทางในการระดมทุนและช่วยให้ประชาชนสามารถป้องกันการแทรกแซงจากรัฐบาลได้

3. ไนจีเรีย: ธนาคารกลางไนจีเรียสั่งห้ามธุรกรรมที่เกี่ยวข้องกับ Bitcoin และคริปโตเคอร์เรนซีอื่นๆ แต่ประชาชนกลับหันมาใช้ Bitcoin ในตลาดมืดเพื่อหลีกเลี่ยงข้อจำกัดและรักษาความเป็นอิสระทางการเงิน

Bitcoin ปกป้องทรัพย์สินอย่างไร?

1. ความเป็นเจ้าของแท้จริง: Bitcoin ใช้ระบบกระจายศูนย์ที่ไม่มีตัวกลาง ซึ่งหมายความว่าไม่มีองค์กรหรือรัฐใดสามารถเข้าถึงหรือยึดครอง Bitcoin ของคุณได้ หากคุณเก็บรักษาคีย์ส่วนตัวอย่างปลอดภัย

2. ไร้พรมแดน: Bitcoin สามารถโอนย้ายได้ทั่วโลกโดยไม่ต้องผ่านธนาคารหรือสถาบันการเงินที่อยู่ภายใต้การควบคุมของรัฐบาล ทำให้เป็นตัวเลือกที่น่าสนใจสำหรับผู้ที่ต้องการหลบเลี่ยงการอายัดทรัพย์สิน

3. ความโปร่งใสและความปลอดภัย: การทำธุรกรรมของ Bitcoin ถูกบันทึกในบล็อกเชนซึ่งเป็นระบบที่โปร่งใสและตรวจสอบได้ ในขณะเดียวกันข้อมูลส่วนบุคคลของผู้ใช้งานจะถูกเก็บเป็นความลับ

ข้อควรระวัง

แม้ Bitcoin จะมีข้อดีในเรื่องการปกป้องทรัพย์สินจากรัฐ แต่ผู้ใช้งานต้องมีความระมัดระวังในการจัดเก็บคีย์ส่วนตัว และหลีกเลี่ยงการพึ่งพาบริการจากบุคคลที่สามที่อาจไม่ปลอดภัย

---

ในโลกที่อิสรภาพทางการเงินถูกท้าทาย Bitcoin กลายเป็นเครื่องมือสำคัญสำหรับการปกป้องทรัพย์สินและสิทธิส่วนบุคคลของประชาชน คุณคิดว่า Bitcoin สามารถเป็นคำตอบสำหรับความท้าทายนี้ได้จริงหรือไม่? ร่วมพูดคุยในความคิดเห็น!

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

How IPFS is broken

I once fell for this talk about "content-addressing". It sounds very nice. You know a certain file exists, you know there are probably people who have it, but you don't know where or if it is hosted on a domain somewhere. With content-addressing you can just say "start" and the download will start. You don't have to care.

Other magic properties that address common frustrations: webpages don't go offline, links don't break, valuable content always finds its way, other people will distribute your website for you, any content can be transmitted easily to people near you without anyone having to rely on third-party centralized servers.

But you know what? Saying a thing is good doesn't automatically make it possible and working. For example: saying stuff is addressed by their content doesn't change the fact that the internet is "location-addressed" and you still have to know where peers that have the data you want are and connect to them.

And what is the solution for that? A DHT!

DHT?

Turns out DHTs have terrible incentive structure (as you would expect, no one wants to hold and serve data they don't care about to others for free) and the IPFS experience proves it doesn't work even in a small network like the IPFS of today.

If you have run an IPFS client you'll notice how much it clogs your computer. Or maybe you don't, if you are very rich and have a really powerful computer, but still, it's not something suitable to be run on the entire world, and on web pages, and servers, and mobile devices. I imagine there may be a lot of unoptimized code and technical debt responsible for these and other problems, but the DHT is certainly the biggest part of it. IPFS can open up to 1000 connections by default and suck up all your bandwidth -- and that's just for exchanging keys with other DHT peers.

Even if you're in the "client" mode and limit your connections you'll still get overwhelmed by connections that do stuff I don't understand -- and it makes no sense to run an IPFS node as a client, that defeats the entire purpose of making every person host files they have and content-addressability in general, centralizes the network and brings back the dichotomy client/server that IPFS was created to replace.

Connections?

So, DHTs are a fatal flaw for a network that plans to be big and interplanetary. But that's not the only problem.

Finding content on IPFS is the most slow experience ever and for some reason I don't understand downloading is even slower. Even if you are in the same LAN of another machine that has the content you need it will still take hours to download some small file you would do in seconds with scp -- that's considering that IPFS managed to find the other machine, otherwise your command will just be stuck for days.

Now even if you ignore that IPFS objects should be content-addressable and not location-addressable and, knowing which peer has the content you want, you go there and explicitly tell IPFS to connect to the peer directly, maybe you can get some seconds of (slow) download, but then IPFS will drop the connection and the download will stop. Sometimes -- but not always -- it helps to add the peer address to your bootstrap nodes list (but notice this isn't something you should be doing at all).

IPFS Apps?

Now consider the kind of marketing IPFS does: it tells people to build "apps" on IPFS. It sponsors "databases" on top of IPFS. It basically advertises itself as a place where developers can just connect their apps to and all users will automatically be connected to each other, data will be saved somewhere between them all and immediately available, everything will work in a peer-to-peer manner.

Except it doesn't work that way at all. "libp2p", the IPFS library for connecting people, is broken and is rewritten every 6 months, but they keep their beautiful landing pages that say everything works magically and you can just plug it in. I'm not saying they should have everything perfect, but at least they should be honest about what they truly have in place.

It's impossible to connect to other people, after years there's no js-ipfs and go-ipfs interoperability (and yet they advertise there will be python-ipfs, haskell-ipfs, whoknowswhat-ipfs), connections get dropped and many other problems.

So basically all IPFS "apps" out there are just apps that want to connect two peers but can't do it manually because browsers and the IPv4/NAT network don't provide easy ways to do it and WebRTC is hard and requires servers. They have nothing to do with "content-addressing" anything, they are not trying to build "a forest of merkle trees" nor to distribute or archive content so it can be accessed by all. I don't understand why IPFS has changed its core message to this "full-stack p2p network" thing instead of the basic content-addressable idea.

IPNS?

And what about the database stuff? How can you "content-address" a database with values that are supposed to change? Their approach is to just save all values, past and present, and then use new DHT entries to communicate what are the newest value. This is the IPNS thing.

Apparently just after coming up with the idea of content-addressability IPFS folks realized this would never be able to replace the normal internet as no one would even know what kinds of content existed or when some content was updated -- and they didn't want to coexist with the normal internet, they wanted to replace it all because this message is more bold and gets more funding, maybe?

So they invented IPNS, the name system that introduces location-addressability back into the system that was supposed to be only content-addressable.

And how do they manage to do it? Again, DHTs. And does it work? Not really. It's limited, slow, much slower than normal content-addressing fetches, most of the times it doesn't even work after hours. But still although developers will tell it is not working yet the IPFS marketing will talk about it as if it was a thing.

Archiving content?

The main use case I had for IPFS was to store content that I personally cared about and that other people might care too, like old articles from dead websites, and videos, sometimes entire websites before they're taken down.

So I did that. Over many months I've archived stuff on IPFS. The IPFS API and CLI don't make it easy to track where stuff are. The pin command doesn't help as it just throws your pinned hash in a sea of hashes and subhashes and you're never able to find again what you have pinned.

The IPFS daemon has a fake filesystem that is half-baked in functionality but allows you to locally address things by names in a tree structure. Very hard to update or add new things to it, but still doable. It allows you to give names to hashes, basically. I even began to write a wrapper for it, but suddenly after many weeks of careful content curation and distribution all my entries in the fake filesystem were gone.

Despite not having lost any of the files I did lose everything, as I couldn't find them in the sea of hashes I had in my own computer. After some digging and help from IPFS developers I managed to recover a part of it, but it involved hacks. My things vanished because of a bug at the fake filesystem. The bug was fixed, but soon after I experienced a similar (new) bug. After that I even tried to build a service for hash archival and discovery, but as all the problems listed above began to pile up I eventually gave up. There were also problems of content canonicalization, the code the IPFS daemon use to serve default HTML content over HTTP, problems with the IPFS browser extension and others.

Future-proof?

One of the core advertised features of IPFS was that it made content future-proof. I'm not sure they used this expression, but basically you have content, you hash that, you get an address that never expires for that content, now everybody can refer to the same thing by the same name. Actually, it's better: content is split and hashed in a merkle-tree, so there's fine-grained deduplication, people can store only chunks of files and when a file is to be downloaded lots of people can serve it at the same time, like torrents.

But then come the protocol upgrades. IPFS has used different kinds of hashing algorithms, different ways to format the hashes, and will change the default algorithm for building the merkle-trees, so basically the same content now has a gigantic number of possible names/addresses, which defeats the entire purpose, and yes, files hashed using different strategies aren't automagically compatible.

Actually, the merkle algorithm could have been changed by each person on a file-by-file basis since the beginning (you could for example split a book file by chapter or page instead of by chunks of bytes) -- although probably no one ever did that. I know it's not easy to come up with the perfect hashing strategy in the first go, but the way these matters are being approached make me wonder that IPFS promoters aren't really worried about future-proof, or maybe we're just in Beta phase forever.

Ethereum?

This is also a big problem. IPFS is built by Ethereum enthusiasts. I can't read the mind of people behind IPFS, but I would imagine they have a poor understanding of incentives like the Ethereum people, and they tend towards scammer-like behavior like getting a ton of funds for investors in exchange for promises they don't know they can fulfill (like Filecoin and IPFS itself) based on half-truths, changing stuff in the middle of the road because some top-managers decided they wanted to change (move fast and break things) and squatting fancy names like "distributed web".

The way they market IPFS (which is not the main thing IPFS was initially designed to do) as a "peer-to-peer cloud" is very seductive for Ethereum developers just like Ethereum itself is: as a place somewhere that will run your code for you so you don't have to host a server or have any responsibility, and then Infura will serve the content to everybody. In the same vein, Infura is also hosting and serving IPFS content for Ethereum developers these days for free. Ironically, just like the Ethereum hoax peer-to-peer money, IPFS peer-to-peer network may begin to work better for end users as things get more and more centralized.

More about IPFS problems:

• IPFS problems: Too much immutability
• IPFS problems: General confusion
• IPFS problems: Shitcoinery
• IPFS problems: Community
• IPFS problems: Pinning
• IPFS problems: Conceit
• IPFS problems: Inefficiency
• IPFS problems: Dynamic links

See also

• A crappy course on torrents, on the protocol that has done most things right
• The Tragedy of IPFS in a series of links, an ongoing Twitter thread.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Lagoa Santa: como chegar -- partindo da rodoviária de Belo Horizonte

Ao descer de seu ônibus na rodoviária de Belo Horizonte às 4 e pouco da manhã, darás de frente para um caubói que toma cerveja em seus trajes típicos em um bar no setor mesmo de desembarque. Suba a escada à direita que dá no estacionamento da rodoviária. Vire à esquerda e caminhe por mais ou menos 400 metros, atravessando uma área onde pessoas suspeitas -- mas provavelmente dormindo em pé -- lhe observam, e então uma pracinha ocupada por um clã de mendigos. Ao avistar um enorme obelisco no meio de um cruzamento de duas avenidas, vire à esquerda e caminhe por mais 400 metros. Você verá uma enorme, antiga e bela estação com uma praça em frente, com belas fontes aqüáticas. Corra dali e dirija-se a um pedaço de rua à direita dessa praça. Um velho palco de antigos carnavais estará colocado mais ou menos no meio da simpática ruazinha de parelepípedos: é onde você pegará seu próximo ônibus.

Para entrar na estação é necessário ter um cartão com créditos recarregáveis. Um viajante prudente deixa sempre um pouco de créditos em seu cartão a fim de evitar filas e outros problemas de indisponibilidade quando chega cansado de viagem, com pressa ou em horários incomuns. Esse tipo de pessoa perceberá que foi totalmente ludibriado ao perceber que que os créditos do seu cartão, abastecido quando de sua última vinda a Belo Horizonte, há três meses, pereceram de prazo de validade e foram absorvidos pelos cofre públicos. Terá, portanto, que comprar mais créditos. O guichê onde os cartões são abastecidos abre às 5h, mas não se espante caso ele não tenha sido aberto ainda quando o primeiro ônibus chegar, às 5h10.

Com alguma sorte, um jovem de moletom, autorizado por dois ou três fiscais do sistema de ônibus que conversam alegremente, será o operador da catraca. Ele deixa entrar sem pagar os bêbados, os malandros, os pivetes. Bastante empático e perceptivo do desespero dos outros, esse bom rapaz provavelmente também lhe deixará entrar sem pagar.

Uma vez dentro do ônibus, não se intimide com os gritalhões e valentões que, ofendidíssimos com o motorista por ele ter parado nas estações, depois dos ônibus anteriores terem ignorado esses excelsos passageiros que nelas aguardavam, vão aos berros tirar satisfação.

O ponto final do ônibus, 40 minutos depois, é o terminal Morro Alto. Lá você verá, se procurar bem entre vários ônibus e pessoas que despertam a sua mais honesta suspeita, um veículo escuro, apagado, numerado 5882 e que abrigará em seu interior um motorista e um cobrador que descansam o sono dos justos.

Aguarde na porta por mais uns vinte minutos até que, repentinamente desperto, o motorista ligue o ônibus, abra as portas e já comece, de leve, a arrancar. Entre correndo, mas espere mais um tempo, enquanto as pessoas que têm o cartão carregado passem e peguem os melhores lugares, até que o cobrador acorde e resolva te cobrar a passagem nesse velho meio de pagamento, outrora o mais líqüído, o dinheiro.

Este último ônibus deverá levar-lhe, enfim, a Lagoa Santa.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Jofer

Jofer era um jogador diferente. À primeira vista não, parecia igual, um volante combativo, perseguia os atacantes adversários implacavelmente, um bom jogador. Mas não era essa a característica que diferenciava Jofer. Jofer era, digamos, um chutador.

Começou numa semifinal de um torneio de juniores. O time de Jofer precisava do empate e estava sofrendo uma baita pressão do adversário, mas o jogo estava 1 a 1 e parecia que ia ficar assim mesmo, daquele jeito futebolístico que parece, parece mesmo. Só que aos 46 do segundo tempo tomaram um gol espírita, Ruizinho do outro time saiu correndo pela esquerda e, mesmo sendo canhoto, foi cortando para o meio, os zagueiros meio que achando que já tinha acabado mesmo, devia ter só mais aquele lance, o árbitro tinha dado dois minutos, Ruizinho chutou, marcou e o goleiro, que só pulou depois que já tinha visto que não ia ter jeito, ficou xingando.

A bola saiu do meio e tocaram para Jofer, ninguém nem veio marcá-lo, o outro time já estava comemorando, e com razão, o juiz estava de sacanagem em fazer o jogo continuar, já estava tudo acabado mesmo. Mas não, estava certo, mais um minuto de acréscimo, justo. Em um minuto dá pra fazer um gol. Mas como? Jofer pensou nas partidas da NBA em que com alguns centésimos de segundo faltando o armador jogava de qualquer jeito para a cesta e às vezes acertava. De trás do meio de campo, será? Não vou ter nem força pra fazer chegar no gol. Vou virar piada, melhor tocar pro Fumaça ali do lado e a gente perde sem essa humilhação no final. Mas, poxa, e daí? Vou tentar mesmo assim, qualquer coisa eu falo que foi um lançamento e daqui a uns dias todo mundo esquece. Olhou para o próprio pé, virou ele de ladinho, pra fora e depois pra dentro (bom, se eu pegar daqui, direitinho, quem sabe?), jogou a bola pro lado e bateu. A bola subiu escandalosamente, muito alta mesmo, deve ter subido uns 200 metros. Jofer não tinha como ter a menor noção. Depois foi descendo, o goleirão voltando correndo para debaixo da trave e olhando pra bola, foi chegando e pulando já só pra acompanhar, para ver, dependurado no travessão, a bola sair ainda bem alta, ela bateu na rede lateral interna antes de bater no chão, quicar violentamente e estufar a rede no alto do lado direito de quem olhava.

Mas isso tudo foi sonho do Jofer. Sonhou acordado, numa noite em que demorou pra dormir, deitado na sua cama. Ficou pensando se não seria fácil, se ele treinasse bastante, acertar o gol bem de longe, tipo no sonho, e se não dava pra fazer gol assim. No dia seguinte perguntou a Brunildinho, o treinador de goleiros. Era difícil defender essas bolas, ainda mais se elas subissem muito, o goleiro ficava sem perspectiva, o vento alterava a trajetória a cada instante, tinha efeito, ela cairia rápido, mas claro que não valia à pena treinar isso, a chance de acertar o gol era minúscula. Mas Jofer só ia tentar depois que treinasse bastante e comprovasse o que na sua imaginação parecia uma excelente idéia.

Começou a treinar todos os dias. Primeiro escondido, por vergonha dos colegas, chegava um pouco antes e ficava lá, chutando do círculo central. Ao menor sinal de gente se aproximando, parava e ia catar as bolas. Depois, quando começou a acertar, perdeu a vergonha. O pessoal do clube todo achava engraçado quando via Jofer treinando e depois ouvia a explicação da boca de alguém, ninguém levava muito a sério, mas também não achava de todo ridículo. O pessoal ria, mas no fundo torcia praquilo dar certo, mesmo.

Aconteceu que num jogo que não valia muita coisa, empatezinho feio, aos 40 do segundo tempo, a marcação dos adversários já não estava mais pressionando, todo mundo contente com o empate e com vontade de parar de jogar já, o Henrique, meia-esquerdo, humilde, mas ainda assim um pouco intimidante para Jofer (jogava demais), tocou pra ele. Vai lá, tenta sua loucura aí. Assumiu a responsabilidade do nosso volante introspectivo. Seria mais verossímil se Jofer tivesse errado, primeira vez que tentou, restava muito tempo ainda pra ele ter a chance de ser herói, ninguém acerta de primeira, mas ele acertou. Quase como no sonho, Lucas, o goleiro, não esperava, depois que viu o lance, riu-se, adiantou-se para pegar a bola que ele julgava que quicaria na área, mas ela foi mais pra frente, mais e mais, daí Lucas já estava correndo, só que começou a pensar que ela ia pra fora, e ele ia só se dependurar no travessão e fazer seu papel de estar na bola. Acabou que por conta daquele gol eles terminaram em segundo no grupo daquele torneiozinho, ao invés de terceiro, e não fez diferença nenhuma.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

The flaw of "just use paypal/coinbase" arguments

For the millionth time I read somewhere that "custodial bitcoin is not bitcoin" and that "if you're going to use custodial, better use Paypal". No, actually it was "better use Coinbase", but I had heard the "PayPal" version in the past.

There are many reasons why using PayPal is not the same as using a custodial Bitcoin service or wallet that are obvious and not relevant here, such as the fact that you can't have Bitcoin balances on Bitcoin (or maybe now you can? but you can't send it around); plus all the reasons that are also valid for Coinbase such as you having to give all your data and selfies of yourself and your government documents and so on -- but let's ignore these reasons for now.

The most important reason why it isn't the same thing is that when you're using Coinbase you are stuck in Coinbase. Your Coinbase coins cannot be used to pay anyone that isn't in Coinbase. So Coinbase-style custodianship doesn't help Bitcoin. If you want to move out of Coinbase you have to withdraw from Coinbase.

Custodianship on Lightning is of a very different nature. You can pay people from other custodial platforms and people that are hosting their own Lightning nodes and so on.

That kind of custodianship doesn't do any harm to anyone, doesn't fracture the network, doesn't reduce the network effect of Lightning, in fact it increases it.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

My personal experience (as a complete ignorant) of the blocksize debate in 2017

In the beginning of 2017 I didn't know Bitcoin was having a "blocksize debate". I had stopped paying attention to Bitcoin in 2014 after reading Tim Swanson's book on shitcoineiry and was surprise people even care about Bitcoin still while Ethereum and other fancy things were around.

My introduction to the subject was this interview with Andrew Stone and Andrew Clifford from Bitcoin Unlimited (still don't know who these guys are). I've listened to it and kinda liked the conspiracy theory about "a group of developers trying, against miners and users, to control the whole ecosystem by not allowing blocks to grow" (actually, if you listen to this interview that announced the creation of Blockstream and the sidechains whitepaper it does sound like a government agent bribing all the Core developers into forming a consortium that will turn Bitcoin into an Ethereum-like shitcoin under their control -- but this is just a useless digression).

Some time later I listened to this interview with Jimmy Song and was introduced to two hard forks and conspiracies and New York Agreement and got excited because I didn't care about Bitcoin (I'm ashamed to remember this feeling) and wanted to see things changing, people fighting, Bitcoin burning, for no reason. Oddly, what I grasped from the interview was that Jimmy Song was defending the agreement and expecting everybody to fulfill it.

When the day actually come and "Bitcoin Cash" forked I looked at it with pity because it looked clearly a failure from the beginning, but I still cheered for it a bit, still not knowing anything about the debate, besides the fact that blocks were bigger on BCH, which looked like a very reductionist explanation to me.

"Of course it's not just making blocks bigger, that would be too simple, they probably have a very complex plan I'm not apt to understand", I thought.

To my surprise the entire argument was actually just that: bigger blocks bigger blocks. I came to that conclusion by listening to tomwoods.com/1064, a debate in which reasonable arguments faced childish claims. That debate gave me perspective and was a clear, undisputed win from Jameson Lopp against Roger Ver.

Actually some time before that I had listened to another Tom Woods Show episode thinking it was going to be an episode about Bitcoin, but in fact it was just propaganda about a debate I had almost forgotten. And nothing about Bitcoin, everything about "Bitcoin Cash" and how there were two Bitcoins, one legitimate and the other unlegitimate.

So, from the perspective of someone that came to the debate totally fresh and only listens to the big-blocker arguments for a long time, they still don't convince anyone with some common sense (as I would like to think of myself), they just sound like mad dogs and everything goes against themselves.

---

Fast forward to the present and with much more understanding of the issues in place I started digging some material from 2016-2017 about the debate to try to get more context, and found this ridiculous interview with Mike Hearn. It isn't a waste of time to listen to it if you're not familiar with the debate from that time.

As I should have probably expected from my experience with Epicenter.tv, both the interviewers agree with Mike Hearn about his ridiculous claims about how (not his words) we have to subsidize the few thousand current Bitcoin users by preventing fees from increase and there are no trade-offs to doing that -- and even with everybody agreeing they all manage to sound stupid. There's not a single phrase that is defendable in the entire interview, no criticisms make any sense, it makes me feel bad for the the guy as he feels so self-assured and obviouslyright.

After knowing about these and other adventures of stupid people with high influences in the Bitcoin world trying to impose their idiocy on others it feels even more odd and unexpected to find Bitcoin in the right track. Generally in politics the most dumb wins, but apparently not in Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is a miracle.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

idea: Per-paragraph paywalls

Using the lnurl-allowance protocol, a website could instead of putting a paywall over the entire site, charge a reader for only the paragraphs they read. Of course this requires trust from the reader on the website, but this is normal. The website could just hide the rest of the article before an invoice from the paragraph just read was paid.

This idea came from Colin from the Unhashed Podcast.

Could also work with podcasts and videos.

@ 896c3ee8:e054cc31

I was scrolling through some news articles published by Primal.net/flash on my phone —Bitcoin up, Trump said this or that, accompanied by a screenshot of Twitter. I asked myself: why does social media exist? Is it to fulfill our need for social connection? Is it to show off our thoughts? Is it validation? It wasn’t like this long ago. It was a part of life now it is Life.

Quite some time ago, I was baffled to see a woman being prosecuted in a court of law based on what she had posted on Facebook! Facebook? Seriously, an internet post landing a person in jail? Since when? No one notified me. I thought the internet was just a thing—a toy for us to play with, have fun, and then return to our real life. I remember using Pidgin and IRC; back then, the internet was just a tool. One sudden day, all of that turned into serious business. Early internet, and by extension social media, was a fun place, but now it is a place where real money is spent and real lives are built. I mean, some of the richest companies are software companies—an industry titan propelled by intangible property. It is hard not to miss the early days when one could say absolutely anything in a forum post and leave forever, detached from the filth they spewed. Now we all know censorship, data mining, AI training, and laws getting involved. I cannot even take part in a cultural movement without being tracked and attacked. At some point, the internet attached itself to human consciousness so deeply that it has now become inseparable from the human experience and experience of life. Just like reading and writing, to live a modern life, one must have an internet connection and a social media account. It’s disheartening to think that our worth is often measured by the number of people who 'follow' us.

This attachment meant that there were powers who needed to control the internet. Laws were hopeless on the internet—one could break a list of laws of a particular country sitting from a boat in a faraway land where no jurisdictional police could touch a single fleck of their hair. This cross-border nature made it very necessary for law enforcement to up their game, and so they did. Now, posting something and forgetting it being associated with you is a dream of the past.

To achieve this, they went into a Hail Mary attempt to break human rights written in the declaration they all signed. The right to privacy needed to go first. You see, on the internet, you are not a human—just a fat, Mountain Dew-drinking piece of meat, a data generation machine. Rights mean very little for you if you are a keyboard warrior. No clause in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said that an account on the internet is a human! So you lose privacy. Since law enforcers break privacy, it looks like it really is not a crime to break it. So, service providers break it too. Who is to stop them now? Law enforcers?

That is just the tip, perhaps even a necessary evil. Breaking privacy only allows enforcement of laws that have been written. There needs to be some mechanism to enforce laws that are not written—the so-called "soft laws" (a term used in international law). If illegal activity is to be curbed, instead of chasing after criminals, why not be proactive and get to the root of the evil: human thought? Here enters censorship. If you don't know about something you won't act on it. If you do not know about guns, you will not pick up a gun. Censorship allows law enforcers to enforce laws that may be written in the future, potential laws. Maybe one day, being on a particular political side will be deemed illegal, so let’s stop it now. Ever heard of a cat chasing a mouse? Censorship is just a mouse chasing a cat. A reversal of cause and effect.

These two factors, coupled with the internet's revenue stream—your attention—ruined the internet. Ads by God are one of the most human things humans have created: “Let us show you what you could be a part of. As you are right now, you seem unfulfilled; let us show you what you want.” The economy of attention is best tapped by creators working on our primal urge for reproduction. The porn industry is a mega titan for this reason. I do not have any bad words against the innovators working in that industry. They are the true and perhaps only industry that uses the internet to its maximum and has great respect for technology and technological innovation.

When I think more deeply about the purpose of social media, I realize I have no clear answer. Why should one show what their lunch looks like? What is the goal of sharing such trivial experiences? Perhaps the dopamine rush of likes and engagement is strong enough to motivate such actions. The definition of an individual gets blurred here. What is an individual person? A collection of social media posts? Or should we emphasize more on your offline version the flawed acne and angst filled individual who subscribes to the weird, concorted philosophy of Proudhon, Locke, and Marx? The algorithms have been determining the future of people on social media. People are worried about losing jobs to a computer now. Since YouTube and Instagram started utilizing attention to pay people, algorithms began to determine who should be paid and what should be paid. The ship of us being under a computer has long sailed.

To answer why social media exists, here is one study that identified ten uses and gratifications for using social media: social interaction, information seeking, passing time, entertainment, relaxation, communicatory utility, convenience utility, expression of opinion, information sharing, and surveillance/knowledge about others (reference ISSN: 1352-2752). Most studies you find will be in line with these. I will not expound more on this; you all know why you use social media, and you all also know why people use social media.

To end it, Nostr gives you certain things that traditional social media and the 'internet' fail to provide. You know what those are since you are here.

P.S.—This is written exclusively for the eyes in the Nostr ecosystem. I will not publish it anywhere else. Link people to this post even from outside; I don’t care.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

SummaDB

This was a hierarchical database server similar to the original Firebase. Records were stored on a LevelDB on different paths, like:

• /fruits/banana/color: yellow
• /fruits/banana/flavor: sweet

And could be queried by path too, using HTTP, for example, a call to http://hostname:port/fruits/banana, for example, would return a JSON document like

json { "color": "yellow", "flavor": "sweet" }

While a call to /fruits would return

json { "banana": { "color": "yellow", "flavor": "sweet" } }

POST, PUT and PATCH requests also worked.

In some cases the values would be under a special "_val" property to disambiguate them from paths. (I may be missing some other details that I forgot.)

GraphQL was also supported as a query language, so a query like

graphql query { fruits { banana { color } } }

would return {"fruits": {"banana": {"color": "yellow"}}}.

SummulaDB

SummulaDB was a browser/JavaScript build of SummaDB. It ran on the same Go code compiled with GopherJS, and using PouchDB as the storage backend, if I remember correctly.

It had replication between browser and server built-in, and one could replicate just subtrees of the main tree, so you could have stuff like this in the server:

json { "users": { "bob": {}, "alice": {} } }

And then only allow Bob to replicate /users/bob and Alice to replicate /users/alice. I am sure the require auth stuff was also built in.

There was also a PouchDB plugin to make this process smoother and data access more intuitive (it would hide the _val stuff and allow properties to be accessed directly, today I wouldn't waste time working on these hidden magic things).

The computed properties complexity

The next step, which I never managed to get fully working and caused me to give it up because of the complexity, was the ability to automatically and dynamically compute materialized properties based on data in the tree.

The idea was partly inspired on CouchDB computed views and how limited they were, I wanted a thing that would be super powerful, like, given

json { "matches": { "1": { "team1": "A", "team2": "B", "score": "2x1", "date": "2020-01-02" }, "1": { "team1": "D", "team2": "C", "score": "3x2", "date": "2020-01-07" } } }

One should be able to add a computed property at /matches/standings that computed the scores of all teams after all matches, for example.

I tried to complete this in multiple ways but they were all adding much more complexity I could handle. Maybe it would have worked better on a more flexible and powerful and functional language, or if I had more time and patience, or more people.

Screenshots

This is just one very simple unfinished admin frontend client view of the hierarchical dataset.

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/summadb
• https://github.com/fiatjaf/summuladb
• https://github.com/fiatjaf/pouch-summa

@ bd50a856:038f487c

I'M NOT IN SCHOOL WHY AM I DOING THIS?

https://image.nostr.build/9df38856e4493466585f451771a013959ac7e29135289b4922a810623577dbef.jpg

Isms in my opinion are not good. - Ferris Bueler

OK so like many a disillusioned youth I was a pretty hardcore Marxist back in college. There's a common pipeline that starts as a 13 year old who wished they could vote for Ron Paul in 2008, takes a hard left turn at the first sign of bigotry, and winds up with a pretty badass juche tattoo. The Enlightenment era ideas of an ascertainable objective truth and mankind's control over their own destiny, combined with the complete subversion of the political history I was brought up with felt very empowering. But nowadays I'm not so sure I want to lay claim to any specific point or vector on the political spectrum. 2024 was in many ways a year of reflection for me. I've managed to reconnect with my sense of spirituality after years of bitterness towards the concept brought on by a life of run-ins with religious fundemantalism, and I had to challenge alot of things that for years I've taken for granted both about myself and the world at large. This ideological audit was in no small way catalyzed by my adoption of NOSTR, which with its endless potential enticed me out of the progressive echo chamber I made my digital home on the fediverse and into a new echo chamber: one full of Bitcoiners.

I had bought Bitcoin before, as a way to short the dollar, but I never encountered its ideologues in the wild. At first gradually then suddenly I was making the types of arguments in my head that former me would have decried as pedantic to the point of being apologetic towards the ruling class. And just like that the 19th and 20th century political and philosophical works which I zaelously held as trail blazes on the long and labyrinthine path towards realizing Absolute Truth were cast forcefully into their murky historical context by the staggering success of the first truly decentralized monetary system. In my college days, I saw Lenin's model of revoutionary politics and the Vanguard Party as the only way for a people's movement to legitimately threaten the hegemony of the global oligarchs who caused so much unnecessary suffering. Now I can see how whether or not that type of centralization was a necessary concession then, one cannot in good faith believe it to be so in the age of Bitcoin.

Yet you'll have to forgive me because still I'm sympathetic to much of the broader movement of Marxism. I detest how Great Man Theory suboordinates the totality of the evolution of society to the wills of a few individuals, and prefer to see socialism in a different light. Rather than viewing the movement as a clever trick some cartoonishly evil mustaches and haircuts used to brainwash almost half the human population, I see a genuine attempt by hundreds of millions of people to change the world for the better, forever. Yes the suffering was immense, and many many people for whom the tumult was too much, as well as those who wished to maintain their parasitic lifestyles, fled for their lives it was far from a black and white phenomena. Living standards also skyrocketed over the long run in places like the USSR and the PRC, from literacy to employment to diet, access to healthcare, you name it. But still the narrative of Hegel's Dialectic playing out in the arena of class politics - wherein the oppressed by becoming the oppressors would naturally do away with oppression altogether by following their self interest just as the Bourgeoisie had done, thereby unwinding the knot of economic injustice - has lost its status as the driving force of all of history for me. It's still much more compelling than the caricature of simply replacing one form of centralization with another. Rather its a much more relatable fallacy: taking a truth, in this case the millennia of class struggle which humanity has dealt with since the advent of agriculture, and trying to extrapolate from it some abstract and all compassing polemic that makes it all make sense. Moreover, in the same way that Bitcoiners say, "Once you see it you can never go back," I cannot unlearn just how hypocritical and dishonest the Western narrative of history is. Lying and calling America the land of the land of opportunity when the abundance we've known for our Empire's whole existence exists merely because of stolen land and slave labor. This is not a moralist objection by the way, though that would be wholly justified. The true horror is that people view the US as the model of a self sufficient nation state when in reality it has always been parasitic, even in it's larval stage. And of course the disillusion with every military campaign since the end of World War 2, starting with the grotesque and gratuitous display of power in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then the fraudulant and deadly campaigns in Korea, Loas, Vietnam, and of course the entire Middle East. Our own forms of surveillance, censorship, repression all staring at us in the images we projected on the face of the Berlin Wall.

I know a little part of that probably rubbed some of you the wrong way. Hey we still were a net positive force in WW2, of course. And despite many differences in historical interpretations, when it comes to Marx's tomes of economic criticism I think the Bitcoiners of NOSTR would find a lot of rhetorical similarities with their gripes about the age of fiat actually share many rhetorical similarities: The levers of control over the global economy had been consolidated by a select view who were spamming them to make themselves inordinately wealthy at the cost of the quality of life for the majority of Planet Earth. The value of your labor is being ciphoned by a bunch of rackateering lizard men known as politicians. Fair competition, the spirit of Capitalism on paper, has been eroded by its those who claim to be its biggest proponents. Forever wars as a business, predatory global economic policies, proles=plebs, yada yada. Although I guess this note would be pointless if I yada-yada'd over the best parts.

THE INVISIBLE HANDJOB

https://image.nostr.build/595f3d10072c92fc66f9ad314de5d6eeb7e76a9bc26021c690d89cbd9bbe0a15.gif

The landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. -Adam Smith

In the above quoted Wealth of Nations (Book 1, chapter 11) as well as in Book 4 and in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, everyone's favorite economist they've never read paints a complex and somewhat contradictory image of the proprietors over the means of production in his time. He saw greed and gluttony in their souls, but viewed their actions within the context of an emergent system whereby their selfishness propelled the interest of everyone. So, almost exactly how Marx viewed the holy timespanning vendetta of the have-nots of the world. However, in Book 1 ch10 of Wealth of Nations Smith says this:

[The rent] is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give,

In a section where he concedes that the landlords' actions amount to extortion. He also articulates here how through the influence of legislation, the landlord class effectively outlawed collective negotiation on the part of the working class while bolstering it for themselves, resulting in monopolies. Marx cites Smith himself throughout Das Kapital, and lays out extensively this process of the consolidation of capitalist power in part 3 of the first volume. The two also subscribed to the Labor Theory of Value, as did every other Enlightenment era economist... and so do most Bitcoiners! At least they sure sound like they do when they talk about the erosion of the masses' life force by the debasement of fiat. After all if the commodity that is money is an expression of your time and labor, then so must be the value of every other commodity. I've heard people try to glibly dismiss the LTV as stupid, citing things like land, products of fully automated processes... And digital assets. As if land didn't have to be surveyed, and discovered (or won in a genocide). Or if fully automated production processes didn't require thousands of hours of expert labor on robotics and/or computer engineering. Or if all financial assets in general didn't hold merely a hypothetical value as a representation of value wrought in the productive economy. And to be perfectly honest I always found the subjective theory of value to be downright silly, like imagine haggling at a supermarket over a gallon of milk. Yes demand is subjective (and really more of an expression of willing buying power than need but that's a whole other can of worms), but it's wholly reliant on objective factors such as scarcity and the relative difficulty to produce a certain commodity oneself. And when those who corner the market collude on pricing it's not like you even have the ability to "vote with your money". You have no leverage, unless you own a cow. All in all the price of a commodity can't be anything other than an approximation of its objective value based on the average cost of the raw materials and socially necessary labor time, ebbing and flowing with the asynchronous undulations of supply and demand. And maybe a little extra something just to cushion that P&L. OK maybe a lot. Gotta outperform inflation, right?! Was I being glib, myself, there? It just feels self evident from my current perspective, the hollow vampirism of it all. Capitalists enacting the rights to procure surplus value, reinsert it as capital in order to procure even more surplus value, rinsing and repeating, drifting further and further from the corporeal reality of our own survival and swallowing entire generations in the process.

STATISTS BE LIKE...

https://image.nostr.build/3109eed06d708cfad1ec0c8f4a823b8d6c58b73d3a7f73a94cdcafe22554656f.jpg

The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem- Milton Friedman

On September 11, 1973 Chilean President Salvador Allende died during a fascist coup d'état perpetrated by the commander in chief of the military Augusto Pinochet. Officially he took his own life for fear of what would be done to him, but it remains a contentious topic. Pinochet's regime was characterized by mass arrests, widespread use of torture, extrajudicial killings, mass exiles, and brutal censorship of his political ditractors. But he cut taxes!!!! And he did so with the council of the Chicago Boys, a group of Chicago University alumni and disciples of right wing icon Milton Friedman. Friedman applauded Pinochet's government for his economic policies and providing a shining example of Milton's take on what small laissez-faire government looks like: Repression of the masses, no rules for the classes.

Pinochet was also a collaborator with the CIA on their project Operation Condor, whereby the funding and stoking of violence and unrest was weaponized to subvert the rise of left leaning politics throughout South and Central America and maintain cheap access to raw materials which US corporations relied on. As a matter of fact, the deep state has an endless track record of resorting to all sorts of crazy measures to subvert the popularity of socialism. This contradicts directly the American conservative view that the deep state wants socialism, and that Trump - who has cooperated in the continuations of these policies with the attempted coups in Venezuela and Bolivia during his first term - is here to stop 'em. The scapegoating and fear mongering of foreign left leaning governments in lucrative regions is a time honored tradition here In the US. All the West has always had more in common with the totalitarianism of Fascism than the East. If you're curious or skeptical about this, looking up Michael Parenti's Blackshirts & Reds is a good place to start digging deeper.

And while conservatives remain in denial about the parasiticism and exclusion their version of freedom relies on, Progressivism, as I see it, is a limping, mutilated, abomination of a watered down version of itself. Democrats for over a century now continue offering the bare minimum that would assuage their cinstituencies in the short term at best, and the exact same neocon policies of war and imperialism abroad, and corporate oligarchy and a police state at home. Yet every two years progressives walk beleaguered to the polls to vote blue no who. And Milton Friedman laughs in his grave. Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, attributed to president of Tanzinia, Julius Nyere: "The Americans also have a one party state, but with typical American extravegance, they have two of them." https://image.nostr.build/9380dbc6d51a443b76340b46c760e12c9bb0540a170a8f5a2a22847e0bba88c7.jpg

WHAT IS DO BE DONE?

https://image.nostr.build/94aaebe5364c3c6a0094f09640ef18b05938d889124f874c49243f4ea972f725.jpg

I found freedom. Losing all hope is freedom. - Edward Norton, Fight Club

If you made it through all that rambling, what is wrong with you? In all seriousness, I hope this was a fruitful glance into the mind of someone who might think a little differently. In a rapidly evolving world, where systems we ourselves have put in place not only constitute the environment we live in, but reproduce themselves through our behavior as well, despondency, rage, and confusion permeate the collective consciousness. But there's also Bitcoin, which to an increasing number - and to an extent myself - represents a successful proof of concept of a new, genuinely Decentralized Ideological Apparatus. One which relies on Mutual Aid and the cooperation of smaller, decentralized and self sufficient communities. And to a certain extent it also represents hope. But it's as much an asset to those who'd prefer to continue feeding on the suffering of others as it is to those hoping for a change. Hope is as dangerous as fear - Lao Tzu

@ 1cb14ab3:95d52462

Tree branches, Rock. 4' x 4 [Boulder, USA. 2016]

Introduction

Nestled deep in the forest near Boulder, "Looking Glass" invites viewers to rediscover the quiet beauty of overlooked natural details. By framing the play of light, texture, and shadow through a 4-foot circular lens, the piece shifts focus to the microcosms of the forest, drawing attention to a small and overlooked waterfall.

Site & Placement

The lens is perched amid a cluster of trees, emphasizing a quiet patch of the forest that often goes unnoticed. Positioned 22 feet from the lens, a carefully placed bench offers a perfect vantage point, guiding visitors to linger, observe, and absorb the layered simplicity of the scene.

Impermanence & Integration

True to the ethos of the Earth Lens series, Looking Glass exists only briefly. Its natural materials—branches, wood, and rock—blend seamlessly into the forest and will eventually be reclaimed by it. The fleeting presence of the lens reflects the transient beauty of life, encouraging viewers to appreciate the details that often escape notice in the rush of time.

Reflection

In its short life, Looking Glass offers a moment of stillness and clarity, a chance to peer into the intimate world of the forest. The work becomes a lens not just for the environment but also for introspection, reminding viewers of the quiet wonders that surround them every day.

---

Photos

---

More from the 'Earth Lens' Series:

Earth Lens Series: Artist Statement + List of Works

COMING SOON: "Folsom" (Earth Lens 002)

COMING SOON: "Sanctuary" (Earth Lens 003)

COMING SOON: "Platte" (Earth Lens 004)

COMING SOON: "Grandfather" (Earth Lens 005)

COMING SOON: "Chongming" (Earth Lens 006)

---

More from Hes

Art

Store

Travel Guides

Photography

Writings

---

All images are credit of Hes, but you are free to download and use for any purpose. If you find joy from my art, please feel free to send a zap. Enjoy life on a Bitcoin standard.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Parallel Chains

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

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

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

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

How does it work

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

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

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

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

See also

• Drivechain

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

@ a012dc82:6458a70d

Table Of Content

• Rollercoaster Rides

• The Impact of Macroeconomic Forces

• Short-term Projections

• Ethereum's Steady Stance

• Week-on-week Comparisons

• Altcoins in Focus

• The Laggards

• Market Overview

• Conclusion

• FAQ

September has once again proven itself to be a tumultuous month for the world's most prominent cryptocurrency, Bitcoin (BTC). This month-long rollercoaster ride has historical roots, as September has historically been a challenging period for Bitcoin. However, the first two-thirds of the month showcased remarkable progress, raising expectations. But the recent resurgence of the US dollar has cast a shadow over the entire crypto market, leading to uncertainty among investors and traders.

Rollercoaster Rides

As the calendar pages flipped through September, Bitcoin embarked on a rollercoaster ride that left many in the crypto community holding their breath. Over the weekend, Bitcoin witnessed a significant dip, eroding a substantial portion of its gains for the month. Sunday's trading session saw the BTC/USDT pair drop by 1.2%, closing at $26,250. Monday's early trades further exacerbated the bearish trend, pushing the pair below $26,150. These rapid fluctuations in Bitcoin's value have been a hallmark of its journey in recent weeks.

The Impact of Macroeconomic Forces

In addition to its internal dynamics, Bitcoin has been significantly influenced by macroeconomic factors, particularly the policies and guidance provided by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. Last week, the Fed's unexpected hawkish stance sent shockwaves through financial markets, including the crypto sphere. This policy shift had an adverse effect on risk-on trading sentiment, causing investors to reevaluate their strategies. As the month approaches its conclusion, a less eventful macroeconomic calendar might imply reduced volatility in the coming days. However, the lingering impact of the Fed's decisions remains a source of uncertainty.

Short-term Projections

To gain insights into Bitcoin's short-term trajectory, market analysts have turned to Binance's order book analysis. According to their assessment, a support line appears to be forming at the $25,000 mark, providing some stability in the face of recent turbulence. Conversely, selling resistance has been identified at $27,500, indicating a significant challenge for Bitcoin's upward momentum. These levels are likely to play a crucial role in determining Bitcoin's path in the immediate future, with traders closely monitoring any breaches or rebounds.

Ethereum's Steady Stance

In contrast to Bitcoin's rollercoaster performance, Ethereum (ETH), the second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, has demonstrated a more stable trajectory over the past few days. While Saturday saw minimal fluctuations, Sunday's trades witnessed a modest 0.8% dip, settling at $1,580. As of Monday, Ethereum has maintained this position, indicating resilience in the face of market turbulence. Ethereum's stability, as compared to Bitcoin's wild swings, underscores the unique dynamics at play within the broader cryptocurrency market.

Week-on-week Comparisons

Examining the performance of these two leading cryptocurrencies over the course of the week reveals intriguing trends. Bitcoin has experienced a 2% decline in its value, signaling the challenges it faced amid a shifting financial landscape. Meanwhile, Ethereum has faced a slightly more significant drop of over 3%. These fluctuations underscore the inherent volatility of the crypto market, even among its most prominent players.

Altcoins in Focus

Beyond Bitcoin and Ethereum, the broader altcoin spectrum presents a diverse set of performances. One standout performer has been Solana (SOL), which surged ahead by an impressive 1.75% in the past seven days. This remarkable growth has garnered the attention of investors and enthusiasts alike. Additionally, Ripple (XRP) has maintained positive momentum, adding approximately 0.8% to its value. These altcoins' resilience serves as a testament to the unique dynamics within the cryptocurrency ecosystem.

The Laggards

However, not all altcoins have been able to escape the gravitational pull of Bitcoin's performance. Prominent digital assets such as Binance's BNB token, Dogecoin (DOGE), Cardano (ADA), Polkadot (DOT), and Polygon (MATIC) have mirrored Bitcoin's downward trend. These digital assets have seen marginal losses in terms of their respective market capitalizations, underscoring the interconnectedness of the cryptocurrency market.

Market Overview

At present, the global cryptocurrency market cap stands at an impressive $1.04 trillion, signifying the substantial size and influence of the digital asset market. Bitcoin continues to command a dominant position, with a market dominance of 49.9%. This reaffirms Bitcoin's status as the undisputed leader in the digital asset space, despite the challenges it faces in September.

Conclusion

As September draws to a close, the battle between Bitcoin and the resurgent US dollar remains uncertain. The interplay between internal dynamics, macroeconomic factors, and market sentiment will continue to shape the crypto landscape in the days ahead. Traders and enthusiasts alike will be watching closely to discern the next moves in this high-stakes confrontation. As the dust settles, the cryptocurrency market will likely reveal new trends and opportunities for those who can navigate these uncertain waters with agility and insight.

FAQ

Why is September historically challenging for Bitcoin? September has traditionally been a tough month for Bitcoin, with factors like market sentiment and macroeconomic forces contributing to its volatility during this period.

How is the US dollar impacting Bitcoin's recent performance? The resurgence of the US dollar has cast a shadow over the crypto market, leading to uncertainty and impacting Bitcoin's value.

What are the short-term projections for Bitcoin and Ethereum? Short-term projections for Bitcoin suggest a support line at $25,000 and resistance at $27,500, while Ethereum has maintained relative stability.

Which altcoins have performed well recently? Solana (SOL) and Ripple (XRP) have shown positive momentum, but some prominent altcoins have followed Bitcoin's downward trend.

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.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY and the "covenants" drama

There are many ideas for "covenants" (I don't think this concept helps in the specific case of examining proposals, but fine). Some people think "we" (it's not obvious who is included in this group) should somehow examine them and come up with the perfect synthesis.

It is not clear what form this magic gathering of ideas will take and who (or which ideas) will be allowed to speak, but suppose it happens and there is intense research and conversations and people (ideas) really enjoy themselves in the process.

What are we left with at the end? Someone has to actually commit the time and put the effort and come up with a concrete proposal to be implemented on Bitcoin, and whatever the result is it will have trade-offs. Some great features will not make into this proposal, others will make in a worsened form, and some will be contemplated very nicely, there will be some extra costs related to maintenance or code complexity that will have to be taken. Someone, a concreate person, will decide upon these things using their own personal preferences and biases, and many people will not be pleased with their choices.

That has already happened. Jeremy Rubin has already conjured all the covenant ideas in a magic gathering that lasted more than 3 years and came up with a synthesis that has the best trade-offs he could find. CTV is the result of that operation.

---

The fate of CTV in the popular opinion illustrated by the thoughtless responses it has evoked such as "can we do better?" and "we need more review and research and more consideration of other ideas for covenants" is a preview of what would probably happen if these suggestions were followed again and someone spent the next 3 years again considering ideas, talking to other researchers and came up with a new synthesis. Again, that person would be faced with "can we do better?" responses from people that were not happy enough with the choices.

And unless some famous Bitcoin Core or retired Bitcoin Core developers were personally attracted by this synthesis then they would take some time to review and give their blessing to this new synthesis.

To summarize the argument of this article, the actual question in the current CTV drama is that there exists hidden criteria for proposals to be accepted by the general community into Bitcoin, and no one has these criteria clear in their minds. It is not as simple not as straightforward as "do research" nor it is as humanly impossible as "get consensus", it has a much bigger social element into it, but I also do not know what is the exact form of these hidden criteria.

This is said not to blame anyone -- except the ignorant people who are not aware of the existence of these things and just keep repeating completely false and unhelpful advice for Jeremy Rubin and are not self-conscious enough to ever realize what they're doing.

@ 403fc3fb:1d1c404c

Looking for a Reliable Security Company in NZ?

When it comes to protecting your property, business, or event, choosing the right security company in NZ is essential for peace of mind. At Frontline Security, we have built a solid reputation for providing tailored and professional security solutions that cater to the unique needs of every client. Whether you require state-of-the-art surveillance systems, mobile patrols, or on-site security guards, we are committed to delivering the highest standards of safety and protection.

Our team consists of highly trained professionals who are equipped with the latest security technology, ensuring comprehensive coverage for your security needs. From residential properties to large corporate events, Frontline Security is your trusted partner in safeguarding what matters most to you.

Exciting Security Guard Jobs in Auckland

Are you interested in a rewarding career in security? Security guard jobs Auckland with Frontline Security might be the perfect fit for you. We’re always looking for motivated, skilled individuals to join our growing team. Whether you’re an experienced security officer or just starting in the industry, we offer comprehensive training and a variety of roles to help you succeed.

As a member of our team, you’ll not only be part of a professional and dynamic security force but will also enjoy competitive pay and ongoing career development. Whether you’re securing corporate offices or overseeing large-scale events, Frontline Security offers a variety of exciting career opportunities that align with your passion for keeping people and property safe.

Professional Wellington Security Guards at Your Service

For those in Wellington, Frontline Security offers a range of security services designed to meet the needs of both businesses and homeowners. Our team of Wellington security guards is highly trained and skilled in providing proactive and reactive security measures. Whether you need to secure sensitive areas or manage crowd control at public events, our professional guards are ready to respond swiftly and effectively to any security situation.

We believe that security is about more than just protecting assets – it’s about creating a safe and welcoming environment for everyone. Our Wellington team is not only trained in handling security challenges but also in providing exceptional customer service, ensuring a positive experience for all.

Why Choose Frontline Security for Your Security Needs?

At Frontline Security, we are dedicated to offering comprehensive security solutions across New Zealand. With years of experience, our team has the expertise to manage all types of security situations, from corporate events to emergency response services. As one of the leading security companies in NZ, we focus on providing proactive security measures, personalised service, and the latest technology to ensure your safety.

Our highly trained staff understands the importance of customer service and professionalism. Whether you’re hiring Wellington security guards or exploring security guard jobs in Auckland, Frontline Security ensures that you receive top-notch service every time.

Join Our Team Today

Are you ready to take the next step in your career? Explore exciting security guard jobs in Auckland with Frontline Security. We offer opportunities for professional growth, on-the-job training, and a supportive work environment that values your skills and contributions.

If you’re looking for a reliable security company in NZ or need Wellington security guards, Frontline Security is here to help. Contact us today to discuss your security needs or to explore career opportunities within our growing company. With Frontline Security, you can trust that your safety is in expert hands.

@ 79008e78:dfac9395

บทที่ 2: ภาพรวมการทำงานของบิตคอยน์

บิตคอยน์ทำงานอย่างไร

ระบบอย่างบิตคอยน์นั้นแตกต่างกับระบบธนาคารและระบบการชำระเงินแบบดั้งเดิมอย่างสิ้นเชิง เพราะมันสามารถทำงานได้โดยไม่จำเป็นต้องไว้วางใจบุคคลที่สาม แทนที่จะมีหน่วยงานกลางที่เชื่อถือได้ บิตคอยน์ได้อณุญาตให้ผู้ใช้แต่ละคนใช้ซอฟต์แวร์บนคอมพิวเตอร์ของตนเองเพื่อตรวจสอบการทำงานที่ถูกต้องของทุกส่วนในระบบ ซึ่งในบทนี้เอง เราจะทำการสำรวจบิตคอยน์ภาพรวมโดยติดตามธุรกรรมหนึ่งรายการผ่านระบบของบิตคอยน์ ดูว่าธุรกรรมนั้นถูกบันทึกลงในบล็อกเชนอย่างไร และการบันทึกธุรกรรมแบบกระจายศูนย์นั้นทำได้อย่างไร ส่วนในบทถัดไปจะลงลึกถึงเทคโนโลยีที่อยู่เบื้องหลังธุรกรรม เครือข่าย และการขุด

ภาพรวมของบิตคอยน์

ระบบของบิตคอยน์นั้นประกอบไปด้วย เหล่าผู้ใช้งาน wallet ต่าง ๆ , ธุรกรรมที่กระจายไปทั่วเครือข่าย และเหล่านักขุดที่จะคอยแข่งขันกันเพื่อสร้างบล๊อกใหม่ โดยที่มีบล๊อกเชนเป็นเหมือนสมุดบันทึกธุรกรรมที่รวมธุรกรรมทั้งหมดไว้ ตัวอย่างที่จะได้เห็นต่อไปนี้เป็นธุรกรรมที่เกิดขึ้นจริงบนเครือข่ายของบิตคอยน์ โดยจำลองการโต้ตอบระหว่างผู้ใช้หลายคนผ่านการส่งเงินจาก wallet หนึ่งไปยังอีก wallet และในขณะนั้นเราจะติดตามธุรกรรมผ่านเครือข่ายบิตคอยน์ ไปจนถึงบล็อกเชน เราจะใช้เว็บไซต์สำรวจบล็อกเชน (blockchain explorer) เพื่อดูภาพรวมในแต่ละขั้นตอน โดยมีเว็บไซต์สำรวจบล็อกเชนที่นิยม ดังนี้

• Blockstream Explorer
• Mempool.Space
• BlockCypher Explorer

เว็บไซต์เหล่านี้มีฟังก์ชันการค้นหาที่สามารถใช้ค้นหา Bitcoin address, Transaction Hash, หมายเลขบล็อก หรือ Block hash และเรียกดูข้อมูลที่เกี่ยวข้องจากเครือข่ายบิตคอยน์ได้ สำหรับแต่ละตัวอย่างธุรกรรมหรือบล็อก เราจะให้ URL เพื่อให้คุณสามารถค้นหาและศึกษาข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมได้ด้วยตัวเอง

คำเตือนเกี่ยวกับความเป็นส่วนตัวของการใช้ Block Explorer

การค้นหาข้อมูลใน block explorer อาจเปิดเผยให้ผู้ให้บริการทราบว่าคุณสนใจข้อมูลนั้น ซึ่งอาจเชื่อมโยงกับที่อยู่ IP ของคุณ รายละเอียดของเบราว์เซอร์ การค้นหาที่ผ่านมา หรือข้อมูลที่สามารถระบุตัวตนได้อื่น ๆ หากคุณค้นหาธุรกรรมจากหนังสือเล่มนี้ ผู้ให้บริการอาจคาดเดาได้ว่าคุณกำลังศึกษาเกี่ยวกับบิตคอยน์ ซึ่งไม่น่าจะมีปัญหาอะไร แต่หากคุณค้นหาธุรกรรมของตนเอง ผู้ให้บริการอาจสามารถคาดเดาได้ว่าคุณได้รับ ใช้จ่าย และมีบิตคอยน์อยู่เท่าใดในปัจจุบัน

การซื้อของจากร้านค้าออนไลน์

อลิซเป็นผู้ใช้งานใหม่ ที่พึ่งได้รับบิตคอยน์เป็นครั้งแรกจากคำแนะนำของโจเมื่อบทที่แล้ว โดยเธอได้ซื้อบิตคอยน์จากโจเก็บไว้ และตั้งแต่นั้นมาอลิซก็ซื้อบิตคอยน์เพิ่มเรื่อย ๆ และตอนนี้อลิซต้องการทำธุรกรรมด้วยบิตคอยน์ครั้งแรกของเธอ โดยการใช้จ่ายมันเพื่อแลกกับสิทธิ์เข้าถึงพอดแคสต์ตอนพิเศษจากร้านค้าออนไลน์ของบ๊อบ ร้านค้าออนไลน์ของบ๊อบเองก็เพิ่งมีการเพิ่มบิตคอยน์เป็นตัวเลือกในการทำธุรกรรม ราคาสินค้าในร้านของบ๊อบแสดงเป็นสกุลเงินท้องถิ่น (ดอลลาร์สหรัฐ) แต่ในหน้าชำระเงิน ลูกค้าสามารถเลือกชำระเงินเป็นดอลลาร์หรือบิตคอยน์ก็ได้

อลิซเลือกตอนพอดแคสต์ที่เธอต้องการซื้อและดำเนินการไปยังหน้าชำระเงิน ในหน้าชำระเงิน อลิซพบตัวเลือกในการชำระเงินด้วยบิตคอยน์ นอกเหนือจากตัวเลือกปกติ แต่ในตะกร้าชำระเงินจะแสดงราคาทั้งในรูปแบบดอลลาร์สหรัฐและบิตคอยน์ตามอัตราแลกเปลี่ยนในขณะนั้น หลังจากกดจ่ายด้วยบิตคอยน์ระบบของบ๊อบได้ทำการสร้างใบเรียกเก็บเงิน (invoice) ในรูปแบบของ QR-code ตามภาพด้านล่าง

ต่างจาก QR code ทั่วไปที่มีเพียง Bitcoin address ปลายทางเท่านั้น ใบแจ้งหนี้นี้เป็น QR code แบบ URI ที่ประกอบด้วย Bitcoin address จำนวนเงินชำระ และคำอธิบาย (memo) ซึ่งช่วยให้ Bitcoin wallet แอปพลิเคชันเติมข้อมูลที่ใช้ในการชำระเงินล่วงหน้าได้ และยังแสดงคำอธิบายที่อ่านเข้าใจง่ายให้กับผู้ใช้อีกด้วย คุณสามารถสแกน QR code นี้ด้วย Bitcoin wallet เพื่อดูสิ่งที่อลิซจะเห็น

QR Code ของใบแจ้งหนี้นี้เข้ารหัส URI ดังต่อไปนี้ ซึ่งถูกกำหนดไว้ใน BIP21:

bitcoin:bc1qk2g6u8p4qm2s2lh3gts5cpt2mrv5skcuu7u3e4?amount=0.01577764& label=Bob%27s%20Store& message=Purchase%20at%20Bob%27s%20Store

โดยส่วนประกอบของ URI สามารถจำแนกได้ ดังนี้

• A Bitcoin address: "bc1qk2g6u8p4qm2s2lh3gts5cpt2mrv5skcuu7u3e4"
• The payment amount (จำนวนบิตคอยน์) : "0.01577764"
• A label for the recipient address (label): "Bob's Store"
• A description for the payment (memo): "Purchase at Bob's Store"

อลิซใช้สมาร์ทโฟนของเธอสแกนบาร์โค้ดที่แสดงอยู่ หน้าจอสมาร์ทโฟนของเธอจะแสดงการชำระเงินในจำนวนที่ถูกต้องสำหรับร้านของบ๊อบ และเธอกด “Send” เพื่อยืนยันการชำระเงิน ภายในไม่กี่วินาที (เวลาประมาณเดียวกับการอนุมัติบัตรเครดิต) บ๊อบก็จะเห็นธุรกรรมดังกล่าวปรากฏบนเครื่องรับชำระเงินของเขา

เครือข่ายบิตคอยน์สามารถทำธุรกรรมในมูลค่าเศษส่วนได้ เช่น มิลลิบิทคอยน์ (1/1,000 ของบิทคอยน์) ไปจนถึง 1/100,000,000 ของบิทคอยน์ ซึ่งเรียกว่า "ซาโตชิ" ในหนังสือเล่มนี้ใช้กฎการพหูพจน์เดียวกันกับดอลลาร์หรือสกุลเงินแบบดั้งเดิมเมื่อพูดถึงจำนวนที่มากกว่าหนึ่งบิทคอยน์ เช่น "10 บิตคอยน์" หรือ "0.001 บิตคอยน์" กฎเดียวกันนี้ยังนำไปใช้กับหน่วยบัญชีบิทคอยน์อื่น ๆ เช่น มิลลิบิทคอยน์และซาโตชิอีกด้วย

ธุรกรรมในระบบบิตคอยน์

ธุรกรรมในระบบบิตคอยน์คือการแจ้งเครือข่ายว่าเจ้าของบิทคอยน์ได้อนุมัติการโอนมูลค่าไปยังเจ้าของใหม่แล้ว และ เจ้าของใหม่สามารถใช้บิทคอยน์เหล่านั้นได้ โดยสร้างธุรกรรมใหม่เพื่อรออนุมัติการโอนไปยังเจ้าของคนอื่นต่อ ๆ ไป ทำให้เกิดการส่งต่อความเป็นเจ้าของอย่างต่อเนื่อง

ธุรกรรมขาเข้าและขาออกของบิตคอยน์

ธุรกรรมเปรียบเสมือนบันทึกในสมุดบัญชีแบบสองทาง โดยธุรกรรมแต่ละรายการจะมีอินพุต (inputs) หนึ่งรายการหรือมากกว่านั้นที่ใช้จ่ายเงิน และมีเอาต์พุต (outputs) หนึ่งรายการหรือมากกว่าที่รับเงิน มูลค่าของอินพุตและเอาต์พุตไม่จำเป็นต้องเท่ากันเสมอไป เอาต์พุตมักจะมีมูลค่าน้อยกว่าอินพุตเล็กน้อย ซึ่งส่วนต่างนี้คือ "ค่าธรรมเนียมธุรกรรม" ที่นักขุดจะได้รับเมื่อรวมธุรกรรมในบล็อกเชน

ธุรกรรมยังมีหลักฐานการเป็นเจ้าของสำหรับจำนวนบิตคอยน์ (อินพุต) ที่ถูกใช้ในรูปของลายเซ็นดิจิทัลจากเจ้าของเดิม ซึ่งสามารถตรวจสอบความถูกต้องได้ ในระบบบิตคอยน์การใช้จ่ายบิตคอยน์คือการลงนามในธุรกรรมเพื่อโอนมูลค่าจากธุรกรรมก่อนหน้าไปยังเจ้าของใหม่ที่ระบุผ่าน Bitcoin adress

ห่วงโซ่ของธุรกรรม

การชำระเงินของอลิซไปยังร้านของบ็อบนั้นเป็นใช้เอาต์พุตจากธุรกรรมก่อนหน้าเป็นอินพุตในธุรกรรมครั้งนี้ (ในบทก่อนหน้า อลิซได้รับบิทคอยน์จากโจเพื่อนของเธอ ) เราเรียกธุรกรรมนี้ว่า "ธุรกรรมที่ 1 (Tx1)" ซึ่งแสดงถึงห่วงโซ่ของธุรกรรมที่เอาต์พุตของธุรกรรมหนึ่งถูกใช้เป็นอินพุตในธุรกรรมถัดไป

การอ้างอิงอินพุตจากเอาต์พุตก่อนหน้า

Tx1 โอน 0.001 บิทคอยน์ (100,000 ซาโตชิ) ไปยังเอาต์พุตที่ล็อกด้วยกุญแจของอลิซ และในธุรกรรมใหม่ของอลิซ (Tx2) ที่ส่งให้ร้านของบ็อบ เธออ้างถึงเอาต์พุตก่อนหน้าเป็นอินพุต อย่างที่เห็นในภาพประกอบ การอ้างอิงด้วยลูกศรและระบุอินพุตว่า "Tx1:0" ในธุรกรรมจริง การอ้างอิงจะใช้รหัสประจำธุรกรรม (txid) เป็นตัวระบุขนาด 32 ไบต์ที่แสดงถึงธุรกรรมที่อลิซได้รับเงินจากโจ ส่วน ":0" หมายถึงตำแหน่งของเอาต์พุตที่อลิซได้รับเงิน ซึ่งในกรณีนี้คือตำแหน่งแรก (ตำแหน่ง 0)

การคำนวณมูลค่าอินพุต

เนื่องจากธุรกรรมของบิตคอยน์นั้นไม่ได้ระบุค่าของอินพุตอย่างชัดเจน ตัวซอฟต์แวร์เลยจะต้องใช้การอ้างอิงของอินพุตเพื่อค้นหาเอาต์พุตของธุรกรรมก่อนหน้าที่ถูกใช้ไป

เอาต์พุตใน Tx2 ของอลิซ

Tx2 ของอลิซมีเอาต์พุตใหม่สองรายการ รายการหนึ่งจ่าย 75,000 ซาโตชิสำหรับพอดแคสต์ และอีกรายการจ่าย 20,000 ซาโตชิคืนให้อลิซเป็นเงินทอน

เกร็ดสาระเล็ก ๆ น้อย ๆ

• ธุรกรรมของบิตคอยน์นั้นอยู่ในรูปแบบซีเรียลไลซ์ (serialized) เป็นรูปแบบข้อมูลที่ซอฟต์แวร์ใช้สำหรับการส่งธุรกรรม โดยจะเข้ารหัสมูลค่าที่ต้องการโอนด้วยตัวเลขจำนวนเต็มซึ่งเป็นหน่วยมูลค่าที่เล็กที่สุดในระบบ on-chain
• ที่มาของชื่อ "ซาโตชิ" :เมื่อบิตคอยน์ถูกสร้างขึ้นในครั้งแรก หน่วยมูลค่านี้ยังไม่มีชื่อเรียก นักพัฒนาบางคนจึงเรียกมันว่า "หน่วยฐาน" (base unit) แต่ต่อมาผู้ใช้งานหลาย ๆ คนเริ่มเรียกหน่วยนี้ว่า "ซาโตชิ" (satoshi หรือ sat) เพื่อเป็นเกียรติแก่ผู้สร้างบิตคอยน์

การทอนเงิน

นอกเหนือจากการสร้างเอาต์พุตเพื่อจ่ายให้กับผู้รับบิตคอยน์แล้ว ธุรกรรมจำนวนมากยังมีเอาต์พุตที่จ่ายเงินคืนให้กับผู้จ่าย ซึ่งเรียกว่า เอาต์พุตทอนเงิน (change output) เนื่องจากอินพุตของธุรกรรม (คล้ายกับธนบัตร) ไม่สามารถแบ่งใช้บางส่วนได้ เช่น ถ้าคุณซื้อของราคา 5 ดอลลาร์และจ่ายด้วยธนบัตร 20 ดอลลาร์ คุณคาดหวังว่าจะได้เงินทอน 15 ดอลลาร์ ในทำนองเดียวกัน ในธุรกรรม Bitcoin หากคุณซื้อสินค้าราคา 5 บิตคอยน์แต่มีอินพุตมูลค่า 20 บิตคอยน์ คุณจะสร้างเอาต์พุต 5 บิตคอยน์ไปยังเจ้าของร้าน และอีกเอาต์พุต 15 บิตคอยน์คืนให้ตัวคุณเองเป็นเงินทอน (ไม่นับรวมค่าธรรมเนียมธุรกรรม)

• หากมองผ่านมุมของโปรโตคอลบิตคอยน์นั้นไม่ได้มีความแตกต่างใด ๆ ระหว่างเอาต์พุตเงินทอนกับเอาต์พุตการจ่ายเงินปกติ
• โดยทั่วไปแล้วเอาต์พุตเงินทอนจะเป็นการโอนไปจ่ายให้กับ Bitcoin Address อันใหม่ในกระเป๋าตัวเองดังรูปที่แสดงข้างล่าง

การสร้างธุรกรรม

แอปพิเคชั่นกระเป๋าเงินของอลิซจะทำการสร้างอินพุตและสร้างเอาต์พุตตามที่ Alice ต้องการ โดยที่เธอเพียงแค่กรอกปลายทาง จำนวนเงิน และค่าธรรมเนียมธุรกรรมกระเป๋าเงินจะทำงานที่เหลือให้โดยอัตโนมัติ นอกจากนี้ กระเป๋าเงินยังสามารถสร้างธุรกรรมแบบออฟไลน์ได้ คล้ายกับการเขียนเช็คที่บ้านแล้วค่อยนำไปฝากธนาคารในภายหลังอีกด้วย

การเลือกอินพุตที่เหมาะสม

กระเป๋าเงินจะเลือกอินพุตที่มีมูลค่าเพียงพอสำหรับการชำระเงินไปยังบ๊อบโดยตรวจสอบเอาต์พุตที่ยังไม่ได้ใช้ (UTXOs) ซึ่งหากมูลค่าไม่เพียงพอ กระเป๋าเงินก็จะทำการรวม UTXOs หลาย ๆ รายการเข้าด้วยกัน เพื่อให้ได้ยอดที่ต้องการ และหากอินพุตมีมูลค่าสูงกว่าค่าที่ต้องจ่าย กระเป๋าเงินจะสร้างเอาต์พุตสำหรับทอนเงินกลับมาให้อลิซ

การสร้างเอาต์พุต

เอาต์พุตประกอบด้วยสคริปต์ที่กำหนดให้ผู้ที่มีคีย์ของบ๊อบเท่านั้นสามารถลงนามเพื่อที่จะใช้เงินได้ นอกจากนี้ยังมีเอาต์พุตสำหรับทอนเงินกลับมาให้อลิซ ซึ่งทำให้เธอสามารถใช้เงินทอนนั้นในการทำธุรกรรมถัดไป และค่าธรรมเนียมธุรกรรมจะถูกคำนวณจากส่วนต่างระหว่างอินพุตและเอาต์พุต และนั่นเองที่จะเป็นรางวัลสำหรับนักขุดที่บันทึกธุรกรรมลงบล็อกเชนของบิตคอยน์

การใส่ธุรกรรมลงในบล๊อกเชน

ธุรกรรมที่สร้างขึ้นโดย Bitcoin wallet ของอลิซมีข้อมูลทั้งหมดที่จำเป็นสำหรับการสร้างธุรกรรม (การยืนยันว่าอลิซเป็นเจ้าของเงิน และ Bitcoin address ปลายทาง) จากนั้นธุรกรรมนี้จะต้องถูกส่งไปยังเครือข่ายของบิตคอยน์ เพื่อที่จะให้ธุรกรรมนั้นเป็นส่วนนึงในเครือข่ายของบิตคอยน์ และในส่วนถัดไปของหนังสือเล่มนี้ เราจะอธิบายถึงว่าธุรกรรมกลายเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของบล็อกใหม่อย่างไร และกระบวนการขุดบล็อกเป็นอย่างไร รวมถึงการที่บล็อกใหม่ได้รับความไว้วางใจมากขึ้นเมื่อมีการเพิ่มบล็อกใหม่ ๆ เข้ามาเรื่อย ๆ หมายถึงอะไร ?

การส่งธุรกรรมเข้าไปยังเครือข่าย

เนื่องจากธุรกรรมมีข้อมูลที่จำเป็นสำหรับการประมวลผลทั้งหมด จึงทำให้การส่งผ่านสามารถทำได้จากที่ไหนหรืออย่างไรก็ได้ อย่างที่ได้กล่าวไปว่าเครือข่ายของบิตคอยน์เป็นเครือข่ายแบบ peer-to-peer โดยที่แต่ละโหนดเชื่อมต่อกับโหนดอื่น ๆ อีกหลายโหนด เพื่อทำหน้าที่กระจายธุรกรรมและบล็อกให้กับผู้เข้าร่วมทั้งหมดในระบบ

การกระจายธุรกรรม

โหนดในเครือข่าย peer-to-peer ของบิตคอยน์นั้นเป็นซอฟต์แวร์ที่สามารถตรวจสอบความถูกต้องของธุรกรรมได้ และการเชื่อมต่อระหว่างโหนดสามารถแสดงเป็นเส้นในกราฟ ทำให้โหนดเหล่านี้เรียกว่า “โหนดตรวจสอบเต็มรูปแบบ” (full nodes) กระเป๋าเงินของอลิซสามารถส่งธุรกรรมไปยังโหนดบิตคอยน์ใด ๆ ผ่านการเชื่อมต่อใด ๆ ก็ได้ เช่น สายแลน WiFi หรือ เครือข่ายมือถือ โดยถ้าหากโหนดได้รับธุรกรรมที่ถูกต้องซึ่งยังไม่เคยเห็นมาก่อน มันจะกระจายธุรกรรมนี้ไปยังโหนดอื่น ๆ ที่เชื่อมต่อด้วย ซึ่งเป็นเทคนิคที่เรียกว่า gossiping ซึ่งทำให้ธุรกรรมแพร่กระจายไปทั่วเครือข่ายอย่างรวดเร็วภายในไม่กี่วินาที

การขุดบิตคอยน์

ตอนนี้ธุรกรรมของอลิซได้เข้าไปสู่ในเครือข่ายของบิตคอยน์แล้ว แต่มันยังไม่ได้ถูกบรรจุลงในบล๊อกเชนเนื่องจากจะต้องรอให้นักขุดทำการนำธุรกรรมนั้น ๆ เข้าไปในบล๊อกและบล๊อกนั้นจำเป็นต้องผ่านการตรวจสอบโดยโหนดในเครือข่ายของบิตคอยน์เสียก่อน จึงจะถูกบันทึกลงในบล๊อกเชน ในระบบของบิตคอยน์นั้น มีการป้องกันการปลอมแปลงด้วยการคำนวณทางคณิตศาสตร์ ซึ่งเป็นการคำนวณที่จำเป็นต้องใช้พลังงานมหาศาลในการคำนวณ แต่ใช้พลังงานเพียงเล็กน้อยในการตรวจสอบ โดยธุรกรรมทั้งหมดจะถูกจัดเรียงเป็นบล๊อกและแต่ละบล๊อกจะมีบล๊อกเฮดเดอร์ที่จำเป็นต้องสร้างตามเงื่อนไขเฉพาะ โดยกระบวนการขุดบิตคอยน์นั้นมีวัตถุประสงค์อยู่สองอย่าง ดังนี้:

• สร้างแรงจูงใจให้ขุดเฉพาะธุรกรรมที่ถูกต้องตามกฎ: เนื่องจากวิธีที่เหล่านักขุดจะได้รับผลกำไรที่สูงที่สุดจากการสร้างบล๊อกที่ตรงกับฉันทมติของระบบเท่านั้น (หากไม่ทำตามบล๊อกจะไม่ถูกยอมรับโดยโหนด และนั่นจะเป็นการสิ้นเปลืองพลังงานที่ได้คำนวณมาโดยเปล่าประโยชน์) นั้นจึงเป็นแรงจูงใจหลัก ๆ ให้เหล่านักขุดทำการใส่ธุรกรรมที่ถูกต้องตามกฏเท่านั้นลงในบล๊อกที่ตนสร้าง และสิ่งนี้เองก็ทำให้ผู้ใช้สามารถเลือกที่จะสันนิษฐานโดยอิงตามความไว้วางใจว่าธุรกรรมใด ๆ ในบล็อกนั้น ๆ เป็นธุรกรรมที่ถูกต้อง
• สร้างเหรียญใหม่ตามตารางการออกเหรียญที่กำหนดไว้ล่วงหน้า: ในปัจจุบันนั้นจะมีการสร้างบิตคอยน์ใหม่ในแต่ละบล็อก คล้ายคลึงกับธนาคารกลางที่พิมพ์เงินใหม่ โดยจำนวนบิตคอยน์ในแต่ละบล๊อกที่จะถูกผลิตขึ้นมาใหม่นั้นถูกกำหนดมาตั้งแต่วันที่ระบบของบิตคอยน์ได้เริ่มขึ้นและไม่สามารถเปลี่ยนแปลงได้

การขุดได้ช่วยให้เกิดความสมดุลระหว่างต้นทุนและผลตอบแทน เนื่องจากการขุดมีการใช้ไฟฟ้าเพื่อแก้ปัญหาการคำนวณ และนักขุดที่ประสบความสำเร็จจะได้รับรางวัลในรูปแบบของบิตคอยน์ใหม่และค่าธรรมเนียมจากการทำธุรกรรม แต่อย่างไรก็ตาม รางวัลจะถูกเก็บรวบรวมก็ต่อเมื่อนักขุดรวมเฉพาะธุรกรรมที่ถูกต้องเท่านั้น โดยกฎของโปรโตคอลบิตคอยน์สำหรับการสร้างฉันทามติ จะกำหนดว่าอะไรถูกต้อง โดยความสมดุลที่ละเอียดอ่อนนี้เองที่คอยสร้างให้ความปลอดภัยแก่บิตคอยน์โดยไม่ต้องมีหน่วยงานกลางมาคอยดูแล

การขุดถูกออกแบบให้เหมือนกับการจับสลากแบบกระจายศูนย์ นักขุดแต่ละคนสามารถสร้าง "สลาก" ของตัวเองได้โดยการสร้างบล็อกตัวอย่างที่ประกอบไปด้วยธุรกรรมใหม่ที่ต้องการขุด พร้อมกับข้อมูลอื่น ๆ และนักขุดจะป้อนบล็อกตัวอย่างนี้เข้าไปในอัลกอริทึมที่ออกแบบมาเป็นพิเศษเพื่อแฮชข้อมูล ทำให้ได้ค่าผลลัพธ์ที่แตกต่างจากข้อมูลเดิมอย่างสิ้นเชิง โดยแฮชฟังก์ชันนี้จะให้ผลลัพธ์เดียวกันเสมอสำหรับข้อมูลชุดเดิม แต่ไม่สามารถคาดเดาผลลัพธ์ได้หากป้อนข้อมูลใหม่ แม้จะแตกต่างเพียงเล็กน้อยจากข้อมูลก่อนหน้า

หากค่าผลลัพธ์ของแฮชตรงกับเงื่อนไขที่กำหนดของโปรโตคอล นักขุดจะชนะการจับสลาก และผู้ใช้งานบิตคอยน์ จะยอมรับบล็อกนี้พร้อมกับธุรกรรมในนั้นว่าเป็นบล็อกที่ถูกต้อง หากไม่ตรงกับเงื่อนไข นักขุดจะปรับข้อมูลในบล็อกเล็กน้อยและลองทำการแฮชใหม่ กระบวนการนี้ต้องทำซ้ำหลายครั้ง โดย ณ ขณะที่เขียนนี้ นักขุดต้องลองสร้างบล็อกตัวอย่างประมาณ 168 พันล้านล้านครั้ง เพื่อหาคำตอบที่ถูกต้อง ซึ่งหมายถึงการรันแฮชฟังก์ชันในจำนวนครั้งมหาศาลมาก ๆ

แต่เมื่อพบคำตอบที่ถูกต้องแล้ว ใครก็ตามสามารถตรวจสอบว่าบล็อกนั้นถูกต้องได้โดยการรันแฮชฟังก์ชันเพียงครั้งเดียว ซึ่งทำให้การสร้างบล็อกที่ถูกต้องต้องใช้พลังงานคำนวณมหาศาล แต่การตรวจสอบทำได้ง่ายมาก กระบวนการตรวจสอบนี้สามารถพิสูจน์ได้อย่างมีหลักการว่ามีการทำงานเกิดขึ้นจริง ดังนั้น ข้อมูลที่ใช้สร้างหลักฐานนี้—ในที่นี้คือบล็อก—เรียกว่า "หลักฐานการทำงาน" หรือ Proof of Work (PoW)

ธุรกรรมจะถูกเพิ่มลงในบล็อกใหม่ โดยให้ความสำคัญกับธุรกรรมที่มีค่าธรรมเนียมสูงสุดก่อนและพิจารณาจากปัจจัยอื่น ๆ อีกเล็กน้อย นักขุดแต่ละคนจะเริ่มกระบวนการสร้างบล็อกตัวอย่างใหม่ทันทีหลังจากได้รับบล็อกก่อนหน้าจากเครือข่าย โดยรู้ว่ามีคนอื่นชนะรางวัลไปแล้วในรอบนั้น พวกเขาจะสร้างบล็อกตัวอย่างใหม่ที่เชื่อมโยงกับบล็อกก่อนหน้า ใส่ธุรกรรมเข้าไป และเริ่มคำนวณ Proof of Work (PoW) สำหรับบล็อกตัวอย่างนี้ นักขุดจะเพิ่มธุรกรรมพิเศษที่จ่ายรางวัลบล็อกและค่าธรรมเนียมธุรกรรมรวมเข้ากับที่อยู่บิตคอยน์ของตนเอง หากพวกเขาพบบล็อกที่ถูกต้องและถูกเพิ่มในบล็อกเชน นักขุดจะได้รับรางวัลนั้น และธุรกรรมรางวัลนี้ก็จะใช้งานได้ นักขุดที่ทำงานร่วมกับพูลจะตั้งค่าให้รางวัลถูกส่งไปยังที่อยู่ของพูล จากนั้นจะแบ่งรางวัลให้สมาชิกตามสัดส่วนการทำงานที่แต่ละคนมีส่วนร่วม

กลับมาที่ธุรกรรมของอลิซ ตอนนี้ธุรกรรมของอลิซได้ถูกเครือข่ายรับไปแล้วและเพิ่มลงในพูลของธุรกรรมที่ยังไม่ได้รับการยืนยันเรียบร้อย จากนั้นเมื่อธุรกรรมนั้นผ่านการตรวจสอบจาก full node แล้ว มันจะถูกรวมไว้ในบล็อกตัวอย่าง และประมาณห้านาทีหลังจากที่อลิซส่งธุรกรรมจากกระเป๋าเงินของเธอ นักขุดคนหนึ่งพบคำตอบสำหรับบล็อกนั้นและประกาศไปยังเครือข่าย หลังจากที่นักขุดคนอื่น ๆ ตรวจสอบความถูกต้องของบล็อกที่ชนะ พวกเขาก็เริ่มกระบวนการสุ่มอีกครั้งเพื่อสร้างบล็อกถัดไป

บล็อกที่ชนะซึ่งมีธุรกรรมของอลิซอยู่ในนั้น ได้กลายเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของบล็อกเชน และบล็อกนี้ถูกนับเป็นการยืนยันหนึ่งครั้งสำหรับธุรกรรมนั้น หลังจากที่บล็อกที่มีธุรกรรมของอลิซได้ถูกเผยแพร่ไปทั่วเครือข่าย การสร้างบล็อกทางเลือกที่มีเวอร์ชันอื่นของธุรกรรมของอลิซ (เช่น ธุรกรรมที่ไม่ได้จ่ายให้ บ๊อบ) จะต้องใช้ปริมาณงานเท่ากับที่นักขุดทั้งหมดต้องใช้ในการสร้างบล็อกใหม่ทั้งบล็อก เมื่อมีบล็อกทางเลือกหลายบล็อกให้เลือก full node ในเครือข่ายของบิตคอยน์ก็จะทำการเลือกบล็อกเชนที่ถูกต้อง โดยจะเป็นเชนซึ่งมี Proof of Work (PoW) รวมมากที่สุด ซึ่งเรียกว่าบล็อกเชนที่ดีที่สุด หากเครือข่ายทั้งหมดจะยอมรับบล็อกทางเลือก จะต้องมีการขุดบล็อกใหม่เพิ่มเติมอีกหนึ่งบล็อกต่อจากบล็อกทางเลือกนั้น

นั่นหมายความว่านักขุดมีตัวเลือกอื่น อย่างเช่นการที่พวกเขาสามารถร่วมมือกับอลิซเพื่อสร้างธุรกรรมทางเลือกที่เธอไม่ได้จ่ายเงินให้บ๊อบ โดยอลิซอาจเสนอส่วนแบ่งจากเงินที่เธอเคยจ่ายให้บ๊อบแก่นักขุด แต่การกระทำที่ไม่ซื่อสัตย์นี้จะต้องใช้ความพยายามเท่ากับการสร้างบล็อกใหม่ถึงสองบล็อก ซึ่งในทางกลับกันแล้ว นักขุดที่ทำงานอย่างซื่อสัตย์สามารถสร้างบล็อกใหม่เพียงบล็อกเดียวและได้รับค่าธรรมเนียมจากธุรกรรมทั้งหมดที่รวมอยู่ในบล็อก พร้อมกับรางวัลบล็อก (block subsidy) นอกจากนี้ต้นทุนที่สูงในการสร้างบล็อกสองบล็อกเพื่อพยายามเปลี่ยนแปลงธุรกรรมที่ยืนยันแล้วสำหรับผลตอบแทนเพียงเล็กน้อยนั้นไม่คุ้มค่าและการกระทำดังกล่าวมีโอกาสน้อยที่จะเกิดขึ้น สำหรับ บ๊อบ นั่นหมายความว่าเขาสามารถเริ่มเชื่อถือได้ว่าการชำระเงินจากอลิซนั้นเป็นสิ่งที่เชื่อถือได้

ประมาณ 19 นาทีหลังจากบล็อกที่มีธุรกรรมของอลิซ ได้ถูกเผยแพร่บล็อกใหม่ถูกขุดขึ้นโดยนักขุดอีกคน และเนื่องจากบล็อกใหม่นี้ถูกสร้างต่อจากบล็อกที่มีธุรกรรมของอลิซ (ทำให้ธุรกรรมของอลิซได้รับการยืนยันสองครั้ง) ธุรกรรมของ อลิซจะสามารถเปลี่ยนแปลงได้ก็ต่อเมื่อมีการขุดบล็อกทางเลือกสองบล็อกขึ้นมา และมีบล็อกใหม่ที่สร้างต่อจากบล็อกเหล่านั้น รวมเป็นสามบล็อกที่ต้องถูกขุดเพื่อให้อลิซสามารถดึงเงินที่เธอส่งให้บ๊อบกลับมาได้ และทุกบล็อกที่ขุดต่อจากบล็อกที่มีธุรกรรมของอลิซนั้นจะนับเป็นการยืนยันเพิ่มเติม เมื่อจำนวนบล็อกที่ต่อกันเพิ่มมากขึ้น การย้อนกลับธุรกรรมก็จะยากขึ้นเรื่อย ๆ ทำให้บ๊อบมั่นใจมากขึ้นเรื่อย ๆ ว่าการชำระเงินของอลิซนั้นจะปลอดภัย

จากภาพที่แนบไว้ข้างล่างนี้ เราสามารถเห็นบล็อกที่มีธุรกรรมของอลิซและด้านล่างของบล็อกนี้มีบล็อกอีกหลายแสนบล็อกที่เชื่อมต่อกันเป็นโซ่ (blockchain) ต่อเนื่องไปจนถึงบล็อกหมายเลข #0 หรือที่เรียกว่า genesis block และเมื่อเวลาผ่านไป "ความสูง" ของบล็อกใหม่ที่เพิ่มขึ้นจะทำให้ความยากในการคำนวณของทั้งเครือข่ายเพิ่มขึ้นตามไปด้วย ตามธรรมเนียมแล้ว บล็อกใด ๆ ที่มีการยืนยันมากกว่าหกครั้งจะถือว่ายากมากที่จะเปลี่ยนแปลง เพราะต้องใช้การคำนวณอย่างมหาศาลในการคำนวณบล็อกหกบล็อกใหม่ (รวมถึงบล็อกใหม่อีกหนึ่งบล็อก)

การใช้จ่ายในธุรกรรม

เมื่อธุรกรรมของอลิซได้กลายเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของบล็อกเชน แปลว่ามันสามารถถูกเรียกดูได้จากทุกบิตคอยน์แอปพลิเคชัน และทุกโหนดสามารถที่จะตรวจสอบธุรกรรมนี้ได้อย่างอิสระ ว่าธุรกรรมนี้ถูกต้องหรือไม่ โดยจะตรวจสอบย้อนไปตั้งแต่ตอนที่เหรียญนั้น ๆ ถูกสร้างและตรวจสอบต่อมาเรื่อย ๆ จนถึงธุรกรรมปัจจุบัน ไคลเอนต์จะสามารถตรวจสอบการชำระเงินได้บางส่วน โดยการยืนยันว่าธุรกรรมนั้นอยู่ในบล็อกเชนแล้ว และมีบล็อกจำนวนมากที่ถูกขุดหลังจากนั้น ซึ่งนี่ช่วยให้มั่นใจได้ว่ามีการใช้ความพยายามอย่างมากในการยืนยันธุรกรรมนี้โดยเหล่านักขุดไปแล้ว

ในตอนนี้บ็อบสามารถใช้บิตคอยน์ที่อลิซส่งให้ต่อได้แล้ว! สมมุติว่าบ๊อบต้องการจ่ายค่าจ้างให้ผู้รับเหมาหรือผู้จัดหาสินค้า โดยการโอนมูลค่าจากการชำระเงินของอลิซสำหรับพอดแคสต์ไปยังเจ้าของรายใหม่ เมื่อบ๊อบใช้เงินที่ได้รับจากอลิซและลูกค้าคนอื่น ๆ เขาก็ขยายสายโซ่ของธุรกรรมออกไป สมมติว่าบ๊อบจ่ายค่าจ้างให้กรูฟซึ่งเป็นนักออกแบบเว็บไซต์ของเขาสำหรับสร้างหน้าเว็บใหม่ สายโซ่ของธุรกรรมจะมีลักษณะดังนี้:

• ธุรกรรมจากโจถึงอลิซ: โจโอนบิตคอยน์ให้อลิซเพื่อการซื้อขายหรือจ่ายค่าบริการบางอย่าง
• ธุรกรรมจากอลิซถึงบ๊อบ: อลิซโอนบิตคอยน์ให้บ๊อบเพื่อชำระค่าพอดแคสต์
• ธุรกรรมจากบ๊อบถึงกรูฟ: บ๊อบโอนบิตคอยน์จากที่ได้รับจากอลิซให้กรูฟเพื่อจ่ายค่าจ้างออกแบบเว็บไซต์

สายโซ่ของธุรกรรมนี้แสดงให้เห็นการเชื่อมต่อของธุรกรรมจากโจถึงอลิซและจากอลิซถึงบ๊อบต่อด้วยจากบ๊อบถึง กรูฟ โดยแต่ละธุรกรรมได้รับการบันทึกไว้ในบล็อกเชน ซึ่งช่วยให้ทุกคนสามารถตรวจสอบความถูกต้องของธุรกรรมในสายโซ่นี้ได้

ในบทนี้ เราได้เห็นวิธีที่ธุรกรรมสร้างสายโซ่ที่ถ่ายโอนมูลค่าจากเจ้าของหนึ่งไปยังอีกเจ้าของหนึ่ง นอกจากนี้เรายังได้ติดตามธุรกรรมของอลิซตั้งแต่เริ่มสร้างในกระเป๋าเงินของเธอ ผ่านเครือข่ายบิตคอยน์ไปจนถึงนักขุดที่บันทึกมันลงในบล็อกเชน และสำหรับในส่วนที่เหลือของหนังสือเล่มนี้ เราจะศึกษารายละเอียดเกี่ยวกับเทคโนโลยีที่เกี่ยวข้อง ไม่ว่าจะเป็นกระเป๋าเงิน, address, digital signature, network และกระบวนการขุดอย่างละเอียด

@ f1989a96:bcaaf2c1

Good morning, readers!

After 53 years of tyranny, the Syrian regime has been overthrown. Rebels captured Damascus, forcing Bashar al-Assad and his family to flee to Moscow, Russia. Assad’s rule was defined by severe human rights abuses and widespread financial repression. Hundreds of thousands were jailed or killed, millions fled, and more than 90% of the country was plunged into poverty amid currency collapse. With Assad gone, Syrians may have a chance to rebuild their country and work toward a freer, more democratic future.

In Tunisia, President Kais Saied continues to dismantle civil society and due process. The regime is escalating the repression of journalists through arrests, incarceration, and judicial harassment to silence critical voices. By doing so, Saied shifts focus away from the country’s economic struggles and worsening hardships.

In technology news, Klever Wallet, a KYC-free digital asset wallet widely used in regions like Nigeria and the Philippines, integrated the Lightning Network via the Breez SDK, enabling fast, low-cost Bitcoin transactions for its significant global user base. In addition, the Bitcoin Design Foundation announced a South American Bitcoin UX Bootcamp, offering 10 skilled UX designers across South America a chance to refine their design expertise within the Bitcoin ecosystem and attend the 2025 bitcoin++ developer conference in Florianopolis, Brazil.

We end with a live stream of the 2024 Africa Bitcoin Conference, an inspiring event HRF supported and participated in. The conference brought together leaders and innovators across the African continent to advance Bitcoin for financial freedom and to push back against growing authoritarianism. If you were unable to attend in person, be sure to catch the recordings below.

Now, let’s dive right in!

Subscribe Here

GLOBAL NEWS

Syria | Assad Regime Overthrown

The Assad regime, infamous for its financial repression and brutal authoritarianism, has been overthrown following the rebel capture of Damascus, forcing Bashar al-Assad and his family to flee to Moscow. For 24 years under Assad — and 53 years of Assad family rule — the regime manipulated the economy to maintain its grip on power. Policies such as enforcing artificial currency exchange rates, restricting bank withdrawals, and imposing strict controls on the flow of goods and money plunged over 90% of Syrians into poverty. This economic stranglehold, combined with systemic human rights abuses, defined his reign. With the regime’s collapse, Syrians now face a pivotal moment to rebuild their country and pursue a future of more financial freedom.

China | Youth Bear the Brunt of Economic Slowdown

China’s slowing economy is forcing younger generations into increasingly precarious financial positions. Youth unemployment has soared past 17%, and even those who find work face stagnant wages and unmet income expectations. To survive, many young people are embracing extreme frugality — capping food expenses at just 500 yuan ($70), eating in the dark to save electricity, and avoiding dining out entirely. The middle class, weighed down by debt and a bleak economic outlook, is also adopting similar austerity measures. This growing financial strain offers a stark snapshot of China’s economic challenges and raises deep concerns about the long-term prosperity and opportunities for the nation’s youth.

Tunisia | Growing Repression of Journalists Amidst Worsening Economic Crisis

Tunisia is grappling with a worsening economic crisis, as citizens face soaring unemployment, a collapsing currency, and the devastating impacts of financial mismanagement. Amid this economic turmoil, President Kais Saied is intensifying his crackdown on dissent, imprisoning journalists in overcrowded cells, denying them medical care, and subjecting them to psychological torture — blatant evidence of the state’s disregard for human rights. Saied’s regime has also weaponized vague morality laws to target activists, influencers, and musicians, ensuring no opposition voice goes unpunished. By silencing dissent, Saied seeks to deflect attention from the regime’s economic failures, positioning the state as a moral authority while deepening the suffering of journalists and the broader public.

Pakistan | Testing Internet Firewall to Increase Financial Surveillance

Pakistan’s government is testing a nationwide Internet firewall, a tool designed to monitor, censor, and control online content by filtering internet traffic at the state level. By leveraging technology sourced from China, officials can block websites, restrict apps, and track individual online activity. This firewall poses a severe threat to financial freedom, as the military regime could use it to restrict access to tools like Bitcoin, cutting off alternative financial systems that offer privacy and independence. Civil society, including activists, journalists, and political dissidents, faces heightened surveillance, repression, and limited access to information — further curtailing their capacity to organize or express dissent.

India | Central Bank Governor Shares CBDC Vision

Outgoing Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Gov.Shaktikanta Das reaffirmed his vision for India’s central bank digital currency (CBDC), the digital rupee, as the nation’s currency continues to reach a record low against the US dollar. While hailed as the “future of currency” and praised for its potential economic benefits, the CBDC raises serious concerns. It grants the state unprecedented power to surveil transactions, freeze funds, and block payments in real-time — an alarming reality in a country already known for freezing opposition bank accounts and imposing rigid KYC requirements. Das’s hopes of a CBDC to “underpin the payment systems of the future” prioritizes state control at the expense of individual freedoms.

Georgia | Internet Shutdowns Amid Energy Crisis

In the breakaway Georgian region of Abkhazian, Russian-backed officials are using an energy crisis as a pretext to tighten Internet controls. Blaming illegal Bitcoin mining for electricity shortages, officials imposed nightly Internet shutdowns from midnight to 7:00 a.m., starting Dec. 10. These restrictions, coupled with power rationing and school closures, exacerbate hardships for residents as the region grapples with reduced energy from Russia and the Enguri hydroelectric plant. By painting Bitcoin as the villain, officials divert attention from broader governance failures while consolidating their grip over online communication and suppressing access to alternative financial tools.

LATEST IN BITCOIN NEWS, DEVELOPMENT, AND COMMUNITY

Klever Wallet | Integrates Lightning Network

Klever Wallet, a KYC-free digital asset wallet popular in underbanked countries like Nigeria, Brazil, India, and the Philippines, integrated the Lightning Network through the Breez SDK. This integration will empower its 100,000 active monthly users with fast, low-cost Bitcoin transactions directly from the wallet. By using the Breez SDK, Klever eliminates the complexities of Lightning channel management for users while maintaining a self-custodial design. This integration enhances financial freedom for its global user base — particularly in regions where traditional systems fall short.

Fedi | Adds Cashu Melting and Portable Nostr Keys

Fedi, a company leveraging Bitcoin and ecash technology to support communities, especially under authoritarian regimes, announced the integration of Cashu melting to enable users to receive Cashu ecash directly within the Fedi app. Built on the Chaumian ecash protocol, Cashu allows users to transact ecash tokens with strong privacy guarantees, minimal costs, and instant settlements, though with a custodial tradeoff. Additionally, Fedi now supports portable Nostr keys, allowing users to interact with external Nostr clients like Primal and Amethyst. Together, these updates enhance financial privacy and accessibility, offering users more control over their transactions and a portable digital identity, advancing financial freedom in underserved regions.

Core Lightning | Releases Latest Version with BOLT 12 by Default

Core Lightning, an implementation of the Lightning Network, introduced improvements to privacy and functionality with its latest v24.11 release. The update enables BOLT 12 offers by default when sending and receiving Bitcoin payments. BOLT 12 is an important update to the Lightning Network that brings increased receiver privacy, greater censorship resistance, and reusable payment requests for recurring payments. The update also includes xpay, an experimental payment plugin for advanced routing of payments on the Lightning Network. With these features, users of wallets and applications built with Core Lightning can maintain greater privacy and experience more optimized payments.

Proton Wallet | Implements Replace-by-Fee for Bitcoin Transactions

Proton, the company behind privacy tools like Proton Mail and Proton VPN, added support for Replace-by-Fee (RBF) transactions in Proton Wallet, its self-custodial and privacy-centric Bitcoin wallet. RBF allows users to increase the fee on stuck transactions to expedite confirmation and allow the payment to settle faster. The wallet also uses strong encryption and offers accessible recovery methods, ensuring users — like activists in hostile environments — maintain financial autonomy. Watch this tutorial by Bitcoin educator BTC Sessions to learn how to use Proton Wallet.

Bitcoin Design Community | South American Bitcoin UX Bootcamp

The Bitcoin Design Community, with support from HRF, will be hosting a South American UX Bitcoin Bootcamp. This program will support ten skilled UX designers across South America to develop and refine their design expertise within the Bitcoin ecosystem. Participants will also have the opportunity to attend the 2025 bitcoin++ developer conference in Florianopolis, Brazil, where they will receive specialized UX training and engage in hands-on learning with Bitcoin-related technologies. UX designers with an interest in Bitcoin are encouraged to apply here.

OpenSats | Announces Ninth Wave of Nostr Grants

OpenSats, a public nonprofit funding free and open-source software and projects, announced its ninth wave of grants supporting projects built on the decentralized Nostr protocol. Among the grantees is Pokey, an Android app enhancing Nostr and communications in restrictive environments through offline Bluetooth mesh networking and multi-account support. These features are particularly valuable for anyone facing Internet blackouts or state censorship. Another recipient, Persian NIPs, is breaking language barriers by localizing Nostr resources for Persian/Farsi speakers. The project will translate key protocols, user guides, and developer documentation, bringing decentralized and uncensorable technology to millions of people.

RECOMMENDED CONTENT

Africa Bitcoin Conference Livestream

Held from Dec. 9-11, 2024, in Nairobi, Kenya, the Africa Bitcoin Conference brought together human rights defenders, educators, and developers from across the continent to learn, collaborate, and innovate on freedom technologies. Supported by HRF, the event offered an inspiring mix of keynotes, workshops, panel discussions, and hackathons, all dedicated to advancing open-source solutions to fight authoritarianism and financial repression. This vibrant gathering highlighted innovative ideas and practical tools to empower communities worldwide. If you missed it, you can still catch the conversations and breakthroughs by watching the livestream here. Highlight talks include those from Farida Nabourema, Femi Longe, Jack Dorsey, and more.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

A response to Achim Warner's "Drivechain brings politics to miners" article

I mean this article: https://achimwarner.medium.com/thoughts-on-drivechain-i-miners-can-do-things-about-which-we-will-argue-whether-it-is-actually-a5c3c022dbd2

There are basically two claims here:

1. Some corporate interests might want to secure sidechains for themselves and thus they will bribe miners to have these activated

First, it's hard to imagine why they would want such a thing. Are they going to make a proprietary KYC chain only for their users? They could do that in a corporate way, or with a federation, like Facebook tried to do, and that would provide more value to their users than a cumbersome pseudo-decentralized system in which they don't even have powers to issue currency. Also, if Facebook couldn't get away with their federated shitcoin because the government was mad, what says the government won't be mad with a sidechain? And finally, why would Facebook want to give custody of their proprietary closed-garden Bitcoin-backed ecosystem coins to a random, open and always-changing set of miners?

But even if they do succeed in making their sidechain and it is very popular such that it pays miners fees and people love it. Well, then why not? Let them have it. It's not going to hurt anyone more than a proprietary shitcoin would anyway. If Facebook really wants a closed ecosystem backed by Bitcoin that probably means we are winning big.

2. Miners will be required to vote on the validity of debatable things

He cites the example of a PoS sidechain, an assassination market, a sidechain full of nazists, a sidechain deemed illegal by the US government and so on.

There is a simple solution to all of this: just kill these sidechains. Either miners can take the money from these to themselves, or they can just refuse to engage and freeze the coins there forever, or they can even give the coins to governments, if they want. It is an entirely good thing that evil sidechains or sidechains that use horrible technology that doesn't even let us know who owns each coin get annihilated. And it was the responsibility of people who put money in there to evaluate beforehand and know that PoS is not deterministic, for example.

About government censoring and wanting to steal money, or criminals using sidechains, I think the argument is very weak because these same things can happen today and may even be happening already: i.e., governments ordering mining pools to not mine such and such transactions from such and such people, or forcing them to reorg to steal money from criminals and whatnot. All this is expected to happen in normal Bitcoin. But both in normal Bitcoin and in Drivechain decentralization fixes that problem by making it so governments cannot catch all miners required to control the chain like that -- and in fact fixing that problem is the only reason we need decentralization.

@ 79008e78:dfac9395

อย่างที่ทราบกันอยู่แล้วว่า Nostr เป็นได้มากกว่า Note แล้วจะเป็นอย่างไรล่ะ ถ้า Note และลองฟอร์มต่าง ๆ ที่เราเคยเขียนกันมาสามารถกลายเป็นเว็บบอร์ดที่เราสามารถใช้เก็บผลงานและโชว์ให้กับคนอื่น ๆ ในโลกอินเตอร์เน็ตทั่วไปได้อีกด้วย

Npub.pro คืออะไร ?

Npub.pro เป็น Other stuff ตัวหนึ่งที่ช่วยแปลง note และ long form ต่าง ๆ ที่เราเคยได้ลงไว้ในโปรโตคอลของ Nostr และแปลงมันมาเป็นเว็บบอร์ดที่สวยสะอาดตา และมีธีมให้เลือกอีกหลากหลาย ซึ่งเหมาะสมมาก ๆ กับเหล่าครีเอเตอร์ต่าง ๆ สำหรับที่จะใช้มันในการโชว์ผลงาน ไม่ว่าจะเป็นสายถ่ายภาพ เก็บรวบรวมบทความ หรืออีกหลาย ๆ แง่มุมที่สามารถเกิดขึ้นได้

นี่เองคือหนึ่งในตัวอย่างที่ผมได้ทำไว้เพื่อแพร่กระจายบทความต่าง ๆ ให้ออกไปสู่ผู้คนที่อาจจะไม่ได้รู้จักหรือใช้งาน Nostr อยู่

แล้วมันทำงานอย่างไร ?

Npub.pro นั้นจะทำการดึง Notes และ Long form ของเรามาจาก relay ต่าง ๆ ที่เราได้มีการเชื่อมต่อไว้ในบัญชีของเรา และทำการนำมาจัดรูปแบบใหม่ตามธีมที่เราได้เลือกไว้ และแสดงผลออกมามาในรูปแบบเว็บบอร์ด นอกจากนี้ยังมีการใส่ตัว nostr log-in เข้ามาเพื่อช่วยให้คนที่มีบัญชี nostr สามารถใช้บัญชีของตนในการ zap หรือ คอมเม้นได้ รวมทั้งยังอณุญาตให้ผู้ใช้ใส่ script เพิ่มเติมลงไปทั้งในส่วนหัวและท้ายของเว็บบอร์ดได้อีกด้วย ดังเช่น

ทั้งหมดที่กล่าวมาข้างต้นเป็นประสบการณ์ส่วนตัวของผมเองที่ได้มีการทดลองใช้งานมาระยะหนึ่ง และในส่วนต่อไป เราจะมาดูกันถึงวิธีการสร้างว่าเราต้องทำอย่างไร จึงจะมีเว็บไซต์สวย ๆ แบบนี้ได้

วิธีการสร้าง

1. เข้าเว็บ Npub.pro

หลังจากเข้ามาในเว็บไซต์ให้เรากด "try now"

2. เลือกธีม

จากนั้นจะมีธีมต่าง ๆ ขึ้นมาให้คุณเลือก ในจุดนี้ผมแนะนำว่าให้เลือกให้เหมาะสมกับผลงานของคุณ (สามารถเปลี่ยนได้ภายหลัง)

3. ตั้งค่าส่วนอื่น ๆ

หลังจากเลือกเสร็จเรียบร้อยเราต้องทำการใส่ title bio และอื่น ๆ ให้เรียบร้อยจากนั้นให้ทำการกด publish

เพียงแค่นี้คุณก็จะมีเว็บบอร์ดเจ๋ง ๆ ที่จะคอยอัพเดตอัตโนมัติเพมื่อคุณได้โพสต์บางอย่างลงบน Nostr ;)

@ 3c7dc2c5:805642a8

🧠Quote(s) of the week:

“Bitcoin is a clock with a new concept of time – block height – synchronously marking depletion of the most valuable resource in the universe, our time.” - Ross Stevens

'The fact that billions of working men and women must sacrifice 40+ years of their time, energy, health, and focus to gain access to fiat currencies that central banks can replicate with a keystroke is injustice on the largest scale humanity has ever seen. It is theft. Bitcoin' - Bitcoin for Freedom

'Billions of people will watch the generational opportunity to own 1 whole Bitcoin slip through their fingers and never return. There will be less than 500,000 whole-coiners in the world, which will continue to drop, regardless of how many people wish they had one. This is wealth based on math.' Wealth Theory

🧡Bitcoin news🧡

Happy New Year fam!🧡 Here's to a year filled with love, health, and wonderful Bitcoin moments.

Now before I am going to start with the Weekly Recap I want to share what is happening with MiCA / Travel Rule in the EU. The EU is back with more attacks on our freedom. Their 2025 MiCA and TravelRule regulations are just another step to control and surveil our financial lives. This is a good thread on what’s happening with MiCA in the EU. To make it even more specific, a thread worth your time especially if you're in Europe. x.com/ferenckovacs/status/1873278442600325235

To sum it up. The EU is cracking down on freedom while America is on the verge of an unprecedented pro-Bitcoin administration. The EU is going to be left behind again (!) because of a lack of Bitcoin education. That's why I am writing my Weekly Recaps and created this account (Bitcoin Friday). Change the world through Bitcoin education.

On the 24th of December: ➡️Michael Saylor is not fucking around. MicroStrategy just said that they want to raise the authorized share count by 10 BILLION. They currently have 330 million shares outstanding, meaning this could increase the share count by 3,000%. Microstrategy now owns 444.000 Bitcoin. That is as much as China, the US, and the UK combined. Madness! Key proposals include: 1. Increasing authorized Class A shares from 330 million to 10.33 billion to support future capital raising. 2. Increasing authorized preferred shares from 5 million to 1.005 billion to expand financing options. 3. Amending the 2023 Equity Incentive Plan to provide automatic equity awards for new directors joining the Board.

➡️While others are selling, BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF bought $32 million in BTC yesterday.

➡️The value of Metaplanet’s Bitcoin treasury is now 12x larger than the market cap of the entire company in April. Metaplanet is using Saylor's playbook. All 1,761.99 of Metaplanet’s BTC are verifiable on the chain.

➡️The Bank of Italy identifies Bitcoin P2P services as "crime-as-a-service", due to their alleged use in money laundering operations. Ma figura di merda! Don't let them frame regular Bitcoin usage as criminal. You have a right to freedom of transaction, privacy, and self-custody. Oh on a side note. They should be banning the "crime-as-a-service" Euro then - which constitutes 98.5% of illicit money laundering compared to Bitcoin, cazzos!

➡️Less than 1.2 million Bitcoin left to mine! Tick-tock, next block! (foto)

➡️Publicly traded Matador Technologies Inc. approves to purchase of $4.5 million Bitcoin as a strategic reserve asset.

➡️South African parliament member Mzwanele Manyi said "Bitcoin is coming in full force. It will devalue gold. It's unstoppable."

On the 25th of December: ➡️Russia is using BITCOIN in foreign trade, says finance minister - Reuters Finance Minister: "Such transactions are already occurring. We believe they should be expanded and developed further. I am confident this will happen next year". From last week: "Russia lawmakers were this week revealed to be pushing the country to create a Bitcoin strategic reserve... Vladimir Putin praised bitcoin as an alternative to FX reserves following the seizure of its funds by Western governments." I guess banning them from SWIFT wasn’t the greatest idea after all.

➡️Jameson Lopp: "If you have a lot of bitcoin you should leave it with a custodian." 'Meanwhile, custodian losses in 2024: Rain: $15M Indodax: $22M Lykke: $22M BingX: $45M BitForex: $56M BtcTurk: $90M WazirX: $230M DMM Bitcoin: $305M' Source: hacked.slowmist.io/?c=Exchange

➡️Multiple U.S. states considering Strategic Bitcoin Reserves - CNBC

El Salvador is just 2.23 BTC away from holding 6000 bitcoin in its Strategic ReserveLike a boss, El Salvador continued adding one BTC per day to our Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. And we are still so early ...

➡️Malaysia’s largest bank says when the US establishes Bitcoin Reserves, other countries will follow with increasing demand.

On the 26th of December: ➡️Thailand has backed a pilot scheme proposed by former premier Thaksin Shinawatra to introduce Bitcoin payments at a tourist center in Phuket, Thailand.

➡️Japan's Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba expresses uncertainty about implementing a Bitcoin strategic reserve, citing a lack of information on the US and other countries' plans.

➡️Another public company launches a Bitcoin treasury allocating 90% of their cash. Public company KULR buys 217.18 Bitcoin for $21 million for its Bitcoin Treasury strategy.

➡️Bitcoin mining (from otherwise wasted hydropower) is now 18% of all Ethiopian Electric Power’s revenue. The country has turned excess hydroelectric power into a profitable asset by powering Bitcoin mining operations, earning $1B in revenue last year. The move is drawing global investors who benefit from the country's low energy costs, and it's an example of how sustainable energy can drive economic growth across Africa. Source: www.crypto-news-flash.com/ethiopias-dam-powers-18-revenue-through-bitcoin-mining

On the 27th of December

➡️Daniel Batten: 'In addition to 13 peer-reviewed academic papers, there are now 8 sustainability magazines covering the fast-growing story of how Bitcoin is supporting sustainable energy development and climate action. They are: x.com/DSBatten/status/1872475284319949035 Great thread and articles/papers! Must read.

➡️Bitcoin is being quietly acquired by whales through private transactions, per CryptoQuant. The number of CoinJoin transactions has tripled over two years, with many attributing the surge to legitimate investment.

➡️Over 60 public companies now hold Bitcoin as a treasury reserve asset. (foto) '14,400 BTC taken off exchanges today. This will keep happening until the liquid supply is gone. When that happens you better be done stacking.' - Bitcoin For Freedom.

➡️$5 billion Bitwise files for Bitcoin Standard Corporations ETF.

➡️IRS rules demand brokers report digital asset transactions, including decentralized exchanges from 2027.

On the 28th of December: ➡️ProShares files for ETFs tracking the S&P 500, Nasdaq-100, and gold—denominated in Bitcoin. These ETFs take long positions in stocks or gold while using Bitcoin futures to short USD and go long on BTC, making them essentially Bitcoin-hedged ETFs. Nate Geraci: 'ETF filings last 48hrs… -Strive Btc Bond ETF -Bitwise Btc Standard Corporations ETF -REX Btc Corporate Treasury Convertible Bond ETF -ProShares Btc hedged ETFs on S&P 500, Nasdaq-100, & gold 2025 is gonna be wild' This is de facto how BTC is going to scale to a billion users.

On the 29th of December: ➡️Bitcoin vs. Gold ETFs in 2024: •Bitcoin: $36.8 billion in net flows •Gold: $454 million in net flows Bitcoin is demonetizing gold in real-time. (foto)

On the 30th of December: ➡️This year's investor letter from Stone Ridge did not disappoint. One of the best investor newsletters I've read in a long time. www.nydig.com/research/stone-ridge-2024-investor-letter This year's investor letter from Stone Ridge did not disappoint. One of the best investor newsletters I've read in a long time. (foto) 'NYDIG is about to unlock one of the largest investable pools of capital in the entire financial system—insurance float—and channel it into Bitcoin-backed loans. This is a big deal. More efficient lending → lower loan costs → less BTC sold → increased scarcity → higher demand and price → stronger institutional interest → accelerated Bitcoin adoption.' - Sam Callahan ➡️Tether buys 7,629 Bitcoin worth $705 million for its reserves and now owns $7.7 billion in Bitcoin.

➡️'According to Luke Dash Jr's estimates of unreachable / non-listening node counts, the total number of Bitcoin nodes rose 49% from 65,000 to 96,852 during 2024.' - Jameson Lopp The number of publicly reachable computers running Bitcoin blockchain software increased by 19% this year. This is very important! Noderunners!

➡️MicroStrategy has acquired 2,138 BTC for ~$209 million at ~$97,837 per bitcoin and has achieved a BTC Yield of 47.8% QTD and 74.1% YTD. As of 12/29/2024, they hodl 446,400 Bitcoin acquired for ~$27.9 billion at ~$62,428 per Bitcoin.

On the 31st of December: ➡️A Swiss initiative to include Bitcoin in the constitution has advanced to the review stage in the Feuille fédérale, the official publication for legislative texts and government decisions.

➡️New record bitcoin network computing hashrate: 800,000,000,000,000,000,000x per second.

➡️Bitcoin miners earned $15B in revenue in 2024. This assumes they instantly sell for fiat, which is not the case - miners tend to be HODLers.

➡️Bitcoin Returns since 2010... (foto) "Only" +120% this year, 5x the returns of the S&P 500.

➡️Bhutan now likely holds more Bitcoin per capita than any other country on Earth.

➡️$1.5 trillion Franklin Templeton says "We expect to see strategic Bitcoin reserves added by several nations" in 2025.

💸Traditional Finance / Macro:

On the 26th of December: 👉🏽'The US stock market is becoming even more concentrated: The top 10 stocks now reflect a record 40% of the S&P 500's market cap. This percentage now exceeds the 2000 Dot-Com bubble levels by ~14 percentage points. In 2024, these stocks have added over $7 TRILLION in market cap and are now worth a record $20.9 trillion. To put this into perspective, the entire European stock market is worth ~$16 trillion, or $4.9 trillion LESS. The market's rally is not broadening.' -TKL

🏦Banks: 👉 no news

🌎Macro/Geopolitics:

On the 24th of December: 👉🏽'US existing home sales are set to close at 4.04 million in 2024, marking the worst year since 1995. Sales are set to be even lower than during the 2008 Financial Crisis. The lack of demand for existing homes comes as home prices have jumped over 50% since 2020. Over the same period, mortgage rates have nearly TRIPLED, making affordability even worse. The average rate on a 30-year mortgage is up 100 basis points since September alone, to 7.1%, despite the Fed cutting rates by 100 basis points. The US housing market is frozen.' -TKL

On the 25th of December: 👉🏽Javier Milei announces a structural tax reform that will eliminate 90% of taxes in Argentina.

👉🏽 China withdrew $158 billion from its financial system through its MLF tool (Medium-Term lending facility), the largest liquidity removal in a decade.

On the 26th of December: 👉🏽“Brussels started a department to look for €60M in savings. Its operational costs so far are €30M.” The most EU thing I've ever seen. The worst part? The government can only grow in its current form, which means it will only become bigger and more expensive. Inefficiency in government. A lot of inefficiency, with more and more regulations and no contributing productivity. Welcome to how Western governments function.

Remember the report from Oxfam International two months ago? "Up to $41 billion in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for.". Remember how the Pentagon fails 7th audit in a row, unable to fully account for the $ 842B budget.

But hey, Bitcoin is just made-up money, right?

👉🏽'The 10-year note yield is now up 100 basis points since the "Fed pivot" began in September. In other words, while the Fed has CUT rates by 100 bps, rates in the market have RISEN by 100 bps.' -TKL “As a result, the average interest rate on a 30-year mortgage in the United States is now at 7.10%. To put this into perspective, just 3 months ago the average rate bottomed at 6.15%. Buying the median-priced home at $420,400 now costs an average of ~$400 more PER MONTH.” The disconnect between the Fed and what's going on in the bond market is ridiculous. Never in the last 40 years has the 10-year Treasury risen more quickly after the Fed started a rate-cutting cycle. The housing market pays the price (read the first point in this segment)

👉🏽New Chinese $137B river dam project in Tibet, 3x the size of Three Gorges for 300 million people. $137B honestly sounds like a small amount after hearing how much the US spends on foreign wars. They've given Ukraine $183B to date. One war in Ukraine or one dam that generates enough electricity to power your entire country? The environmental destruction will be irreversible and will affect the entire planet. The Chinese see our planet as a commodity and a resource that needs to be exploited. Arnaud Bertrand: 'China just approved yet another project of an unfathomable scale: a mega-dam that will generate 3 times more power than the Three Gorges, enough to meet the annual needs of over 300m people, the equivalent of the entire US population. scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3292267/china-approves-tibet-mega-dam-could-generate-3-times-more-power-three-gorges… The project will cost an insane 1 trillion yuan (US$137 billion) to build and will be located on the Yarlung Tsangpo River in Tibet autonomous region, which carves out the deepest canyon on Earth.'

On the 29th of December: 👉🏽'Germany, France, and Italy, the three largest economies in Europe have been stagnating for years. Grotesque overregulation, lack of innovation, and left redistribution mindset replacing hard work & entrepreneurial spirit have their price. What needs to happen for Europe to grow again?' -Michael A. Arouet The EU is destroying the European economy. 'Sixteen years ago, the US and EU economies were nearly equal in size. Today, the US economy is 50% larger than the EU. Europe is being strangled by the EU and its Commission President von der Leyen's red tape.'- Steve Hanke (foto)

On the 31st of December: 👉🏽'Global corporate debt issuance jumped ~34% year-over-year to a record $7.9 trillion in 2024. Global corporate debt sales have DOUBLED over the last 12 years. Issuances have now surpassed the previous record of $7.2 trillion in 2021. This comes as historically low corporate bond spreads have fueled massive issuance activity. Furthermore, the average US investment-grade bond spread has fallen to just 0.77 percentage points in early December. This market the tightest spread since the late 1990s, according to Ice BofA data.' -TKL The only thing I am wondering is who is buying corporate debt when you can get 5% in a money market? Or just buy Bitcoin😉

👉🏽Total US debt is up 30%, or $8.5 trillion since Biden's inauguration, to $36.2 trillion.

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

Some fountain of Jeff Booth's wisdom: Repricing the World in Bitcoin

Credit: I have used multiple sources!

My savings account: Bitcoin The tool I recommend for setting up a Bitcoin savings plan: PocketBitcoin especially suited for beginners or people who want to invest in Bitcoin with an automated investment plan once a week or monthly. Use the code BITCOINFRIDAY

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 sats.

▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃

⭐ Many thanks⭐

Felipe -Bitcoin Friday!

▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃

@ 3c7dc2c5:805642a8

🧠Quote(s) of the week:

Bitcoin is freedom of speech in the language of money.

'The five stages of a No-Coiner:

1. Denial (most people are here)

2. Anger (Peter Schiff)

3. Bargaining (Shitcoiners)

4. Depression (Rekt shit-coiners)

5. Acceptance (Bitcoiner)' - Bitcoin for Freedom

🧡Bitcoin news🧡

On the 31st of December:

➡️Impressive growth for Unchained in securing Bitcoin for clients. $9.5 billion financial services company Unchained helped its clients secure over 100,000 Bitcoin in 2024.

➡️'ETH/BTC is down 30% this year—the "world computer" needs a new narrative quickly, otherwise, it's going to fall another 100%.' -Joe Consorti

➡️'Since the beginning of Q4, treasury operations delivered a BTC Yield of 47.8%, a net benefit of 120,600 BTC to our shareholders. At $96K per BTC, that equates to $11.6 billion for the quarter.' - Michael Saylor

On the 1st of January:

➡️BlackRock's Spot Bitcoin ETF now holds over 2% of all the Bitcoin that will ever exist.

➡️MicroStrategy is now down 47% since hitting an all-time high 6 weeks ago.

➡️'$793M worth of Bitcoin was transferred from MicroStrategy-linked Coinbase Prime Custody addresses to unknown wallets, according to Arkham Intelligence.' -Bitcoin News

➡️We start the year with a new low on Bitcoin on exchanges, and 30k Bitcoin withdrew in the last 24 hours.

➡️Daniel Batten: 'Little known fact: The World's largest Sovereign Fund (Government Pension Fund Global, Norway) already has significant Bitcoin exposure. The fund has invested $217 million in MicroStrategy, tripling its allocation between Aug 2023 and Aug 2024. Expect more of this in 2025.'

➡️New research paper published:

https://www.cetjournal.it/cet/24/114/061.pdf

TL;DR: Pairing Bitcoin mining and Green Hydrogen can: accelerate the build-out of solar and wind capacity boost capacity for negative emission technologies, capturing >7.4 t CO2e per Bitcoin

➡️Globalt Investments senior portfolio manager Thomas Martin reveals that the company currently has 10% of its portfolio in gold and that it could increase its holdings in Bitcoin, but probably below 5%.

➡️Hong Kong-listed company Yuxing buys 78.2 Bitcoin for $6.3 million.

➡️2024 is in the books, and the results are clear:

Bitcoin topped the charts again, outperforming every major asset class for the year. Investment returns last year:

Bitcoin: +121%

Gold: +27%

NASDAQ: +26%

S&P 500: +25%

Dow Jones: +13%

Emerging Markets: +6%

Cash: +5%

Real Estate: +5%

Commodities: +2%

Oil: +1%

US Bonds: +1%

Again Bitcoin is at the top. There is no second best.

By simply buying and holding Bitcoin, you outperformed 99.99% of all financial institutions on planet Earth in 2024, without hidden fees and bullshit.

On the 2nd of January:

➡️Billionaire investor Ray Dalio recommends Bitcoin as 'hard money' amid national debt increases, per the Block.

Recently I have seen a Ray Dalio interview. He owns Bitcoin, but he still doesn't understand some basic concepts. Oh well, Gradually then suddenly. Ray Dalio: "I want to steer away from debt assets like bonds and debt, and have some hard money like gold and Bitcoin."

➡️FORBES: Bitcoin mining in Africa “has shown to provide the much-needed revenue to boost electricity infrastructure development, create jobs, sustainably electrify rural communities, and catalyze green energy production.”

➡️The Oxford English Dictionary added the word "satoshi'.

➡️Fold announces up to $30M in convertible note financing, backed by Bitcoin, to fuel growth and fast-track product development.

On the 3rd of January:

➡️On this day 16 years ago Bitcoin went online! Happy Bitcoin Genesis Block Day! This block is unspendable. Satoshi also waited 6 days before mining block #2 so others had time to join the network.

Now that Bitcoin has existed for 16 years! Lindy effect says that Bitcoin would at least exist for another 16 years.

January 3, 2009. Satoshi undermines block 0 on a difficulty 1 CPU and incorporates into the Genesis Block hexadecimal code base the headline of that day’s Times “The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on the brink of second bailout for banks”. The bank bailout plan ‘cause of the subprime mortgage crisis in the GFC.

Since that day, the network has grown dramatically. Now, millions of people all over earth use Bitcoin. And while it’s great to hear that other countries like El Salvador, Bhutan, and others are embracing Bitcoin, I can’t help but wish my own country 🇳🇱 was embracing Bitcoin too.

Tick tick, next block without fail, Bitcoin continues to provide us with the most significant tool for freedom of speech and monetary sovereignty in the digital age!

Bitcoin is about financial inclusion and economic empowerment.🎯

Bitcoin is secured by the most powerful computing network in the world!🧡

Which leads me to the following.

➡️Just like with other emerging tech, perspectives evolve. Fascinating to see that finally, the vast majority of academic papers are recognizing the benefits of Bitcoin Mining.

Daniel Batten: "87.5% of contemporary peer-reviewed literature on Bitcoin and energy highlight Bitcoin mining having significant, scaleable environmental benefits This shift in scientific consensus follows the same trend as that of other nascent technologies, where first-generation research is superseded by more nuanced work based on better understanding, more case studies, and improved data."

Here you can find the list of those 14 of the last 16 peer review academic papers: https://x.com/DSBatten/status/1874858383523618887

➡️Another one, a scientific paper suggests that Bitcoin could function as a safe haven in relation to geopolitical risk in times of market crashes.

"We find that Bitcoin and the Swiss Franc function as safe havens in relation to geopolitical risk in times of market crashes while Gold and Treasury bonds do not. [...] the protective aspects [...] mainly show through large stock market moves."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1544612324015721#:~:text=Using%20S%26P%20500%20and%20GPR,and%20Treasury%20bonds%20do%20not

➡️Eric Balchunas: "IBIT with its biggest outflow day ever yesterday with $332m, about 0.7% of the total aum. It's so over.."

We had a good run everyone. haha

➡️If you were hoping to see evidence for how simple it can be to do Bitcoin right… here you go. Just buy and hold. Believe me, please read the post/thread:

https://x.com/sminston_with/status/1874978781200588838

➡️Bitcoin's network hashrate increased by 56% in 2024, from 512 to 800 exahash per second.

➡️ Chinese auto-trading platform Cango Inc. now holds 933.8 Bitcoin. The company increased Bitcoin mining production by 56% in December, producing 569.9 BTC.

➡️'Bitcoin's UTXO set grew from 153.4M to 186.4M during 2024, adding 1 net additional UTXO per second.' - Jameson Lopp

On the 4th of January:

➡️'Unredacted FDIC documents reveal coordinated efforts to restrict Bitcoin activities under Operation Chokepoint 2.0, exposing systemic discrimination against the industry.' TFTC

Ridiculous actions were taken with intent over the last few years. We all knew it. I am not surprised at all.

➡️The Bitcoin network finalized more than $19 trillion worth of BTC transactions in 2024. More than double the $8.7 trillion settled over the network in 2023 - reversing two years of declining transaction volume since 2021. Decisively proving that Bitcoin is both a store of value and a medium of exchange.

On the 5th of January:

➡️The largest Bitcoin mine in the world is nearing completion. Riot Blockchain’s new facility is under construction in Corsicana Texas, which, once fully developed, will be powered by 1 gigawatt in total mining capacity.

➡️Ffs nothing learned from 2022, ahumm FTX ahuhmm Celcius.

'One of the largest publicly traded Bitcoin mining firms in the U.S., MARA, has lent 7,377 BTC to third parties to generate yield, representing approximately 16% of its total reserves. These loans are “short-term arrangements with well-established third parties.” The long-term objective is to generate sufficient yield to offset operating expenses.'

Surely nobody has even gotten caught offsides rehypothecating their Bitcoin, right? Right!?!?!?

➡️Metaplanet is aiming to expand its Bitcoin holdings more than fivefold to 10,000 Bitcoin in 2025, says CEO Simon Gerovich.

💸Traditional Finance / Macro:

On the 31st of December:

👉🏽Over $7.11 trillion was added to the US stock market in 2024.

👉🏽'The last time the top 10 stocks accounted for this much of the S&P 500, was just before the Great Depression in 1929…' - Geiger Capital The top 10 stocks in the S&P 500 are now almost 800 TIMES larger than the 75th percentile stock.

Not even the Great Depression in the 1930s saw market concentration this high. It's now 50% MORE concentrated than in 2001.

Yeah, it is bad (please watch the video as mentioned in last week's Weekly Recap - Luke Gromen & Preston Pysh). For now, the Fed especially Trump won't let a depression happen.

On the 2nd of January:

👉🏽The US Bond Market has now been in a drawdown for 53 months, by far the longest in history.

🏦Banks:

👉🏽'no news

🌎Macro/Geopolitics:

On the 1st of January:

👉🏽Germany, the economic powerhouse of Europe, is now on the brink of a collapse. Energy shortages. Aging workers. A stagnating economy. What happened to Europe’s strongest economy—and what does it mean for the EU’s future?

(foto)

I have mentioned it multiple times here in the Weekly Recaps. Given its policy instability and lack of innovation support, Germany's decline is no surprise. I wouldn't call it a collapse though. What will be next? The AfD likely will win the upcoming elections. Will that help to rejuvenate their economy, I don't think so. But if they (current and past administrations) keep pushing the same tired policies expect more support for real change like the AfD. Don't get me wrong. Economic despair fuels AfD’s surge, while democracy’s legitimacy falters.

This isn’t just about one nation, it’s a global wake-up call.

👉🏽'U.S. Dollar is now the most overvalued in history according to Bank of America.' - Barchart

👉🏽Lagarde says the European Central Bank has a “big, heavy agenda for 2025” of bringing inflation down to 2% and continuing progress toward a CBDC. Full video aka.

The new Bitcoin marketing ad: https://x.com/Lagarde/status/1874380049442320773

Pardon my English, but these people are unelected psychopaths. Lagarde is almost 70 years old. Should monetary policy be set by people who don't understand the current & future economic trends that will rule society?

Digital Euro means slavery. Study the meaning of money to boycott with an alternative, Bitcoin! The honey badgers are on the move.

Oh and regarding that mysterious 2% inflation figure. Let's say you save $200 a month for 30 years in a savings account. Your total contributions over 30 years would be $72,000.

Here's how much buying power you would have left, if inflation was:

2%: $39,275

3%: $28 872

4%: $21,157

5%: $15,453

There is no reason we should have 2% inflation. Let alone the 4-8% inflation we had the last couple of years.

On the 2nd of January:

👉🏽We in Europe really fucked up. 'Europe has gone from relying entirely on cheap Russian gas to relying entirely on expensive US LNG' - Zero Hedge

They closed their nuclear reactors for this. Get woke, go broke. Oh, by the way, the Nordstream 2 pipeline incident has a clear winner, and it's not Ukraine or Russia.

👉🏽The EURO tumbles to the lowest level since 2022 amid ongoing concerns about Europe’s economy.

👉🏽

Dr. Jan Wüstenfeld: "Meanwhile, Bitcoin's supply growth rate is at 0.8%, and in 172,536 blocks, the newly issued Bitcoin per day will halve again, then halve again after another 210,000 blocks, and again and again. Choose wisely.

👉🏽Reserves at the Fed sink below $3 Trillion to the lowest since 2020. The Fed will end QT in March or April give or take a month. Especially with RRP running dry. Banking liquidity is getting too tight

👉🏽The Chinese Property Market has seen a total loss of $18 Trillion over the past 3 years, surpassing the losses suffered by the U.S. during the Global Financial Crisis.

👉🏽'The US deficit as a percentage of GDP is projected to average 6.3% over the next 10 years.

This comes after the deficit reached 6.7% in 2024, the largest since 2021. Such elevated deficits have never happened outside of wars and significant economic crises.

Furthermore, the deficit is estimated to hit 7.1% of GDP in 2025, the 3rd highest among the world's major economies, only behind India and China. Meanwhile, the budget gap for the first 2 months of the Fiscal Year 2025 reached $624 BILLION, the largest on record. The US is on unsustainable fiscal path.' -TKL

On the 5th of January:

👉🏽'The US National Debt increased by $2.2 trillion in 2024, following increases of $2.6 trillion in 2023, $1.8 trillion in 2022, $1.9 trillion in 2021, and $4.5 trillion in 2020. How much will the National Debt increase in 2025?' - Charlie Bilello

On the 6th of January:

👉🏽Hedge Fund Manager Steve Diggle, who made $3 Billion during the Global Financial Crisis, has returned and compares the current market to what we saw from 2005-2007

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

What Bitcoin Did:

2024: BITCOIN IN REVIEW with HODL & ODELL

https://youtu.be/-tijL0iD5GI?si=Q7Xsy-mRg4UqxKe3

Good one!

Credit: I have used multiple sources!

My savings account: Bitcoin The tool I recommend for setting up a Bitcoin savings plan: PocketBitcoin especially suited for beginners or people who want to invest in Bitcoin with an automated investment plan once a week or monthly. Use the code BITCOINFRIDAY

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 sats.

▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃

⭐ Many thanks⭐

Felipe -Bitcoin Friday!

▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

neuron.vim

I started using this neuron thing to create an update this same zettelkasten, but the existing vim plugin had too many problems, so I forked it and ended up changing almost everything.

Since the upstream repository was somewhat abandoned, most users and people who were trying to contribute upstream migrate to my fork too.

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/neuron.vim

@ 1cb14ab3:95d52462

Event Recap

For the Official Stooki Sound Afterparty in Boulder, CO, I took the unconventional venue of a kitchen on The Hill and transformed it into an immersive environment for Toybox and Tesfa’s performances. The space was custom-mapped with projections that interacted seamlessly with the surroundings, turning the kitchen into a dynamic, visual landscape. I added retrofitted props to deepen the visual experience, giving the projections a multi-dimensional quality. This innovative approach created a unique atmosphere, enhancing the performance while blurring the lines between physical space and digital art.

---

Event Photos

---

Recap Video

nostr:naddr1qqrj6wpkx3u8qscpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsygquk99txdv8dly7lsmasw969p70zlj6mnxtyzlk6j0em2tft4fyvgpsgqqqskas47n36f

---

Other Immersive Experiences by Hes

Light Pollution [2015]

---

More from Hes

Art

Store

Travel Guides

Photography

Writings

---

All images are credit of Hes, but you are free to download and use for any purpose. If you find joy from my art, please feel free to send a zap. Enjoy life on a Bitcoin standard.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Zvanični vebsajt knjige

Srpski prevod knjige "The Little Bitcoin Book"

...

---

Zašto je Bitkoin bitan za vašu slobodu, finansije i budućnost?

Verovatno ste čuli za Bitkoin u vestima ili da o njemu raspravljaju vaši prijatelji ili kolege. Kako to da se cena stalno menja? Da li je Bitkoin dobra investicija? Kako to uopšte ima vrednost? Zašto ljudi stalno govore o tome kao da će promeniti svet?

"Mala knjiga o Bitkoinu" govori o tome šta nije u redu sa današnjim novcem i zašto je Bitkoin izmišljen da obezbedi alternativu trenutnom sistemu. Jednostavnim rečima opisuje šta je Bitkoin, kako funkcioniše, zašto je vredan i kako utiče na individualnu slobodu i mogućnosti ljudi svuda - od Nigerije preko Filipina do Venecuele do Sjedinjenih Država. Ova knjiga takođe uključuje odeljak "Pitanja i odgovori" sa nekim od najčešće postavljanih pitanja o Bitkoinu.

Ako želite da saznate više o ovom novom obliku novca koji i dalje izaziva interesovanje i usvajanje širom sveta, onda je ova knjiga za vas.

@ dd664d5e:5633d319

Hodling Bitcoin does not make you a capitalist

I've noticed that Bitcoin-mindedness seems to lead some people to communistic thinking because it's a hard-limited form of capital. Marx, like most Bitcoiners, heavily discounted the possibility of economic growth or transformation changing the economy enough to undermine some minority's control of some form of capital.

What few today understand, is that many of the Dirty Capitalists of Marx's era actually agreed with him; they were just disdainful of labor and worried that the workers finding out that Marxism is correct about the nature of capitalism would cause unrest. They were the original HFSP crowd.

This was the basic idea, that Marx had, and that many Bitcoiners would agree with:

Capital is strictly limited and the people that control it can keep labor from attaining any, except when their labor is necessary.

And, as we know, automation will make human labor increasingly unnecessary.

The math doesn't check out

That underlies all of the calculations of "Well, if I just grab this Bitcoin wallet and hodl for twenty years, then it will grow in value to equal half of everything in existence and then I can just buy up half the planet and rule over everyone like a god."

This is economic nonsense because it assumes that: 1) the value of all things remains static over time, 2) purchasing something with money gives you ownership of it, 3) people will always use that specific money (or any money, at all!) for all transactions, 4) there is no such thing as opportunity cost, 5) people will always value money more than any other thing, and therefore be willing to always trade it for anything else, 6) humans are passive, defenseless, and easy to rule over, 7) someone who is preoccupied with hodling an asset steadily and sharply rising in price would ever be emotionally ready to part with it.

All monies can die.

People use money for everything because it is easy, fast and cheap. If money becomes too precious or scarce, they will simply switch to using other things (as we saw with gold). Humans replace tools that aren't working well, with those that work better, and money is just another tool. Bitcoin is more divisible than gold, but that won't matter, if enough of it is held by too few.

This is why there's a natural cap on the price of a money and why human productivity in the here and now is not irrelevant or in vain.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Flowi.es

At the time I thought Workflowy had the ideal UI for everything. I wanted to implement my custom app maker on it, but ended up doing this: a platform for enhancing Workflowy with extra features:

• An email reminder based on dates input in items
• A website generator, similar to Websites For Trello, also based on Classless Templates

Also, I didn't remember this was also based on CouchDB and had some couchapp functionalities.

• https://flowi.es
• https://github.com/fiatjaf/flowies

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Module Linker

A browser extension that reads source code on GitHub and tries to find links to imported dependencies so you can click on them and navigate through either GitHub or package repositories or base language documentation. Works for many languages at different levels of completeness.

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/module-linker
• https://module-linker.alhur.es/
• https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/module-linker
• https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/dglofghjinifeolcpjfjmfdnnbaanggn

@ fe32298e:20516265

Today I learned how to install NVapi to monitor my GPUs in Home Assistant.

NVApi is a lightweight API designed for monitoring NVIDIA GPU utilization and enabling automated power management. It provides real-time GPU metrics, supports integration with tools like Home Assistant, and offers flexible power management and PCIe link speed management based on workload and thermal conditions.

• GPU Utilization Monitoring: Utilization, memory usage, temperature, fan speed, and power consumption.
• Automated Power Limiting: Adjusts power limits dynamically based on temperature thresholds and total power caps, configurable per GPU or globally.
• Cross-GPU Coordination: Total power budget applies across multiple GPUs in the same system.
• PCIe Link Speed Management: Controls minimum and maximum PCIe link speeds with idle thresholds for power optimization.
• Home Assistant Integration: Uses the built-in RESTful platform and template sensors.

Getting the Data

sudo apt install golang-go git clone https://github.com/sammcj/NVApi.git cd NVapi go run main.go -port 9999 -rate 1 curl http://localhost:9999/gpu

Response for a single GPU: [ { "index": 0, "name": "NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090", "gpu_utilisation": 0, "memory_utilisation": 0, "power_watts": 16, "power_limit_watts": 450, "memory_total_gb": 23.99, "memory_used_gb": 0.46, "memory_free_gb": 23.52, "memory_usage_percent": 2, "temperature": 38, "processes": [], "pcie_link_state": "not managed" } ]

Response for multiple GPUs: [ { "index": 0, "name": "NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090", "gpu_utilisation": 0, "memory_utilisation": 0, "power_watts": 14, "power_limit_watts": 350, "memory_total_gb": 24, "memory_used_gb": 0.43, "memory_free_gb": 23.57, "memory_usage_percent": 2, "temperature": 36, "processes": [], "pcie_link_state": "not managed" }, { "index": 1, "name": "NVIDIA RTX A4000", "gpu_utilisation": 0, "memory_utilisation": 0, "power_watts": 10, "power_limit_watts": 140, "memory_total_gb": 15.99, "memory_used_gb": 0.56, "memory_free_gb": 15.43, "memory_usage_percent": 3, "temperature": 41, "processes": [], "pcie_link_state": "not managed" } ]

Start at Boot

Create /etc/systemd/system/nvapi.service:

``` [Unit] Description=Run NVapi After=network.target

[Service] Type=simple Environment="GOPATH=/home/ansible/go" WorkingDirectory=/home/ansible/NVapi ExecStart=/usr/bin/go run main.go -port 9999 -rate 1 Restart=always User=ansible

Environment="GPU_TEMP_CHECK_INTERVAL=5"

Environment="GPU_TOTAL_POWER_CAP=400"

Environment="GPU_0_LOW_TEMP=40"

Environment="GPU_0_MEDIUM_TEMP=70"

Environment="GPU_0_LOW_TEMP_LIMIT=135"

Environment="GPU_0_MEDIUM_TEMP_LIMIT=120"

Environment="GPU_0_HIGH_TEMP_LIMIT=100"

Environment="GPU_1_LOW_TEMP=45"

Environment="GPU_1_MEDIUM_TEMP=75"

Environment="GPU_1_LOW_TEMP_LIMIT=140"

Environment="GPU_1_MEDIUM_TEMP_LIMIT=125"

Environment="GPU_1_HIGH_TEMP_LIMIT=110"

[Install] WantedBy=multi-user.target ```

Home Assistant

Add to Home Assistant configuration.yaml and restart HA (completely).

For a single GPU, this works: ``` sensor: - platform: rest name: MYPC GPU Information resource: http://mypc:9999 method: GET headers: Content-Type: application/json value_template: "{{ value_json[0].index }}" json_attributes: - name - gpu_utilisation - memory_utilisation - power_watts - power_limit_watts - memory_total_gb - memory_used_gb - memory_free_gb - memory_usage_percent - temperature scan_interval: 1 # seconds

• platform: template sensors: mypc_gpu_0_gpu: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} GPU" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'gpu_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_0_memory: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} Memory" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'memory_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_0_power: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} Power" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'power_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_0_power_limit: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} Power Limit" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'power_limit_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_0_temperature: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} Temperature" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'temperature') }}" unit_of_measurement: "°C" ```

For multiple GPUs: ``` rest: scan_interval: 1 resource: http://mypc:9999 sensor: - name: "MYPC GPU0 Information" value_template: "{{ value_json[0].index }}" json_attributes_path: "$.0" json_attributes: - name - gpu_utilisation - memory_utilisation - power_watts - power_limit_watts - memory_total_gb - memory_used_gb - memory_free_gb - memory_usage_percent - temperature - name: "MYPC GPU1 Information" value_template: "{{ value_json[1].index }}" json_attributes_path: "$.1" json_attributes: - name - gpu_utilisation - memory_utilisation - power_watts - power_limit_watts - memory_total_gb - memory_used_gb - memory_free_gb - memory_usage_percent - temperature

• platform: template sensors: mypc_gpu_0_gpu: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 GPU" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'gpu_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_0_memory: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 Memory" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'memory_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_0_power: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 Power" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'power_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_0_power_limit: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 Power Limit" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'power_limit_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_0_temperature: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 Temperature" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'temperature') }}" unit_of_measurement: "C"

• platform: template sensors: mypc_gpu_1_gpu: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 GPU" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'gpu_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_1_memory: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 Memory" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'memory_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_1_power: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 Power" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'power_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_1_power_limit: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 Power Limit" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'power_limit_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_1_temperature: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 Temperature" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'temperature') }}" unit_of_measurement: "C"

```

Basic entity card: type: entities entities: - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_gpu secondary_info: last-updated - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_memory secondary_info: last-updated - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_power secondary_info: last-updated - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_power_limit secondary_info: last-updated - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_temperature secondary_info: last-updated

Ansible Role

```

• name: install go become: true package: name: golang-go state: present

• name: git clone git: repo: "https://github.com/sammcj/NVApi.git" dest: "/home/ansible/NVapi" update: yes force: true

go run main.go -port 9999 -rate 1

• name: install systemd service become: true copy: src: nvapi.service dest: /etc/systemd/system/nvapi.service

• name: Reload systemd daemons, enable, and restart nvapi become: true systemd: name: nvapi daemon_reload: yes enabled: yes state: restarted ```

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Using Spacechains and Fedimint to solve scaling

What if instead of trying to create complicated "layer 2" setups involving noveau cryptographic techniques we just did the following:

• we take that Fedimint source code and remove the "mint" stuff, and just use their federation stuff secure coins with multisig;
• then we make a spacechain;
• and we make the federations issue multisig-btc tokens on it;
• and then we put some uniswap-like thing in there to allow these tokens to be exchanged freely.

Why?

The recent spike in fees caused by Ordinals and BRC-20 shitcoinery has shown that Lightning isn't a silver bullet. Channels are too fragile, it costs a lot to open a channel under a high fee environment, to run a routing node and so on.

People who want to keep using Lightning are instead flocking to the big Lightning custodial providers: WalletofSatoshi, ZEBEDEE, OpenNode and so on. We could leverage that trust people have in these companies (and individuals) operating shadow Lightning providers and turn each of these into a btc-token issuer. Each issue their own token, transactions flow freely. Each person can hold only assets from the issuers they trust more.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Just malinvestiment

Traditionally the Austrian Theory of Business Cycles has been explained and reworked in many ways, but the most widely accepted version (or the closest to the Mises or Hayek views) view is that banks (or the central bank) cause the general interest rate to decline by creation of new money and that prompts entrepreneurs to invest in projects of longer duration. This can be confusing because sometimes entrepreneurs embark in very short-time projects during one of these bubbles and still contribute to the overall cycle.

The solution is to think about the "longer term" problem is to think of the entire economy going long-term, not individual entrepreneurs. So if one entrepreneur makes an investiment in a thing that looks simple he may actually, knowingly or not, be inserting himself in a bigger machine that is actually involved in producing longer-term things. Incidentally this thinking also solves the biggest criticism of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory: that of the rational expectations people who say: "oh but can't the entrepreneurs know that the interest rate is artificially low and decide to not make long-term investiments?" ("and if they don't know they should lose money and be replaced like in a normal economy flow blablabla?"). Well, the answer is that they are not really relying on the interest rate, they are only looking for profit opportunities, and this is the key to another confusion that has always followed my thinkings about this topic.

If a guy opens a bar in an area of a town where many new buildings are being built during a "housing bubble" he may not know, but he is inserting himself right into the eye of that business cycle. He expects all these building projects to continue, and all the people involved in that to be getting paid more and be able to spend more at his bar and so on. That is a bet that may or may not end up paying.

Now what does that bar investiment has to do with the interest rate? Nothing. It is just a guy who saw a business opportunity in a place where hungry people with money had no bar to buy things in, so he opened a bar. Additionally the guy has made some calculations about all the ending, starting and future building projects in the area, and then the people that would live or work in that area afterwards (after all the buildings were being built with the expectation of being used) and so on, there is no interest rate calculations involved. And yet that may be a malinvestiment because some building projects will end up being canceled and the expected usage of the finished ones will turn out to be smaller than predicted.

This bubble may have been caused by a decline in interest rates that prompted some people to start buying houses that they wouldn't otherwise, but this is just a small detail. The bubble can only be kept going by a constant influx of new money into the economy, but the focus on the interest rate is wrong. If new money is printed and used by the government to buy ships then there will be a boom and a bubble in the ship market, and that involves all the parts of production process of ships and also bars that will be opened near areas of the town where ships are built and new people are being hired with higher salaries to do things that will eventually contribute to the production of ships that will then be sold to the government.

It's not interest rates or the length of the production process that matters, it's just printed money and malinvestiment.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

hledger-web

A Haskell app that uses Miso and hledger's Haskell libraries plus ghcjs to be compiled to a web page, and then adds optional remoteStorage so you can store your ledger data somewhere else.

This was my introduction to Haskell and also built at a time I thought remoteStorage was a good idea that solved many problems, and that it could use some help in the form of just yet another somewhat-useless-but-cool project using it that could be added to their wiki.

• https://hledger.alhur.es/
• https://github.com/fiatjaf/hledger-web

See also

• My stupid introduction to Haskell
• LessPass remoteStorage
• TiddlyWiki remoteStorage

@ 2ed3596e:98b4cc78

Americans can now get paid in bitcoin sent directly to their personal bitcoin wallet. Share your Bitcoin Well Direct Deposit details with your employer (or anyone sending you money), set your bitcoin/dollar split and receive sats instead of fiat with every paycheck. 

Whenever you buy bitcoin with Bitcoin Well, we automatically send it to your self-custody wallet. Your bitcoin is safest in a self-custody wallet. 

So, when you set up your Direct Deposit with Bitcoin Well, you Dollar Cost Average bitcoin into your self-custody wallet with every paycheck. 

Refer at least 1 friend to Bitcoin Well to unlock Direct Deposit. Direct Deposit bitcoin purchases bring you a massive leap forward to replacing your bank with Bitcoin Well 🧡

Here’s how you can get paid in bitcoin:

Step 1: Refer a friend to Bitcoin Well

To unlock the Direct Deposit feature in your Bitcoin Well account you must first refer one person to Bitcoin Well. Referring a friend is quick and easy! Simply share your referral link from your found in your Referrals page.

\ Once someone has created an account with your referral link, you’ll get an email notifying you of your successful referral. You’ll receive a second email informing you that you have unlocked Direct Deposit. Now you’re ready for Step 2!

Step 2: Set your Direct Deposit details

\ Navigate to your newly unlocked Direct Deposit page in your Bitcoin Well account. Tell us how much bitcoin you want to receive, and how many dollars you want to keep with the slider at the top.

\ Next you need to tell us where to send your bitcoin by adding your personal bitcoin wallet! As with everything Bitcoin Well does, we send the bitcoin you buy from each deposit directly to your self-custody. Your bitcoin should always remain in your control; with your keys. 

Once these details are saved, you can download your Direct Deposit details in the form of a void cheque to send to your employer (or anyone else that wants to send you money!).

## \ Step 3: Withdraw remaining dollars or buy more bitcoin later

\ Remaining dollars in your Cash Balance can be withdrawn to your bank or used to purchase more bitcoin. Navigate to Withdraw Dollars then select your bank account, the amount of dollars you’d like to withdraw and confirm your withdrawal. 

\ You can buy more bitcoin with the dollars already in your account! Go to Buy bitcoin, select from ‘Cash Balance’ to ‘your bitcoin wallet’, enter the amount and confirm. More bitcoin is now on its way to your bitcoin wallet! Buying directly to self-custody has never been easier 😎

Earn sats for referring friends to Bitcoin Well

\ Did you know that referring friends doesn’t just unlock your Direct Deposit feature but you also earn sats? When you refer a friend to Bitcoin Well you earn 10% of our cut from all of the transactions. Every time you earn sats through your referrals, your rewards will be instantly distributed to you straight to your Lightning wallet.  Add your Lightning wallet in your Referrals page, within the Bitcoin Well Rewards menu. 

Within your Referrals page you can add your Lightning wallet for referral payouts, access your referral link and a QR code with your ref link in it – everything you need to orange pill your friends and earn sats! Plus every time you refer a friend you get Bitcoin Well points, which you can use to try and win 1,000,000 sats through our Bitcoin (Wishing) Well! Share your ref link with friends and family -> earn sats.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

On the state of programs and browsers

Basically, there are basically (not exhaustively) 2 kinds of programs one can run in a computer nowadays:

1.1. A program that is installed, permanent, has direct access to the Operating System, can draw whatever it wants, modify files, interact with other programs and so on; 1.2. A program that is transient, fetched from someone else's server at run time, interpreted, rendered and executed by another program that bridges the access of that transient program to the OS and other things.

Meanwhile, web browsers have basically (not exhaustively) two use cases:

2.1. Display text, pictures, videos hosted on someone else's computer; 2.2. Execute incredibly complex programs that are fetched at run time, executed and so on -- you get it, it's the same 1.2.

These two use cases for browsers are at big odds with one another. While stretching itsel f to become more and more a platform for programs that can do basically anything (in the 1.1 sense) they are still restricted to being an 1.2 platform. At the same time, websites that were supposed to be on 2.1 sometimes get confused and start acting as if they were 2.2 -- and other confusing mixed up stuff.

I could go hours in philosophical inquiries on the nature of browsers, how rewriting everything in JavaScript is not healthy or where everything went wrong, but I think other people have done this already.

One thing that bothers me a lot, though, is that computers can do a lot of things, and with the internet and in the current state of the technology it's fairly easy to implement tools that would help in many aspects of human existence and provide high-quality, useful programs, with the help of a server to coordinate access, store data, authenticate users and so on many things are possible. However, due to the nature of UI in the browser, it's very hard to get any useful tool to users.

Writing a UI, even the most basic UI imaginable (some text input boxes and some buttons, or a table) can take a long time, always more than the time necessary to code the actual core features of whatever program is being developed -- and that is considering that the person capable of writing interesting programs that do the functionality in the backend are also capable of interacting with JavaScript and the giant amount of frameworks, transpilers, styling stuff, CSS, the fact that all this is built on top of HTML and so on.

This is not good.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni rad

Jun 2018 / Autor: Aleksandar Radivojević

---

APSTRAKT:

Kripto valute, kao pod kategorija virtuelnih valuta, predstavljaju nastavak inovacija zasnovanih na tehnološkom napretku na finansijskim tržištima. Ovaj put predmet inovacije je sam novac. Nagli porast interesovanja za ovu vrstu valuta u svetu uticao je na potrebu regulacije, pre svega na nacionalnom, a zatim i nadnacionalnom nivou. Međutim, problem pri regulaciji posledica je nekoliko faktora: nivo tehnološke kompleksnosti sistema kripto valuta, činjenica da se kripto valute tek nalaze u početnoj fazi razvoja, kao i činjenica da bi pogrešna regulacija mogla da dovede do potencijalnog tehnološkog zaostatka za drugim državama. Stoga ne čudi raznolikost u regulisanju istog fenomena od strane različitih država, u nekim slučajevima čak i potpuna suprotnost. Važno je napomenuti da kripto valute treba posmatrati kao inovaciju, odnosno fenomen koji je u razvoju. Shodno tome svaka kritika, pozitivna ili negativna, samo je kritika trenutnog koraka u procesu razvoja, pa je treba uzeti sa rezervom. U dugom roku kripto valute će napustiti nedefinisanu sferu i iskazati svoj potencijal i vrednost, tek tada ćemo sa sigurnošću moći da ocenimo njihov doprinos razvoju društva.

1. UVOD

Virtuelna valuta predstavlja valutu denominiranu u sopstvenoj jedinici mere iza koje ne stoji država niti bilo koji centralizovani autoritet, a čija se vrednost određuje na tržištu u čistom odnosu ponude i tražnje, bez uplitanja monetarnih vlasti.

Postoji nekoliko definicija virtuelnih valuta, pa tako Međunarodni monetarni fond (MMF) virtualnu valutu definiše kao „Digitalni predstavnik vrednosti, izdat od strane privatnih aktera i denominiran u sopstvenoj jedinici vrednosti“2. Evropska centralna banka (ECB) koristi sledeću definiciju „Digitalni predstavnik vrednosti, koji nije izdat od strane centralne banke, kreditne institucije ili institucije elektronskog novca, koji u nekim situacijama može biti korišćena kao zamena za novac“3. ECB je u odnosu na definiciju iz 2012. godine4 uvela dve promene. Izbačen je termin neregulisan, usled činjenice da su određene države regulisale virtuelne valute, ali još važnije ECB prema novoj definiciji ne definiše više virtuelne valute kao novac.

Upravo ove dve promene u definiciji ECB ukazuju na trenutno najznačajnija pitanja vezana za virtuelne valute, pitanje regulacije i pitanje klasifikacije ovih valuta kao novac ili finansijsku imovinu.

Karakteristike pojedinačnih virtuelnih valuta klasifikuju ih u podgrupe. Neke od njih postoje već duži niz godina bez ikakvih potreba regulacije, usled činjenice da njihov uticaj na globalnu ekonomiju nije značajan. Uticaj kripto valuta, kao jedne od potkategorija, postao je toliki da zahteva uključivanje kreatora ekonomskih politika u njihovo regulisanje. Bilo da ograniči ili podstakne njihovu upotrebu.

U osnovi, kripto valute u potpunosti preispituju sistem monetarnog funkcionisanja zasnovanog na fiducijarnom novcu iza čije vrednosti stoji država ili određeni viši centralizovani autoritet. Kako iza virtuelne valute ne stoji država, a sistem funkcionisanja je zasnovan na kompleksnoj tehnologiji, postavlja se pitanje uloge centralne banke, komercijalnih banaka i ostalih finansijskih institucija koje su u poslednjih nekoliko decenije bili dominantni akteri finansijskog sektora.

2. BITKOIN

Bitkoin predstavlja kripto valutu koja je pokretač i nosilac trenutnog stanja na tržištu kripto valuta sa učešćem od preko 40%. Prema karakteristikama virtuelnih valuta ovu kripto valutu svrstavamo u potpuno decentralizovanu i konvertibilnu, a njena ukupna, buduća, ponuda je unapred određena. Nastanak bitkoina vezuje se za članak koji je objavljen od strane autora pod pseudonimom Satoši Nakamoto 2008. godine pod nazivom „Bitkoin – Elektronski sistem gotovine između jednakih“. Satoši Nakamoto, za sada nepoznati pojedinac ili grupa pojedinaca, 2009. godine pustio je u promet prvi bitkoin softver i prve jedinice valute. S obzirom da se radi o tehnologiji baziranoj na otvorenom kodu (open source technology) sistem je nastavio da radi bez potrebe uključivanja njegovog osnivača.

Ukupna tržišna vrednost bitkoin valute u trećem kvartalu 2017. godine iznosila je 75 milijardi dolara, taj iznos je početkom 2018. godine dostigao 232 milijarde dolara, dok je početkom juna 2018. godine on iznosio 115 milijardi. U poređenju sa monetarnim agregatima dominantnih fiducijarnih valuta ovaj iznos nije značajan ( EUR M3 11804 milijardi5, USD M3 13701 milijardi6). Međutim bitkoin posmatramo kao novi fenomen koji beleži snažni rast (tržišna vrednost na kraju 2016. godine iznosila je 15,5 milijardi dolara).

Celokupni proces koji stoji iza kreiranja, transfera, čuvanja i trošenja virtualne valute obavlja se elektronski. Osnovni elementi sistema svake virtualne valute jesu sama valuta (Bitkoin, Ethereum, itd.) i tehnologija beleženja i sprovođenja transakcija. Mehanizam na osnovu koga funkcioniše određena valuta definiše i sprovodi: izdavanje valute; sprovođenje internih pravila koja su osnova funkcionisanja valute; transfer novca i poravnanja. Mehanizam na osnovu kojeg funkcionišu kripto valute jeste decentralizovani mehanizam koji koristi kriptografiju (šifrovanje) u obavljanju ovih funkcija.

Decentralizovani mehanizam podrazumeva da ne postoji centralna jedinica koja izdaje novac, vrši proveru i realizaciju plaćanja, poravnanja, itd., već se ove funkcije sprovode od strane većeg broja nezavisnih jedinica (pojedinaca, udruženja ili kompanija). Ove jedinice zovu se „rudari“ (miners) i oni svojim uključivanjem u online mrežu virtualne valute obavljaju ove aktivnosti koristeći kapacitete svoje računarske opreme. Rudari su pojedinci ili kompanije raspoređeni po celom svetu koji ovu aktivnost obavljaju u cilju dobijanja vlasništva nad novim jedinicama kripto valute. Ovako decentralizovani sistem koji stoji iza obrade transakcija eliminiše mogućnost ljudske greške koja je prisutna u bankama i ostalim finansijskim institucijama. Naime, da bi pojedinac ili grupa pojedinaca promenila bilo koju informaciju u sistemu mora raspolagati sa 51% računarskog kapaciteta koji stoji iza mreže, što je skoro neizvodljivo.

Neophodan element sistema kripto valuta jeste digitalni novčanik (wallet) koji predstavlja softver koji čuva informacije o količini i iznosu kripto valuta koje su u posedu vlasnika novčanika. Korišćenje bilo koje kripto valute podrazumeva prethodno registrovanje novčanika. Pružaoci usluga novčanika su privatne firme koje funkcionišu u sistemu kripto valuta pa je ovaj deo sistema u određenoj meri rizičan, jer se informacije o vlasništvu nad kripto valutom mogu izgubiti lošim upravljanjem kompanije koja pruža usluge ili tehnološkim rizicima kojima je ona izložena7.

Jedan od najinteresantnijih i najznačajnijih elemenata sistema kripto valuta jeste „lanac blokova“ (blockchain) koji predstavlja decentralizovanu bazu podataka sačinjenu od manjih baza (blokova) koji su digitalno povezani na mreži. Ovi blokovi sadrže informacije o transakcijama koje se kriptografski generišu u jedan blok koji se zatim povezuje sa ostalim već generisanim blokovima koji sadrže prethodne informacije. Celokupna procedura na kojoj je zasnovan blockchain onemogućava bilo kakvu promenu informacija u bloku, jer su blokovi međusobno povezani kodom, pa je za promenu podataka potrebno hakovati ceo lanac blokova.

Bitkoin, ostale kripto valute, njihov značaj u budućnosti i primena i dalje su pod znakom pitanja. Međutim, isto se ne može reći za blockchain tehnologiju. Ova tehnologija i njene moguće primene već su zainteresovale veliki broj značajnih aktera na tržištu, pa i država. Goldman Sachs je još u 2015. godini prijavio i registrovao patent za sistem virtuelnog poravnanja finansijskih transakcija koje će u velikoj meri olakšati bankarske transakcije, a koji je upravo zasnovan na blockchain tehnologiji. Blockchain tehnologija nije ograničena samo na finansije. Nepromenljivost informacija čini tehnologiju primenljivom i u drugim sferama. Švedska je najdalje otišla u primeni ove tehnologije, a planovi za primenu u imovinskim transakcijama i katastru su već u toku. Primene ove tehnologije su višestruke i rast njene zastupljenosti u različitim sferama se može očekivati u budućnosti.

3. POTREBA REGULACIJE

Navedene osobine kripto valuta prikazane na primeru najpopularnije valute, bitkoin-a, ukazuju na složenost problema njihove regulacije. Reč je o globalnom fenomenu u čijoj dosadašnjoj regulaciji pojedinačne zemlje ne samo da nemaju zajednički stav, već se ti stavovi u pojedinim slučajevima potpuno razlikuju. Pored toga, na nacionalnom nivou postavlja se pitanje nadležnosti regulacije, s obzirom da još uvek postoji nerazumevanje da li je reč o valuti ili imovini i koji deo sistema treba regulisati (transakciju, vlasnika, posrednika, prodavca,..). Tehnološki faktori takođe utiču na mogućnosti regulacije, usled teškoća u praćenju operacija sa virtuelnim valutama.

Dinamičan rast trgovine virtuelnim valutama u poslednjih godinu dana uticao je i na sve veći broj pokušaja regulacije od strane pojedinačnih država, ali i na rast zahteva za usaglašavanjem i regulacijom na međunarodnom nivou. Dosadašnji načini regulacije u velikoj meri su različiti od zemlje do zemlje. Većina zemalja izdala je upozorenje potrošačima, a neke od zemalja odlučile su se i za nametanje zahteva za izdavanje dozvola za određene učesnike na tržištu, dok je jedan broj zemalja potpuno zabranio upotrebu valuta.

Osnovni rizici koje kripto valute i rast njihove popularnosti i upotrebe sa sobom nose posledično definišu načine regulacije. Ti rizici jesu finansiranje terorizma, pranje novca, izbegavanje poreza, neregulisano kretanje kapitala, zaštita potrošača, itd. Pored toga, karakteristike mehanizma koji pokreće sistem, odnosno akteri i njihove međusobne veze, drugi su osnovni faktor koji definiše način regulacije. Stoga su dosadašnje regulative najčešće bile usmerene na učesnike u trgovini kripto valutama i finansijske institucije koje sa njima posluju.

Transakcije između korisnika virtuelne valute nije moguće regulisati, usled činjenice da je jedan od osnovnih principa virtuelnih valuta upravo anonimnost vlasništva. Međutim kompanije koje prihvataju plaćanje za svoje usluge ili dobra u virtuelnim valutama mogu biti predmet regulacije. Takođe, mada transakcije među vlasnicima valuta jesu anonimne, konverzija virtuelnih valuta u fiducijarne valute najčešće se sprovodi preko posrednika, koji može biti, i za sada u velikom broju slučajeva i jeste, predmet regulacije. U primeru Srbije, kupovina virtuelne valute vrši se preko posrednika, koji za svoje usluge uzima naknadu od 4-7% po transakciji.

Za sada, ove kompanije predstavljaju očigledne ciljeve regulacije. Određene zemlje regulišu i pružaoce „novčanik“ servisa, jer su oni neophodni činioci sistema virtuelnih valuta. Razlog za ovo jeste trenutni, ali u budućnosti možda i izraženiji, odnos obima transakcija između vlasnika kripto valuta (koji je anoniman) i transakcija vlasnika valuta i pružaoca usluga i dobara za te valute (prodavaca). Regulacija kroz pružaoce usluga „novčanika“ nije česta usled činjenice da se ona odnosi na regulacije između učesnika bez konverzije virtuelnih valuta u realnu ekonomiju (dobra, usluge ili fiducijarne valute).

Ubrzan razvoj virtuelnih valuta izazvao je brzu potrebu regulacije, pa su se određene države odlučile za unilateralne regulacije na sopstvenom tržištu, dok je za međunarodni konsenzus i regulaciju potrebno vreme. Međunarodna regulacija biće postepena iz više razloga. Pre svega reč je o promenljivom fenomenu pa shodno tome nije moguće odlučiti se za konkretnu trajnu regulaciju pre sagledavanja i razumevanja celokupnog fenomena. Dodatno, različite države drugačije sagledavaju ovaj fenomen i njegov potencijal. Dok neke države zabranjuju njegovu upotrebu (Kina) druge je u potpunosti podržavaju (Australija, Kanada, itd.).

Razvoj virtuelnih valuta predstavlja revoluciju na valutnom tržištu koja može imati značajan uticaj na celokupno funkcionisanje svetske ekonomije. Pri regulisanju potrebno je voditi računa da se primenom postojećih načina regulacije ne ograniči ili promeni smer ove inovacije.

Budući da virtuelne valute pružaju veću slobodu pojedincu, od njega zahtevaju i veću odgovornost. Naime, transakcija za određenu robu (primer kupovina preko interneta) beleži se putem blockchain-a i u tom trenutku je finalna. Plaćanje tim putem na pogrešan račun tradicionalni sistem rešava zahtevom za povraćaj novca sa jednog računa na drugi u okviru komercijalne banke, odnosno korigovanje u procesu poravnanja. Sistem plaćanja virtuelnim valutama nema ovu mogućnost, usled činjenice da nema centralnog regulatora koji može izvršiti promenu i činjenice da je vlasništvo nad računom anonimno.

Još jedan rizik je kvar sistema na kome su virtualne valute bazirane. Do kvara može doći usled tehnoloških problema sa kojima se suočava sama mreža, pružaoci usluga „novčanika“ ili platforma za trgovinu virtuelnim valutama. Mada stvarni i potencijalno veoma opasni, ovi rizici svojstveni su i trenutnom sistemu pa tako može doći do „kvara“ samog finansijskog sistema, banaka (pružaoca usluga „novčanika“) ili berzi (platformi za trgovinu). Ove kvarove smo i pored regulacija već doživeli, a reakcija je bila podrška države sistemu u kvaru, pa bi u regulaciji kripto valuta trebalo razmotriti i snažniju podršku države u funkcionisanju osnova postojećeg sistema i stvaranju mreža zaštite u slučaju pojedinačnih kvarova aktera na mreži.

Jedina realna opasnost virtuelnih valuta u ovom trenutku jeste njihov neuspeh i krah investitora koji su uložili u njih, što ni u kom slučaju ne bi trebalo da bude pitanje kojim se kreatori ekonomske politike bave. Naime, krah investitora, pojedinaca i kompanija, u slučaju da se vremenom pokaže da kripto valute nemaju nikakvu vrednost, ne bi imao uticaj međunarodni finansijski sistem jer ne bi doveo do lančanog kraha osnovnih finansijskih institucija, kao što je slučaj bio sa krahom tržišta nekretnina 2008. godine. Većina zemalja koje su se do sada bavile pitanjem kripto valuta objavilo je saopštenja za javnost kojima se građanima ukazuje na potencijalne rizike korišćenja i ulaganja u ove valute. Slično obaveštenje objavila je i Narodna banka Srbije samo u užem obliku pozivajući se i usmeravajući građane na obaveštenja Evropske unije.

Jedan od najčešće pominjanih rizika široke rasprostranjenosti virtuelnih valuta jesu mogućnost finansiranja terorizma i pranje novca. Ovi rizici se pominju u skoro svima analizama uticaja kripto valuta, a njihova regulacija upravo predstavlja preteranu regulaciju koja ograničava inovacije. Sprečavanje finansiranja terorizma kontrolom finansija pojedinaca u okviru postojećeg sistema rezultat je prilike koju je način funkcionisanja sistema pružio institucijama koje su zadužene za nacionalnu sigurnost i borbu protiv terorizma. Uvođenje boljeg i efikasnijeg sistema ne treba biti ograničavano činjenicom da je prethodni sistem olakšavao određenim institucijama izvršavanje svojih dužnosti. Naprotiv, druge institucije bi trebalo da, umesto ograničavanja tehnološkog napretka u drugim sferama, podstiču napredak tehnologije u svom delovanju i traže načine za uspešnije obavljanje svojih dužnosti korišćenjem inovacija i novih sistema.

Ni fiducijarni ni virtuelni novac nemaju funkciju sprečavanja terorizma. Sloboda pojedinaca i anonimnost u raspolaganju sopstvenom imovinom trebalo bi da bude jedna od osnova demokratije pa je njeno regulisanje uskraćivanje ovih prava zarad drugog cilja. Sankcionisanje korišćenja imovine pojedinca ili kompanije za finansiranje terorizma treba biti sprovedeno od strane nadležnih institucija, uz pomoć finansijskog sistema ukoliko on pruža mogućnosti za to, ali ne ograničavanjem razvoja društva da bi se te mogućnosti zadržale.

Korišćenje kripto valuta, i anonimnost i lakoća transfera iz jedne u drugu državu koju one pružaju, takođe otežava borbu protiv izbegavanja oporezivanja sakrivanjem bogatstva i prihoda. Još jedan problem u oporezivanju jeste i šta se oporezuje – kripto valuta kao imovina ili novac. Jedno od trenutnih rešenja pri definisanju ovog pitanje jeste klasifikacija prema vremenu držanja valute. Odnosno, da li se valuta drži duži period u cilju sticanja kapitalne dobiti u slučaju porasta njene vrednosti ili se često koristi kao sredstvo plaćanja. Pitanje je i kako i po kojoj vrednosti oporezovati novo stvorenu valutu, dobijenu procesom „rudarenja“, da li po tržišnoj vrednosti u trenutku ostvarivanja prava na novu jedinicu valute (SAD) ili tek po vrednosti u trenutku prodaje te jedinica (Australija).

Takođe postoji rizik i da će razvijanje samog sistema blokchain-a uticati na smanjenje prihoda drugih finansijskih institucija kao što su berze, ali ovde je reč o riziku tehnološkog napretka na profitne kompanije koje zaostaju u razvoju i inovacijama i koje ni u kakvom slučaju ne bi trebalo regulacijom štiti od neuspeha na slobodnom tržištu.

Prvobitni fokus treba da bude na najhitnijim pitanjima vezanim za kripto valute, uključujući finansijski integritet, zaštitu potrošača/investitora i utaju poreza, uz istovremeno ostavljanje manje neposrednih rizika (na primer, finansijsku stabilnost, monetarnu politiku) za kasniju fazu. Pravi pristup regulaciji zavisiće od budućeg razvoja virtuelnih valuta, koji za sada nije predvidiv. Međutim, sam razvoj virtuelnih valuta zavisiće od sadašnje reguacije, pa je potrebno veoma pažljivo pristupiti regulaciji u cilju zaštite tržišta i građana od rizika, ali ne na uštrb ekonomskog napretka.

Za razliku od samih virtuelnih valuta primena blockchain mehanizma ne predstavlja problem regulatorima.

4. REGULACIJA U SVETU

Najliberalnija država na svetu po pitanju operacija sa bitkoinom i ostalim kripto valutama jeste Japan. Bitkoin je u Japanu definisan kao legalno sredstvo plaćanja što je dovelo do brzog rasta broja kompanija koje primaju bitkoin kao sredstvo plaćanja, kao i do brzog razvoja kompanija koje se bave razvojem blockchain tehnologije. Za razliku od nacionalne valute banke nemaju obavezu obavljanja operacija sa bitkoinom, ali je upotreba bitkoina neograničena ukoliko se strane u upotrebi o tome slažu. Kao zemlja sa najliberalnijom regulacijom i najvećim učešćem u ukupnoj trgovini na dnevnom nivou trgovina kripto valutama u Japanu je takođe najčešće bila meta značajnih hakerskih napada i krađa8.

Još jedna zemlja sa veoma liberalnim pogledom na ovu tehnologiju jeste Australija. Operacije sa bitkoinom i ostalim kripto valutama nisu ograničene, niti su ICO9 ograničene, ali se svaka pojedinačna ICO posmatra od strane države u cilju povećavanja sigurnosti i smanjivanja rizika. Poreska politika bitkoin i ostale slične valute posmatra kao imovinu, i na osnovu toga definiše kapitalnu dobit u zavisnosti od operacija sa ovom imovinom10.

Predsednik Belorusije koga mnogi nazivaju poslednjim evropskim diktatorom, Aleksandar Lukašenko, potpisao je krajem decembra 2017. godine zakon čijim je stupanjem na snagu, krajem marta 2018. godine, regulisano poslovanje sa kripto valutama. Preduzeća u skladu sa ovim zakonom mogu da kreiraju svoje kripto valute, poseduju druge kripto valute i vrše sve operacije sa njima isključivo preko berzi kripto valuta. Građani mogu slobodno da obavljaju aktivnosti „rudara“, da kupuju, prodaju i menjaju kripto valute, kao i da ih kupuju i prodaju za beloruske rublje. Ostvareni profit od svih ovih operacija neće biti oporezivan sve do januara 2023 godine, niti će se aktivnosti rudarenja i trgovanja kripto valuta smatrati preduzetničkim poduhvatom11. Ovaj zakon posebnu pažnju posvećuje blokchain tehnologiji pa se aktivnosti zasnovane na ovoj tehnologiji posebno oporezuju. Ova preduzeća biće oslobođena poreza na dobit i poreza na dodatu vrednost. Umesto toga plaćaće porez u iznosu od 1% ukupnog prihoda.

Rusija je početkom 2018. godine predstavila nacrt zakona kojim će biti regulisane operacije sa kripto valutama12. Mada zakon definiše kripto valute kao imovinu, a ne kao novac, njegove odredbe pomak su ka razvoju kripto valuta, s obzirom da su informacije o regulaciji kripto valuta od strane ruskih vlasti u prethodnom period bile pre svega usmerene ka potpunoj zabrani operacija sa ovim valutama. Trgovina kripto valutama kao imovinom, međutim, najverovatnije neće biti podložna porezu na dodatu vrednost s obzirom da će se suštinski posmatrati kao finansijska imovina. U poslednje vreme se sve više i govori i o aktivnostima ruskih vlasti ka kreiranju državne kripto valute – kriptorublje13. Trenutno je nepoznato da li će ova valuta, ukoliko bude kreirana, biti jedna od dozvoljenih kripto valuta na ruskom tržištu ili jedina dozvoljena, ali njeno eventualno kreiranje će svakako biti pomak u razvoju kripto valuta.

Vlada Kanade je prva zemlja koja je formalno regulisala digitalne valute, u junu 2014. godine. Bitkoin definiše kao elektronski novac koji građani mogu koristiti kao sredstvo plaćanja u kompanijama koje to sredstvo prihvataju. Takođe, dozvoljena je kupovina i prodaja bitkoina kao finansijske imovine u cilju ostvarivanja zarade. Sa druge strane bitkoin nije zakonsko sredstvo plaćanja, pa je time njegova upotreba ograničena u kompanijama koje prihvataju da svoje usluge ili robu prodaju za tu kripto valutu. Poreska regulacija transakcija u bitkoin-u ista je kao i za transakcije u nacionalnoj valuti. Sve poreske obaveze nastale iz promene vlasništva bitkoina podložne su već postojećim poreskim obligacijama. Takođe, svaki gubitak ili dobitak od trgovine bitkoinom kao finansijskom imovinom mora biti prijavljen pri obračunu poreza na dohodak građana14.

Sjedinjene Američke Države prepustile su svakoj državi u okviru svog sastava da odrede kako će njihovi građani moći da učestvuju u operacijama sa kripto valutama. Na nivou nacije regulacija definiše virtualne valute kao imovinu i obavezuje građane da prijave ostvareni profit na osnovu operacija sa virtualnim valutama poreskoj administraciji15. Različite državne agencije takođe regulišu u određenoj meri operacije sa kripto valutama koje su u njihovoj nadležnosti, ne regulišući same kripto valute već operacije sa njima koje nisu dozvoljene. Pa tako Mreža za primenu regulacija u oblasti finansijskog kriminala (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network - FinCEN) kao deo Ministarstva finansija SAD nalaže svim berzama koje trguju kripto valutama i drugim kompanijama koje se bave operacijama sa kripto valutama da se registruju kao kompanije koje se bave prenosom ili konverzijom novca i time budu regulisane Zakonom o sigurnosti bankarskog sistema.

Regulacija u Ujedinjenom Kraljevstvu je u toku i u ovom slučaju je najpre usmerena ka rešavanju problema koje popularizacija ovih valuta donosi u oblasti borbe protiv terorizma i pranja novca. U skladu sa time pre svega će biti regulisane platforme za trgovinu valutama i kompanije koje pružaju usluge virtuelnih novčanika u okviru direktiva za suzbijanje pranja novca i finansiranje terorizma16.

Evropska unija kao celina nije jasno regulisala kripto valute. Usaglašavanje većeg broja zemalja oko regulisanja pojma koji se i dalje razvija i koji i dalje nema jasnu definiciju zahteva određeno vreme i iskustvo, ali aktivnosti pojedinačnih zemalja EU povodom ovog pitanja mogu nam ukazati na pravac razvoja kripto valuta i tehnologija koje stoje iza njih u EU u budućnosti. Početkom 2018. godine francuski ministar finansija najavio je formiranje radne grupe čiji ce cilj biti definisanje regulatornih normi kriptov valuta. Estonija je već zatražila od EU komentar na pokretanje ICO za sopstvenu kripto valutu estcoin, što je možda moglo biti i očekivao od države sa veoma razvijenim digitalnim društvom i e-upravom. Članovi Nacionalne banke Finske objavili su septembru 2017. godine istraživački dokument17 u kome navode da ne postoji potreba za regulacijom bitkoina. U Nemačkoj nije doneta regulativa koja se odnosi na sam bitkoin i ostale kripto valute već se primenjuju već postojeće regulative na „sredstvo razmene“ kako je bitkoin definisan u Nemačkoj. Značajno je napomenuti da pri kupovini bitkoina za euro bitkoin mora biti uvećan za PDV, čime je njegova popularizacija donekle ograničena.

Švajcarska takođe nije posebno regulisala bitkoin niti je na bilo koji način ograničila njegovu upotrebu. Pored toga što su ovakvi uslovi doveli do razvoja kompanija koje se bave razvojem blockchain tehnologije, država je kroz stvaranje asocijacije18 ovih kompanija dodatno doprinela njihovom razvoju i pokazala svoj interes u daljem razvoju tehnologije koja stoji iza kripto valuta. U januaru 2018. godine Državni sekretarijat za međunarodna finansijska pitanja (SIF) uspostavio je radnu grupu za blockchain / ICO koja e pregledati zakonski okvir i identifikovati bilo kakvu potrebu za aktivnostima uz učeše Federalnog ureda pravde (FOJ), Švajcarskog nadzornog organa za finansijsko tržište (FINMA)19.

Nasuprot ovim zemljama, koje regulisanjem ne zabranjuju upotrebu bitkoina, Narodna banka Kine je u septembru zabranila inicijalne ponude virtuelnih valuta (initaila coin offering - ICO)20 i donela odluku o zatvaranju domaćih berzi za prodaju bitkoina. Međutim, regulacijom nije zabranjeno „rudarenje“ novih jedinica postojećih valuta. Razlozi za ovakav stav Kine prema kripto valutama mogu se pronaći u jedinstvenim okolnostima u kojima je regulacija doneta. Naime, Kina se u trenutku regulacije nalazila u situaciji u kojoj se dominantan deo trgovine bitkinom obavlja od strane kineskih građana21, dve od tri kineske berze za trgovinu kripto valutama koje su zatvorene u trenutku donošenja regulacije (Bitfinex, OkCoin, i BTCC) zauzimale su drugo i treće mesto na svetu prema obimu trgovine kripto valutama22, a gore navedene regulacije u drugim zemljama u tom trenutku nisu bile donete. U takvim okolnostima Kina je morala da reguliše tržište kako ne bi došlo do ozbiljnijih ekonomskih posledica kao rezultat kombinacije navedenih faktora. Kako se kripto valute budu razvijale, a različiti oblici regulacije davali rezultate i preporuke za dalju regulaciju, možemo očekivati relaksaciju tržišta kripto valuta u Kini.

Indija još uvek nije regulisala kripto valute, ali sa primljenim iznosom doznaka u vrednosti od 72 milijarde dolara u 2015. godini23 predstavlja poseban izazov za regulatore jer bitkoin omogućuje nesmetan trenutni priliv doznaka iz virtuelnog novčanika pošiljaoca na račun primaoca potpuno netransparentno. Filipini kao zemlja koja se nalazi na trećem mestu liste sa 29 milijardi dolara primljenih kroz doznake u 2015. godini takođe su najavili regulaciju, posebno pri konverziji bitkoina u nacionalnu valutu.

U Srbiji su operacije sa Bitkoinom su slobodne i moguće je slobodno ih razmenjivati za dinare. Kao i većina zemalja Srbija (Narodna banka) je objavila upozorenje o upotrebi kripto valuta24 još u 2014. godini, pozivajući se na obaveštenja Evropske unije. Bitkoin je u Srbiji moguće slobodno razmenjivati za dinare. Za Srbiju je regulacija bitkoina važna i iz ugla primanja doznaka, čija je vrednost procenjena na 2 milijarde američkih dolara.

5. ZAKLJUČAK

Za sistem kripto valuta se ne može reći da predstavlja realnu opasnost, a da to ne bude zasnovano samo na pretpostavkama. Takođe, kao što smo već naveli, najveći deo kritika, kao što su finansiranje terorizma, izbegavanje poreza, itd., nisu realne kritike jer se ovim problemima bave institucije, a ne novac. Da je moguće vršiti aktivnosti borbe protiv ovih problema bez ograničavanja ili zabrane korišćenja kripto valuta pokazuje primer kažnjavanja kompanije BTC za pranje novca putem operacija sa kripto valutama u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, od strane državne agencije Mreža za primenu regulacija u oblasti finansijskog kriminala 25

U radu smo videli nekoliko načina regulacije kripto valuta u nekim od najrazvijenijih svetskih ekonomija. Neke od navedenih regulacija su iskazane formalno, dok je u nekim slučajevima regulacija izvršena jednostavnim prihvatanjem operacija sa kripto valutama. Nakon regulacija i prihvatanja operacija sa kripto valutama u ovim zemljama teško je verovati da će druge zemlje u bliskoj budućnosti moći da zabrane upotrebu i ograde se od tehnološkog razvoja zasnovanog na blockchain tehnologiji i kripto valutama. Ovakva mogućnost svakako postoji, ali je ona verovatna isključivo na tržištima na kojima trgovina kripto valutama bude značajno pozitivno odstupala od svetskih trendova, kao što je bio slučaj sa Kineskim tržištem.

Kripto valute predstavljaju značajnu tehnološku evoluciju u okviru međunarodnog finansijskog sistema. I postojeći sistem zasnovan je na prethodnim tehnološkim evolucijama, pa je tako i u ovom slučaju potrebno pratiti njen razvoj, prihvatiti i primeniti sve pozitivne aspekte. Uključivanje države kroz regulaciju ovde je možda i najpotrebnije. Kao i kod svakog tehnološkog napretka najveći otpor daljem napretku stvaraju oni koji najviše uživaju u postojećem sistemu. U slučaju da se pokaže da kripto valute pružaju značajnu korist građanima na štetu finansijskih institucija ovaj otpor će svakako biti snažan.

Videli smo da su kritike koje se odnose na finansiranje terorizma, pranje novca, itd., neosnovane. Sa druge strane kritike da se ne radi o novcu su prerane. Fluktuacije vrednosti koje kripto valute iskazuju na dnevnom nivou nisu svojstvene pravim valutama, pa ih pre svega treba posmatrati kao imovinu kojom se trguje. Međutim i ovde se može postaviti pitanje fluktuacija valuta u uslovima inflacije i hiperinflacije, odnosno u uslovima nestabilnosti i nemogućnosti predviđanja, čak i kratkoročnih, kretanja na tržištu valute koja je u pitanju. Upravo takve okolnosti trenutno karakterišu tržište kripto valuta. Klasifikacija kripto valuta kao imovine u ovom trenutku možda je i opravdana sa aspekta da se njima više trguje nego što se koriste u trgovini, ali u tom smislu bi i klasifikacija interneta u sličnoj fazi razvoja kao „sistem za razmenu naučnih informacija“ bila opravdana. Upotreba i mogućnosti kripto valuta tek su u ranoj fazi razvoja. Šta one trenutno predstavljaju, imovinu ili novac, može biti predmet debate, ali samo na nivou pojedinačnih zemalja, usled njihove različite primene na ovim nivoima, i samo u trenutku razmatranja.

Kako su kripto valute iskazale otpornost na negativne regulacije, pritisak velikih igrača na obaranje cena, medijski pritisak ekonomskih analitičara, i opstale kao još uvek u potpunosti nedefinisani fenomen realno je očekivati da ćemo u narednih nekoliko meseci videti pozitivne promene u regulaciji kripto valuta kao i verovatno uključivanje berzi u trgovinu kripto valutama kao imovinom. U srednjem roku ovo bi trebalo da dovede do rasta vrednosti kripto valuta. U dugom roku kripto valute će preći iz nedefinisane sfere i u funkciji četvrte industrijske revolucije iskazati svoj potencijal i vrednost.

Posebnu pažnju treba obratiti na činjenicu da se ovo odnosi samo na mali broj kripto valuta, koje će nivoom tehnološkog razvoja najpre i najbolje odgovoriti na zahteve tržišta. Dominantan broj kripto valuta i u ovom trenutku nema nikakvu vrednost, već se u potpunosti bazira na već široko rasprostranjenoj tehnologiji i snažnom marketingu. U tom smislu kretanje na tržištu kripto valuta možemo poistovetiti sa kretanjem na tačka-com tržištu krajem devedesetih godina 20. veka. Početak razvoja interneta doveo je do ogromnih rasta ulaganja u kompanije koje su bile bazirane na internetu, bez obzira na činjenicu da ta ulaganja nisu bila opravdana ekonomskim podacima i činjenicama. Nakon pucanja balona veliki broj ulagača ostao je bez celokupnog ulaganja, ali oni koji su uložili u E-bay, Amazon, i dr. ostvarili su i verovatno i dalje ostvaruju značajan profit.

Ovde možemo napraviti još jednu vezu. U trenutku razvoja interneta moglo se takođe postaviti pitanje njegovog budućeg uticaja na razvoj terorizma, pornografije, i dr. i smanjivanje mogućnosti odgovarajućih službi u borbi protiv ovih problema. Da li su ovi razlozi trebali da spreče razvoj internet tehnologije ili ne?

Narodna banka Srbije, kao i ostali kreatori ekonomskih politika u Srbiji, trebalo bi da prate sve promene na tržištu kripto valuta i regulacije i aktivnosti drugih država kako bi mogli da procene potencijalne rizike i prednosti ranog uvođena i regulacije kripto valuta. Uzevši u obzir moguće legalne načine kupovine i prodaje kripto valuta u Srbiji, NBS bi u ovom trenutku mogla da uloži napore u regulisanje kupo-prodaje ovih valuta i oporezivanje dobiti nastale ne osnovu ovih transakcija.

6. LITERATURA

• Ernest and Young Global Consumer Banking Survey, 2014, http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY_-_Global_Consumer_Banking_Survey_2014/$FILE/EY-Global-Consumer-Banking-Survey-2014.pdf
• European Central Bank, 2012, Virtual currency schemes, Frankfurt.
• European Central Bank, 2015, Virtual currency schemes – a further analysis, Frankfurt.
• Financial Action Task Force, 2014, Virtual Currencies Key Definitions and Potential AML/
• CFT Risks, Pariz.
• International Monetary Fund, 2016, Virtual Currencies and Beyond: Initial Considerations, Washington.
• Houy, N., 2014, The Bitcoin mining game, Groupe d’ Analyse et de Théorie Économique
• Lyon-St Étienne, Lyon.
• Houy, N., 2014, The economics of Bitcoin transaction fees, Groupe d’ Analyse et de
• Théorie Économique Lyon-St Étienne, Lyon.
• Nakamoto, S., 2008, Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, https://bitcoin.org/
• bitcoin.pdf
• Rainer, B. et all., 2015, Bitcoin: Economics, Technology, and Governance, Journal of
• Economie Perspectives, Vol. 29, str. 213-238.
• Vondrackova, A., Regulation of Virtual Currency in the European Union, 2016, Charles
• University Law Faculty, Prag
• Swan, M., Blockchain – Blueprint for a new economy, 2015, O’Reilly, Sebastopol.

Internet izvori:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto#Development_of_bitcoin
• www.blockchain.info
• https://bitcoin.org/en/
• https://coin.dance/poli
• www.coinmarketcap.com

...

---

1. Fondacija za razvoj ekonomske nauke
2. Virtual Currencies and Beyond: Initial Considerations, 2016, International Monetary Fund, Washington, USA
3. Virtual currency schemes – a further analysis, 2015, European Central Bank, Frankfurt, Germany
4. Neregulisani digitalni novac koji je najčešće izdat i regulisan od strane svog osnivača i prihvaćen od strane određene virtuelne zajednice
5. http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/reports.do?node=1000003478 Podatak za oktobar 2017. godine.
6. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MABMM301USM189S Podatak za septembar 2017. godine.
7. Primer Mt. Gox, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Gox
8. Mt. Gox Exchange i Coincheck
9. Inicijalna ponuda virtuelnih valuta
10. https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Gen/Tax-treatment-of-crypto-currencies-in-Australia---specificallybitcoin/#TransactingwithBitcoin
11. https://media.dev.by/decree_media_kit_en.pdf
12. https://ria.ru/economy/20171221/1511414652.html
13. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4989410/Russia-launches-cyber-currency-CryptoRuble.html
14. https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/services/payment/digital-currency.html
15. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-virtual-currency-guidance
16. https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2017-10-27/110111
17. https://helda.helsinki.fi/bof/bitstream/handle/123456789/14912/BoF_DP_1727.pdf;jsessionid=2F1E2EDBF1180739B5C13906CA99260E?sequence=1
18. https://cryptovalley.swiss/
19. https://www.sif.admin.ch/sif/en/home/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-69539.html
20. Inicijalna ponuda virtuelne valute (ICO) podrazumeva neregulisano finansiranje razvoja novih virtuelnih valuta prikupljanjem sredstava od zainteresovanih investitora. Investitori (pojedinci ili kompanije) ulažu fiducijarni novac ili već postojeće virtuelne valute u zamenu za vlasništvo nad određenim brojem jedinica novostvorene valute, u nadi da će u budućnosti njena vrednost biti višestruko veća. Ukoliko se prikupi unapred definisana potrebna suma u okviru ICO investitorima se dodeljuje pripadajući broj jedinica nove valute, ukoliko ne investirani novac se vraća investitorima.
21. Prema nekim procenama 45% ukupne trgovine bitkoinom.
22. http://data.bitcoinity.org/markets/volume/6m?c=e&t=b
23. https://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934-1199807908806/4549025-1450455807487/Factbookpart1.pdf
24. http://www.nbs.rs/internet/latinica/scripts/showContent.html?id=7605
25. https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-fines-btc-e-virtual-currency-exchange-110-million-facilitating-ransomware

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

A big Ethereum problem that is fixed by Drivechain

While reading the following paragraphs, assume Drivechain itself will be a "smart contract platform", like Ethereum. And that it won't be used to launch an Ethereum blockchain copy, but instead each different Ethereum contract could be turned into a different sidechain under BIP300 rules.

A big Ethereum problem

Anyone can publish any "contract" to Ethereum. Often people will come up with somewhat interesting ideas and publish them. Since they want money they will add an unnecessary token and use that to bring revenue to themselves, gamify the usage of their contract somehow, and keep some control over the supposedly open protocol they've created by keeping a majority of the tokens. They will use the profits on marketing and branding, have a visual identity, a central website and a forum with support personnel and so on: their somewhat interesting idea have become a full-fledged company.

If they have success then another company will appear in the space and copy the idea, launch it using exactly the same strategy with a tweak, then try to capture the customers of the first company and new people. And then another, and another, and another. Very often these contracts require some network effect to work, i.e., they require people to be using it so others will use it. The fact that the market is now split into multiple companies offering roughly the same product hurts that, such that none of these protocols get ever enough usage to become really useful in the way they were first conceived. At this point it doesn't matter though, they get some usage, and they use that in their marketing material. It becomes a race to pump the value of the tokens and the current usage is just another point used for that purpose. The company will even start giving out money to attract new users and other weird moves that have no relationship with the initial somewhat intereting idea.

Once in a lifetime it happens that the first implementer of these things is not a company seeking profits, but some altruistic developer or company that believes in Ethereum and wants to see it grow -- or more likely someone financed by the Ethereum Foundation, which allegedly doesn't like these token schemes and would prefer everybody to use the token they issued first, the ETH --, but that's a fruitless enterprise because someone else will copy that idea anyway and turn it into a company as described above.

How Drivechain fixes it

In the Drivechain world, if someone had an idea, they would -- as it happens all the time with Bitcoin things -- publish it in a public forum. Other members of the community would evaluate that idea, add or remove things, all interested parties would contribute to make it the best possible incarnation of that idea. Once the design was settled, someone would volunteer to start writing the code to turn that idea into a sidechain. Maybe some company would fund those efforts and then more people would join. It's not a perfect process and one that often involves altruism, but Bitcoin inspires people to do these things.

Slowly, the thing would get built, tested, activated as a sidechain on testnet, tested more, and at this point luckily the entire community of interested Bitcoin users and miners would have grown to like that idea and see its benefits. It could then be proposed to be activated according to BIP300 rules.

Once it was activated, the entire pool of interested users would join it. And it would be impossible for someone else to create a copy of that because everybody would instantly notice it was a copy. There would be no token, no one profiting directly from the operations of that "smart contract". And everybody would be incentivized to join and tell others to join that same sidechain since the network effect was already the biggest there, they will know more network effect would only be good for everybody involved, and there would be no competing marketing and free token giveaways from competing entities.

See also

• Upgrading 'Smart Contracts' to 'Wise Contracts', by Paul Sztorc
• Drivechain
• Drivechain comparison with Ethereum
• Alternatives to Drivechain

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Reasons why Lightning is not that great

Some Bitcoiners, me included, were fooled by hyperbolic discourse that presented Lightning as some magical scaling solution with no flaws. This is an attempt to list some of the actual flaws uncovered after 5 years of experience. The point of this article is not to say Lightning is a complete worthless piece of crap, but only to highlight the fact that Bitcoin needs to put more focus on developing and thinking about other scaling solutions (such as Drivechain, less crappy and more decentralized trusted channels networks and statechains).

Unbearable experience

Maintaining a node is cumbersome, you have to deal with closed channels, allocating funds, paying fees unpredictably, choosing new channels to open, storing channel state backups -- or you'll have to delegate all these decisions to some weird AI or third-party services, it's not feasible for normal people.

Channels fail for no good reason all the time

Every time nodes disagree on anything they close channels, there have been dozens, maybe hundreds, of bugs that lead to channels being closed in the past, and implementors have been fixing these bugs, but since these node implementations continue to be worked on and new features continue to be added we can be quite sure that new bugs continue to be introduced.

Trimmed (fake) HTLCs are not sound protocol design

What would you tell me if I presented a protocol that allowed for transfers of users' funds across a network of channels and that these channels would pledge to send the money to miners while the payment was in flight, and that these payments could never be recovered if a node in the middle of the hop had a bug or decided to stop responding? Or that the receiver could receive your payment, but still claim he didn't, and you couldn't prove that at all?

These are the properties of "trimmed HTLCs", HTLCs that are uneconomical to have their own UTXO in the channel presigned transaction bundles, therefore are just assumed to be there while they are not (and their amounts are instead added to the fees of the presigned transaction).

Trimmed HTLCs, like any other HTLC, have timelocks, preimages and hashes associated with them -- which are properties relevant to the redemption of actual HTLCs onchain --, but unlike actual HTLCs these things have no actual onchain meaning since there is no onchain UTXO associated with them. This is a game of make-believe that only "works" because (1) payment proofs aren't worth anything anyway, so it makes no sense to steal these; (2) channels are too expensive to setup; (3) all Lightning Network users are honest; (4) there are so many bugs and confusion in a Lightning Network node's life that events related to trimmed HTLCs do not get noticed by users.

Also, so far these trimmed HTLCs have only been used for very small payments (although very small payments probably account for 99% of the total payments), so it is supposedly "fine" to have them. But, as fees rise, more and more HTLCs tend to become fake, which may make people question the sanity of the design.

Tadge Dryja, one of the creators of the Lightning Network proposal, has been critical of the fact that these things were allowed to creep into the BOLT protocol.

Routing

Routing is already very bad today even though most nodes have a basically 100% view of the public network, the reasons being that some nodes are offline, others are on Tor and unreachable or too slow, channels have the balance shifted in the wrong direction, so payments fail a lot -- which leads to the (bad) solution invented by professional node runners and large businesses of probing the network constantly in order to discard bad paths, this creates unnecessary load and increases the risk of channels being dropped for no good reason.

As the network grows -- if it indeed grow and not centralize in a few hubs -- routing tends to become harder and harder.

While each implementation team makes their own decisions with regard to how to best way to route payments and these decisions may change at anytime, it's worth noting, for example, that CLN will use MPP to split up any payment in any number of chunks of 10k satoshis, supposedly to improve routing success rates. While this often backfires and causes payments to fail when they should have succeeded, it also contributes to making it so there are proportionally more fake HTLCs than there should be, as long as the threshold for fake HTLCs is above 10k.

Payment proofs are somewhat useless

Even though payment proofs were seen by many (including me) as one of the great things about Lightning, the sad fact is that they do not work as proofs if people are not aware of the fact that they are proofs. Wallets do all they can to hide these details from users because it is considered "bad UX" and low-level implementors do not care very much to talk about them at all. There have been attempts from Lightning Labs to get rid of the payment proofs entirely (which at the time to me sounded like a terrible idea, but now I realize they were not wrong).

Here's a piece of anecdote: I've personally witnessed multiple episodes in which Phoenix wallet released the preimage without having actually received the payment (they did receive a minor part of the payment, but the payment was split in many parts). That caused my service, @lntxbot, to mark the outgoing payment as complete, only then to have to endure complaints from the users because the receiver side, Phoenix, had not received the full amount. In these cases, if the protocol and the idea of preimages as payment proofs be respected, should I have been the one in charge of manually fixing user balances?

Another important detail: when an HTLC is sent and then something goes wrong with the payment the channel has to be closed in order to redeem that payment. When the redeemer is on the receiver side, the very act of redeeming should cause the preimage to be revealed and a proof of payment to be made available for the sender, who can then send that back to the previous hop and the payment is proven without any doubt. But when this happens for fake HTLCs (which is the vast majority of payments, as noted above) there is no place in the world for a preimage and therefore there are no proofs available. A channel is just closed, the payer loses money but can't prove a payment. It also can't send that proof back to the previous hop so he is forced to say the payment failed -- even if it wasn't him the one who declared that hop a failure and closed the channel, which should be a prerequisite. I wonder if this isn't the source of multiple bugs in implementations that cause channels to be closed unnecessarily. The point is: preimages and payment proofs are mostly a fiction.

Another important fact is that the proofs do not really prove anything if the keypair that signs the invoice can't be provably attached to a real world entity.

LSP-centric design

The first Lightning wallets to show up in the market, LND as a desktop daemon (then later with some GUIs on top of it like Zap and Joule) and Anton's BLW and Eclair wallets for mobile devices, then later LND-based mobile wallets like Blixt and RawTX, were all standalone wallets that were self-sufficient and meant to be run directly by consumers. Eventually, though, came Breez and Phoenix and introduced the "LSP" model, in which a server would be trusted in various forms -- not directly with users' funds, but with their privacy, fees and other details -- but most importantly that LSP would be the primary source of channels for all users of that given wallet software. This was all fine, but as time passed new features were designed and implemented that assumed users would be running software connected to LSPs. The very idea of a user having a standalone mobile wallet was put out of question. The entire argument for implementation of the bolt12 standard, for example, hinged on the assumption that mobile wallets would have LSPs capable of connecting to Google messaging services and being able to "wake up" mobile wallets in order for them to receive payments. Other ideas, like a complicated standard for allowing mobile wallets to receive payments without having to be online all the time, just assume LSPs always exist; and changes to the expected BOLT spec behavior with regards to, for example, probing of mobile wallets.

Ark is another example of a kind of LSP that got so enshrined that it become a new protocol that depends on it entirely.

Protocol complexity

Even though the general idea of how Lightning is supposed to work can be understood by many people (as long as these people know how Bitcoin works) the Lightning protocol is not really easy: it will take a long time of big dedication for anyone to understand the details about the BOLTs -- this is a bad thing if we want a world of users that have at least an idea of what they are doing. Moreover, with each new cool idea someone has that gets adopted by the protocol leaders, it increases in complexity and some of the implementors are kicked out of the circle, therefore making it easier for the remaining ones to proceed with more and more complexity. It's the same process by which Chrome won the browser wars, kicked out all competitors and proceeded to make a supposedly open protocol, but one that no one can implement as it gets new and more complex features every day, all envisioned by the Chrome team.

Liquidity issues?

I don't believe these are a real problem if all the other things worked, but still the old criticism that Lightning requires parking liquidity and that has a cost is not a complete non-issue, specially given the LSP-centric model.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Carl R. Rogers sobre a ciência

Creio que o objetivo primário da ciência é fornecer uma hipótese, uma convicção e uma fé mais seguras e que satisfaçam melhor o próprio investigador. Na medida em que o cientista procura provar qualquer coisa a alguém -- um erro em que incorri mais de uma vez --, creio que ele está se servindo da ciência para remediar uma insegurança pessoal, desviando-a do seu verdadeiro papel criativo a serviço do indivíduo.

Tornar-se Pessoa, página aleatória

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

contratos.alhur.es

A website that allowed people to fill a form and get a standard Contrato de Locação.

Better than all the other "templates" that float around the internet, which are badly formatted .doc files.

It was fully programmable so other templates could be added later, but I never did. This website made maybe one dollar in Google Ads (and Google has probably stolen these like so many other dollars they did with their bizarre requirements).

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/contratos
• http://contratos.alhur.es

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni članak na politika.rs.

06.12.2014 / Autor: Istok Pavlović

---

Pre nekoliko godina, pojavila se digitalna valuta – bitkoin. Isprva, delovalo je kao utopija šačice sanjara ideja da ova valuta jednog dana postane glavno sredstvo plaćanja među ljudima, i da se potpuno ukine bankarski sistem i posrednici u finansijskim transakcijama. Međutim, san polako postaje realnost. Sve više ozbiljnih kompanija prima bitkoin kao sredstvo plaćanja, i njegovo usvajanje se povećava iz meseca u mesec.

Kako zapravo radi bitkoin? Da bismo odgovorili na ovo pitanje, pođimo od jednog starijeg problema u matematici, koji se zove „problem vizantijskih generala”.

Vizantijski generali opkolili su neprijateljski grad. Svaki od generala nalazi se sa svojom vojskom negde oko grada, i generali su geografski razdvojeni. Komunikacija među generalima ide preko kurira, koji prenose poruke. Da bi napad uspeo, generali moraju da se dogovore oko zajedničkog nastupa – da krenu svi odjednom u dogovoreno vreme. Međutim, problem je što među generalima, pa i među kuririma mogu da postoje izdajnici – ljudi koji rade za neprijatelja i koji će namerno preneti pogrešnu poruku kako bi sabotirali napad. Kako organizovati prenošenje poruka među generalima tako da akcija uspe, bez obzira na izdajnike?

Rešenje ovog problema postoji, i u pitanju je veoma kompleksan matematički algoritam koji se razvio početkom 21. veka. Pojavom bržih kompjutera, ovaj problem postao je rešiv za kraće vreme. U praksi, ovo je značilo da smo dobili način da se uspostavi potpuno poverenje između dve osobe na internetu koje se uopšte ne poznaju. To je otvorilo čitav novi spektar mogućnosti – a jedna od tih mogućnosti je digitalni novac.

Bitkoin sistem je zapravo kao jedna velika finansijska knjiga na internetu. Vi kupujete prostor u toj knjizi, u zamenu za klasičan novac ili prodajom neke robe ili usluga, i tada postajete vlasnik određene sume bitkoina. Taj svoj prostor zatim možete prodati nekom drugom ko hoće da ga kupi. Sve transakcije su potpuno sigurne i niko na svetu ne može da ospori da su se desile.Transakcije automatski beleži mreža kompjutera širom sveta prema „algoritmu vizantijskih generala”, bez ikakvog upliva živih ljudi, i tako dobijamo maksimalno poverenje. S obzirom na to da su ljudi eliminisani iz jednačine, najvažnija posledica ovog sistema je to što sada sve transakcije mogu da budu bez posrednika, bez banaka i nema provizije.

Ova poslednja činjenica je jedan od ključnih razloga što je bitkoin uveden kao sredstvo plaćanja u mnogim prodavnicama. Koliko god opskurno delovao, bitkoin je zapravo mnogo povoljniji za prodavce od klasičnog novca. Recimo da prodajete elektronske uređaje, gde je uobičajena margina profita oko pet procenata. Banke za procesiranje kartice uzimaju 2,5 odsto. Vi, dakle dajete polovinu svog profita banci, samo zato što banke kao sistem imaju monopol nad plaćanjem i nemate izbora. Tačnije, niste imali izbora do pojave bitkoina.

Za velike kompanije, kojima ne smetaju bankarske provizije, bitkoin je više stvar prestiža i mode. „Hej, pogledajte kako smo mi moderna kompanija, primamo bitkoine.” Međutim, za male porodične biznise bitkoini bukvalno mogu da znače opstanak.

Postavlja se logično pitanje, šta je to što bitkoinima daje vrednost? Odgovor na ovo pitanje zapravo leži u pitanju „šta je to što daje vrednost klasičnom novcu”. Ako pogledamo istoriju novca, u početnom trenutku za ljude je to bilo neko parče papira, ali su uvedene zlatne rezerve kao garancija da taj papir vredi. Ova garancija stvorila je kod ljudi veru u novac, i ta vera čini njegovu vrednost. Kasnije, ove zlatne rezerve su davno prevaziđene i nemaju veze s količinom novca u opticaju, ali ono što je ostalo jeste vera u novac, i samo zahvaljujući toj veri novac ima vrednost.

Ista stvar je i sa bitkoinima. Njegovu vrednost zapravo čini vera. Milionima ljudi širom sveta krv uzavri od sreće kada čuju za ideju da se konačno iskoreni bankarski sistem. Oni vide bankare kao „krvopije koji žive na tuđoj grbači”, i podržaće svaku ideju u tom pravcu. Počeće pasionirano da koriste bitkoine kao sredstvo plaćanja gde god je to moguće, sanjajući da dožive tokom svog života naslov u novinama „Bankari ostali bez posla”, da bi tog dana mogli da kažu: „I ja sam u ovome učestvovao, ja sam jedan od oslobodilaca čovečanstva.”

Naravno, kao i svaka tehnologija u svojoj ranoj fazi, bitkoin ima svoje propuste koji se sređuju. Ako pogledate internet komentare, ima ljudi koji će naći sto mana bitkoinima. Ipak, da smo slušali kritizere koji kritikuju tehnologije u ranoj fazi, nikada ne bismo imali avione, električnu struju, ili bilo koje inovacije koje su u početku delovale nesigurno, a bez kojih nam je današnji život nezamisliv.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

comentário pertinente de Olavo de Carvalho sobre atribuições indevidas de acontecimentos à "ordem espontânea"

Eis aqui um exemplo entre outros mil, extraído das minhas apostilas de aulas, de como se analisam as relações entre fatores deliberados e casuais na ação histórica. O sr, Beltrão está INFINITAMENTE ABAIXO da possibilidade de discutir essas coisas, e por isso mesmo me atribui uma simploriedade que é dele próprio e não minha:

Já citei mil vezes este parágrafo de Georg Jellinek e vou citá-lo de novo: “Os fenômenos da vida social dividem-se em duas classes: aqueles que são determinados essencialmente por uma vontade diretriz e aqueles que existem ou podem existir sem uma organização devida a atos de vontade. Os primeiros estão submetidos necessariamente a um plano, a uma ordem emanada de uma vontade consciente, em oposição aos segundos, cuja ordenação repousa em forças bem diferentes.”

Essa distinção é crucial para os historiadores e os analistas estratégicos não porque ela é clara em todos os casos, mas precisamente porque não o é. O erro mais comum nessa ordem de estudos reside em atribuir a uma intenção consciente aquilo que resulta de uma descontrolada e às vezes incontrolável combinação de forças, ou, inversamente, em não conseguir enxergar, por trás de uma constelação aparentemente fortuita de circunstâncias, a inteligência que planejou e dirigiu sutilmente o curso dos acontecimentos.

Exemplo do primeiro erro são os Protocolos dos Sábios de Sião, que enxergam por trás de praticamente tudo o que acontece de mau no mundo a premeditação maligna de um número reduzidos de pessoas, uma elite judaica reunida secretamente em algum lugar incerto e não sabido.

O que torna essa fantasia especialmente convincente, decorrido algum tempo da sua publicação, é que alguns dos acontecimentos ali previstos se realizam bem diante dos nossos olhos. O leitor apressado vê nisso uma confirmação, saltando imprudentemente da observação do fato à imputação da autoria. Sim, algumas das idéias anunciadas nos Protocolos foram realizadas, mas não por uma elite distintamente judaica nem muito menos em proveito dos judeus, cuja papel na maioria dos casos consistiu eminentemente em pagar o pato. Muitos grupos ricos e poderosos têm ambições de dominação global e, uma vez publicado o livro, que em certos trechos tem lances de autêntica genialidade estratégica de tipo maquiavélico, era praticamente impossível que nada aprendessem com ele e não tentassem por em prática alguns dos seus esquemas, com a vantagem adicional de que estes já vinham com um bode expiatório pré-fabricado. Também é impossível que no meio ou no topo desses grupos não exista nenhum judeu de origem. Basta portanto um pouquinho de seletividade deformante para trocar a causa pelo efeito e o inocente pelo culpado.

Mas o erro mais comum hoje em dia não é esse. É o contrário: é a recusa obstinada de enxergar alguma premeditação, alguma autoria, mesmo por trás de acontecimentos notavelmente convergentes que, sem isso, teriam de ser explicados pela forca mágica das coincidências, pela ação de anjos e demônios, pela "mão invisível" das forças de mercado ou por hipotéticas “leis da História” ou “constantes sociológicas” jamais provadas, que na imaginação do observador dirigem tudo anonimamente e sem intervenção humana.

As causas geradoras desse erro são, grosso modo:

Primeira: Reduzir as ações humanas a efeitos de forças impessoais e anônimas requer o uso de conceitos genéricos abstratos que dão automaticamente a esse tipo de abordagem a aparência de coisa muito científica. Muito mais científica, para o observador leigo, do que a paciente e meticulosa reconstituição histórica das cadeias de fatos que, sob um véu de confusão, remontam às vezes a uma autoria inicial discreta e quase imperceptível. Como o estudo dos fenômenos histórico-políticos é cada vez mais uma ocupação acadêmica cujo sucesso depende de verbas, patrocínios, respaldo na mídia popular e boas relações com o establishment, é quase inevitável que, diante de uma questão dessa ordem, poucos resistam à tentação de matar logo o problema com duas ou três generalizações elegantes e brilhar como sábios de ocasião em vez de dar-se o trabalho de rastreamentos históricos que podem exigir décadas de pesquisa.

Segunda: Qualquer grupo ou entidade que se aventure a ações histórico-políticas de longo prazo tem de possuir não só os meios de empreendê-las, mas também, necessariamente, os meios de controlar a sua repercussão pública, acentuando o que lhe convém e encobrindo o que possa abortar os resultados pretendidos. Isso implica intervenções vastas, profundas e duradouras no ambiente mental. [Etc. etc. etc.]

(no facebook em 17 de julho de 2013)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Comprimido desodorante

No episódio sei-lá-qual de Aleixo FM Bruno Aleixo diz que os bêbados sempre têm as melhores idéias e daí conta uma idéia que ele teve quando estava bêbado: um comprimido que funciona como desodorante. Ao invés de passar o desodorante spray ou roll-on a pessoa pode só tomar o comprimido e pronto, é muito mais prático e no tempo de frio a pessoa pode vestir a roupa mais rápido, sem precisar ficar passando nada com o tronco todo nu. Quando o Busto lhe pergunta sobre a possibilidade de algo assim ser fabricado ele diz que não sabe, que não é cientista, só tem as idéias.

Essa passagem tão boba de um programa de humor esconde uma verdade sobre a doutrina cientística que permeia a sociedade. A doutrina segundo a qual é da ciência que vêm as inovações tecnológicas e de todos os tipos, e por isso é preciso que o Estado tire dinheiro das pessoas trabalhadoras e dê para os cientistas. Nesse ponto ninguém mais sabe o que é um cientista, foi-se toda a concretude, ficou só o nome: "cientista". Daí vão procurar o tal cientista, é um cara que se formou numa universidade e está fazendo um mestrado. Pronto, é só dar dinheiro pra esse cara e tudo vai ficar bom.

Tirando o problema da desconexão entre realidade e a tese, existe também, é claro, o problema da tese: não faz sentido, que um cientista fique procurando formas de realizar uma idéia, que não se sabe nem se é possível nem se é desejável, que ele ou outra pessoa tiveram, muito pelo contrário (mas não vou dizer aqui o que é que era para o cientista fazer porque isso seria contraditório e eu não acho que devam nem existir cientistas).

O que eu queria dizer mesmo era: todo o aparato científico da nossa sociedade, todos os departamentos, universidades, orçamentos e bolsas e revistas, tudo se resume a um monte de gente tentando descobrir como fazer um comprimido desodorante.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Zettelkasten

https://writingcooperative.com/zettelkasten-how-one-german-scholar-was-so-freakishly-productive-997e4e0ca125 (um artigo meio estúpido, mas útil).

Esta incrível técnica de salvar notas sem categorias, sem pastas, sem hierarquia predefinida, mas apenas fazendo referências de uma nota à outra e fazendo supostamente surgir uma ordem (ou heterarquia, disseram eles) a partir do caos parece ser o que faltava pra eu conseguir anotar meus pensamentos e idéias de maneira decente, veremos.

Ah, e vou usar esse tal neuron que também gera sites a partir das notas?, acho que vai ser bom.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Criteria for activating Drivechain on Bitcoin

Drivechain is, in essence, just a way to give Bitcoin users the option to deposit their coins in a hashrate escrow. If Bitcoin is about coin ownership, in theory there should be no objection from anyone on users having the option to do that: my keys, my coins etc. In other words: even if you think hashrate escrows are a terrible idea and miners will steal all coins from that, you shouldn't care about what other people do with their own money.

There are only two reasonable objections that could be raised by normal Bitcoin users against Drivechain:

1. Drivechain adds code complexity to bitcoind
2. Drivechain perverts miner incentives of the Bitcoin chain

If these two objections can be reasonably answered there remains no reason for not activating the Drivechain soft-fork.

1

To address 1 we can just take a look at the code once it's done (which I haven't) but from my understanding the extra validation steps needed for ensuring hashrate escrows work are very minimal and self-contained, they shouldn't affect anything else and the risks of introducing some catastrophic bug are roughly zero (or the same as the risks of any of the dozens of refactors that happen every week on Bitcoin Core).

For the BMM/BIP-301 part, again the surface is very small, but we arguably do not need that at all, since anyprevout (once that is merged) enables blind merge-mining in way that is probably better than BIP-301, and that soft-fork is also very simple, plus already loved and accepted by most of the Bitcoin community, implemented and reviewed on Bitcoin Inquisition and is live on the official Bitcoin Core signet.

2

To address 2 we must only point that BMM ensures that Bitcoin miners don't have to do any extra work to earn basically all the fees that would come from the sidechain, as competition for mining sidechain blocks would bid the fee paid to Bitcoin miners up to the maximum economical amount. It is irrelevant if there is MEV on the sidechain or not, everything that reaches the Bitcoin chain does that in form of fees paid in a single high-fee transaction paid to any Bitcoin miner, regardless of them knowing about the sidechain or not. Therefore, there are no centralization pressure or pervert mining incentives that can affect Bitcoin land.

Sometimes it's argued that Drivechain may facilitate the ocurrence of a transaction paying a fee so high it would create incentives for reorging the Bitcoin chain. There is no reason to believe Drivechain would make this more likely than an actual attack than anyone can already do today or, as has happened, some rich person typing numbers wrong on his wallet. In fact, if a drivechain is consistently paying high fees on its BMM transactions that is an incentive for Bitcoin miners to keep mining those transactions one after the other and not harm the users of sidechain by reorging Bitcoin.

Moreover, there are many factors that exist today that can be seen as centralization vectors for Bitcoin mining: arguably one of them is non-blind merge mining, of which we have a (very convoluted) example on the Stacks shitcoin, and introducing the possibility of blind merge-mining on Bitcoin would basically remove any reasonable argument for having such schemes, therefore reducing the centralizing factor of them.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

idea: Custom multi-use database app

Since 2015 I have this idea of making one app that could be repurposed into a full-fledged app for all kinds of uses, like powering small businesses accounts and so on. Hackable and open as an Excel file, but more efficient, without the hassle of making tables and also using ids and indexes under the hood so different kinds of things can be related together in various ways.

It is not a concrete thing, just a generic idea that has taken multiple forms along the years and may take others in the future. I've made quite a few attempts at implementing it, but never finished any.

I used to refer to it as a "multidimensional spreadsheet".

Can also be related to DabbleDB.

@ 2355757c:5ad3e04d

You’ve heard it for some time now, incandescent lightbulbs will officially be banned for sale by retailers in the U.S. However it officially goes into fully effect NEXT WEEK. Americans will only be able to purchase LED lights from retailers across the country. The government began warnings in January, and has since officially rolled out the ban on manufacturing and sale of incandescent bulbs. WHY? LED lights provide more “light” using 75% less energy and last 25 times longer than incandescents. Sounds like a no brainer switch then right? WRONG. LED lights are significantly worse for your health, here’s why.

Our light environment is one of the most underrated, overlooked aspects of health. I will write plenty more about this topic in the future. It is complex at the surface, but in reality the takeaway is simple. Our light environment is one if not THE most important inputs to our biology. It dictates our body’s “clock” or circadian rhythm. When you disrupt your circadian rhythm frequently, you are significantly more at risk to ALL CHRONIC DISEASES. Why? Your are inherently destroying your ability to get restorative sleep, keeping your body in a sympathetic state, creating dysfunctional mitochondria, and increasing oxidative stress + inflammation. Just from light? YES.

“We summarize recent evidence suggesting that circadian disruption may also be a predisposing factor for the development of age-related neurodegenerative diseases (NDDs) such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), and Huntington's disease (HD).”

“... inappropriate environmental conditions such as Artificial Light at Night (ALAN) can cause circadian disruption or chronodisruption (CD) which can result in a variety of pathological diseases , including premature aging .” -STUDY LINK

Blue light stimulates cortisol production, the “stress” hormone that everyone has the knickers in a bunch about in the health community about mitigating through the use of supplements like Ashwaghanda. Here’s the deal, you don’t need to “mitigate” cortisol, you need to regulate its rhythm. Cortisol is the antithesis of melatonin, and the two hormones are meant to perform a dance everyday where one rises as the other falls…in accordance with the light cycles. However, that dance, that rhythm has been disrupted by artificial light. 

Melatonin warrants five newsletters just on its own, but know that the same blue light that stimulates cortisol production also suppresses melatonin production. If you do not produce sufficient melatonin, your body is missing out on a whole host of anti-oxidant, anti-cancer benefits. Melatonin is driven by light, and is the composer of our mitochondria (dictates mito fusion/fission, mitophagy, etc.).

LED (light emitting diode) lighting has a much “more artificial” light spectrum profile than incandescent bulbs. Full spectrum sunlight is the only light that would have existed for hundred’s of thousands of years of human existence. Then came the discovery/ability to use fire as a light source. Although full spectrum sunlight contains the entire visible light spectrum + UV + infrared, each of these wavelengths come through at different angles of the sun. This is the NUANCE that matters:

• There is no UV present at sunrise/sunset

• UVA appears when the sun is >10 degrees above horizon. UVB at sun angle > 30 degrees

• At dusk/dawn and sunrise/sunset, blue light wavelengths are scattered while red light remains intact (longer wavelength). Why sunrises/sunsets are more red/orange than blue

• Blue light is NEVER present in natural sunlight without accompanying red/infrared wavelengths.

If you look at the light spectrum of LEDs, you will see a VERY high concentration of blue wavelengths, green to yellow wavelengths, and very little red/infrared wavelengths. Conversely, incandescent bulbs have NO blue light, little to no green/yellow and is majority red/infrared. This is why incandescent bulbs are so inefficient, because they dissipate so much heat in the form of infrared light (we can’t see infrared). Red and infrared (especially NIR), are very healing/low energy wavelengths. They are beneficial for mitochondrial health, especially the 650-800nm range. Sunlight is predominantly Red/infrared (40-50%) and these wavelengths are always present when the sun is up. 

When you use LEDs you are creating a VERY artificial light environment with a lot of isolated blue, green, yellow light wavelengths and almost no red/infrared. This is extremely different from sunlight. This is especially problematic when using LEDs at NIGHT, because as stated…blue light suppresses melatonin production. Incandescent bulbs are a far better option since they are nearly all red/infrared light. This has a much less pronounced effect on melatonin, and is more in line with natural sunlight. It is also far lower in temperature, which again is a safer bet at night time.

Before Edison invented the light bulb, humans only used fire for light at night (or early morning). Incandescent bulbs are inherently FAR MORE similar in light spectrum profile to fire and have a much less harmful effect on melatonin. The estimates for suppression of melatonin in the graph below are certainly estimates, i think incandescent bulbs would actually be a bit lower but it depends on quantity and brightness as well. 

TLDR: LEDs are shitcoins for light. They are far more artificial in terms of light spectrum. They are stealing your melatonin away from you. Avoid at all costs (especially at night), or wear blue light blocking glasses if you must. You can buy “red or warmer LEDs” but they aren’t really a true red light source because most just put phosphorous over a white LED to alter the warmth of the light. 

STOCK UP on incandescent bulbs (good for keeping your house warm in the winter) before they are $100/pop. The government does NOT CARE about your health. 

BlockBlueLight Glasses + Red Bulbs (Code TRISTAN10) 

Stay Sovereign,

Tristan

p.s. the movement is growing.

Originally published JUL 31, 2023

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na medium.com

07.10.2019 / Autor: LuxBTC

---

Uvod

U ovom članku osvrnut ćemo se na razine informiranosti o bitcoinu s kojim se pojedinac susreće i znanja koja bi trebao usvojiti za dublje razumijevanje bitcoina. Mnogi su već čuli za bitcoin, ali površno razumijevanje može dovesti do potpuno krive percepcije pogotovo ako se za izvor informacija koriste neobjektivni i tehnički netočni medijski članci. Proces razumijevanja bitcoina iziskuje puno vremena i novih informacija koje na prvu nisu lako dostupne stoga ćemo pokušati dati uvid u tijek i izvore informiranja kao i pitanja koja bismo trebali postavljati.

Razina I - Prvi kontakt

Čuli smo od poznanika da je kupio bitcoine i zaradio na njima. Znamo iz medija da je bitcoin digitalna kriptovaluta i da ju najčešće koriste kriminalci za drogu i pranje novca. Oni koji su uspjeli zaraditi na bitcoinu, imali su sreće jer su ga uspjeli prodati na vrijeme i dobiti novac za njega jer je bitcoin vjerojatno neki oblik piramidalne sheme.

Informacije koje posjedujemo:

• bitcoin je digitalna kriptovaluta
• bitcoin koriste kriminalci
• na bitcoinu se može zaraditi ako imamo sreće i uspijemo ga prodati za novac
• bitcoin je neki oblik piramidalne sheme

Pitanja koja bismo trebali postaviti:

• što je to digitalna kriptovaluta?
• zašto bitcoin koriste kriminalci?
• kako izgleda kupnja i prodaja bitcoina?
• što je to piramidalna shema?

Mnogi će ostati na ovoj razini i prihvatiti negativno mišljenje o bitcoinu. Svaka nova informacija iz medija, koja je najčešće vezana za nagli pad cijene ili napad hakera na kripto-mjenjačnice, bit će dodatna potvrda da se bitcoina treba kloniti. U mnoštvu ljudi koji će se prikloniti tom mišljenju naći će se pojedinci koji će htjeti saznati nešto više o njemu, najčešće privučeni onim dijelom gdje se na bitcoinu može zaraditi.

Razina II - Špekulacija i brza zarada

Čuli smo da cijena bitcoina naglo raste i pada te je vrlo nepredvidljiv. Ljudi se vole kockati i špekulirati s cijenom pa zašto ne isprobati sreću na njemu prije nego što cijena padne na nulu.

Još uvijek ne znamo kako bitcoin funkcionira, ali saznali smo da možemo uplatiti novac na neke od kripto-mjenjačnica te na njima kupiti bitcoin i njime špekulirati. Kupili smo dio od jednog bitcoina (npr. 0.01 BTC) u vrijednosti od 200 eura. Cijena mu je kroz idućih nekoliko tjedana porasla te smo u dobitku 20%. Očekivali smo nastavak rasta pa ga nismo prodavali, ali cijena je oštro pala te smo sada u minusu 30%. U strahu da nam se gubitak ne poveća, prodajemo 0.01 BTC natrag u eure, naravno uz gubitak jer bitcoin trenutno vrijedi manje nego kad smo ga kupili. Kockali smo se i izgubili dok je naš prijatelj bio manje pohlepan te je iskoristio dobitak od 10%.

Informacije koje posjedujemo:

• na kripto-mjenjačnicama (burzama) možemo kupiti bitcoine
• ne moramo nužno kupiti cijeli bitcoin s obzirom da se može dijeliti na decimale
• cijena bitcoina je vrlo volatilna i nepredvidljiva
• bitcoinom se špekulira pa se ne razlikuje od kockanja

Pitanja koja bismo trebali postaviti:

• zašto bitcoin ima cijenu?
• zašto je cijena bitcoina volatilna i nepredvidljiva?
• koliko su kripto-mjenjačnice sigurne?

Nekima se posrećilo s bitcoinom, nekima nije. Sigurno je da takva internetska valuta ne može imati vrijednost jer ne postoji nikakav razlog zašto joj cijena toliko skače i pada. Najbolje se onda kloniti takvog oblika zarade.

Razina III - Odakle Bitcoinu vrijednost

Mnogi koji su čuli za bitcoin reći će — bitcoin nema vrijednost jer ne služi ničemu. Također, bitcoin je samo digitalni zapis koji nije opipljiv te je jedini razlog zašto još uvijek ima cijenu taj što je cijena potpuno umjetna te se još nije našla zadnja naivčina koja će ga otkupiti i neće više moći prodati jer ga više nitko neće htjeti kupiti. Tada će balon puknuti.

Informacije koje posjedujemo:

• bitcoin je digitalni zapis koji ne služi ničemu
• cijena bitcoina je umjetna jer bitcoin nema vrijednost
• sustav će se urušiti kad više nitko ne bude htio otkupiti bitcoine

Pitanja koja bismo trebali postaviti:

• kako izgleda i funkcionira struktura bitcoina kao digitalni zapis?
• kako se kretala cijena bitcoina od početka njegovog izuma i što nam to govori?

Razina IV - Više strana Bitcoina

Do sada smo se dotakli osnovnog ekonomskog dijela bitcoina iz kojeg smo saznali da bitcoin posjeduje tržišnu cijenu te da se njime može trgovati kao i s ostalim tržišnim instrumentima poput dionica, zlata, valuta itd. Bitcoin također ima tržišnu kapitalizaciju jer je poznat ukupan broj bitcoina u cirkulaciji kao i cijena jednog bitcoina.

No, razumijevanje bitcoina i odgovore na naša pitanja nećemo dobiti kroz njegovu osnovnu ekonomiju koja nam trenutno jedino govori da tržište bitcoina postoji jer postoji njegova ponuda i potražnja. Da bismo naučili što je bitcoin i kako funkcionira, moramo zaviriti u njegovu povijest, tehničku stranu i detalje ekonomije bitcoina koje otvaraju stotine pitanja koja za sobom povlače mrežu mnogih drugih. U tom procesu traženja odgovora nesvjesno ćemo se dotaknuti povijesti samog novca te njegove evolucije kroz tisućljeća, razvoja ljudskog društva i stvaranja monetarne politike, izuma interneta i njegovog utjecaja na društvo te slobodu pojedinca, izuma kriptografije i njezine važnosti te pojavu cypherpunk pokreta, austrijske škole ekonomije, svjetske financijske krize, blockchain tehnologije i njene primjene te još mnogih drugih tema.

Nastanak Bitcoina

Bitcoin je vrlo mlada tehnologija koja nije nastala preko noći nego je produkt rada koji se proteže nekoliko desetljeća u prošlost. Tehnički članak Bitcoina [1] objavio je njegov tvorac 31.10.2008. pod pseudonimom Satoshi Nakamoto, uoči svjetske financijske krize, a prvu verziju Bitcoin softvera objavljuje 3.1.2009. u kojem ostavlja poruku s naslovnice novina The Times, toga dana.

U nastavku slijedi hrvatski prijevod uvodnog poglavlja knjige “Mastering Bitcoin” autora Andreasa Antonopoulosa. [2]

Što je Bitcoin?

Bitcoin je skup koncepata i tehnologija koji čine osnovu ekosustava digitalnog novca. Jedinice valute nazvane bitcoin koriste se za pohranu i prijenos vrijednosti među sudionicima bitcoin mreže. Korisnici bitcoina međusobno komuniciraju putem bitcoin protokola prvenstveno putem interneta, mada se mogu koristiti i druge prijenosne mreže. Bitcoin protokol, dostupan kao softver otvorenog koda, može se izvršavati na širokom rasponu računalnih uređaja, uključujući prijenosna računala i pametne telefone, čineći tehnologiju lako dostupnom.

Korisnici mogu prenositi bitcoin preko mreže i njime ostvariti gotovo sve što se može ostvariti s uobičajenim valutama, uključujući kupovinu i prodaju robe, slanje novca ljudima ili organizacijama itd. Bitcoin se može kupiti, prodati i zamijeniti za druge valute na specijaliziranim burzama. Bitcoin je u određenom smislu savršen oblik novca za internet jer je brz, siguran i bez granica.

Za razliku od tradicionalnih valuta, bitcoini su potpuno virtualni. Ne postoje u fizičkom obliku, pa čak ni digitalnom. Kovanice su obuhvaćene u transakcijama koje prenose vrijednost s pošiljatelja na primatelja. Korisnici bitcoina posjeduju ključeve koji im omogućuju da dokažu vlasništvo nad bitcoinom u bitcoin mreži. Pomoću ovih ključeva mogu potpisati transakcije kako bi otključali vrijednost i potrošili je prijenosom na novog vlasnika. Ključevi se često pohranjuju u digitalnom novčaniku na računalu ili pametnom telefonu korisnika. Posjedovanje ključa koji može potpisati transakciju jedini je preduvjet trošenja bitcoina, čime je kontrola u potpunosti u rukama pojedinog korisnika.

Bitcoin je distribuirani, peer-to-peer (svaki sa svakim) sustav. Kao takav ne postoji središnji poslužitelj ili točka kontrole. Bitcoin se stvara kroz proces nazvan “rudarenje”, koji uključuje nadmetanje u pronalaženju rješenja za matematički problem tijekom obrade bitcoin transakcija. Svaki sudionik u bitcoin mreži (tj. svatko tko koristi uređaj koji pokreće čitav niz bitcoin protokola) može raditi kao rudar, koristeći procesorsku snagu svog računala za provjeru i zapisivanje transakcija. Svakih 10 minuta, u prosjeku, bitcoin rudar može validirati transakcije ostvarene posljednjih 10 minuta te je nagrađen s potpuno novim bitcoinom. U osnovi, rudarenje bitcoina decentralizira izdavanje novih kovanica i funkcije odobrenja središnje banke te zamjenjuje potrebu za bilo kojom središnjom bankom.

Bitcoin protokol uključuje ugrađene algoritme koji reguliraju funkciju rudarenja na mreži. Težina zadatka obrade koju rudari moraju obaviti prilagođava se dinamički tako da u prosjeku svakih 10 minuta netko uspije izvršiti zadatak bez obzira na to koliko se rudara (i koliko procesne snage) natječe u bilo kojem trenutku. Protokol također prepolavlja brzinu stvaranja novih bitcoina svake 4 godine i ograničava ukupni broj bitcoina koji će se stvoriti na fiksni ukupni iznos od 21 milijun kovanica. Rezultat je da broj bitcoina u optjecaju pomno slijedi lako predvidljivu krivulju koja se približava 21 milijunu do 2140. godine. Zbog smanjujuće stope izdavanja bitcoina, dugoročno, bitcoin valuta je deflacijska. Bitcoin se ne može razvodniti printanjem novog novca iznad očekivane stope izdavanja.

Bitcoin je ujedno i naziv protokola, peer-to-peer mreže te distribuirane računalne inovacije. Bitcoin valuta je samo prva primjena ovog izuma. Bitcoin predstavlja vrhunac dugogodišnjeg istraživanja kriptografije i distribuiranih sustava te uključuje četiri ključne inovacije okupljene u jedinstvenu i moćnu kombinaciju. Bitcoin se sastoji od:

• Decentralizirana peer-to-peer mreža (bitcoin protokol)
• Knjiga javnih transakcija (blockchain)
• Skup pravila za neovisnu provjeru transakcija i izdavanje valute (pravila konsenzusa)
• Mehanizam za postizanje globalnog decentraliziranog konsenzusa na važećem blockchainu (Proof-of-Work algoritam )

(…)

Digitalne valute prije bitcoina

Pojava digitalnog novca usko je povezan s razvojem kriptografije. To nije iznenađujuće kada se razmotre temeljni izazovi korištenja bitova koji predstavljaju vrijednost koja se može zamijeniti za robu i usluge. Tri su osnovna pitanja za svakoga tko prihvaća digitalni novac:

• Mogu li vjerovati da je novac autentičan i da nije krivotvoren?
• Mogu li vjerovati da se digitalni novac može potrošiti samo jednom (poznat kao problem “dvostruke potrošnje”)?
• Mogu li biti siguran da nitko drugi ne može tvrditi da taj novac pripada njima, a ne meni?

Izdavači papirnog novca stalno se suočavaju s problemom krivotvorenja koristeći sve sofisticiranije papire i tehnologiju printanja. Fizički novac lako rješava problem dvostruke potrošnje jer ista novčanica ne može biti na dva mjesta odjednom. Naravno, konvencionalni novac također se često pohranjuje i prenosi digitalno. U tim se slučajevima problemi s krivotvorenjem i dvostrukom potrošnjom rješavaju odobravanjem svih elektroničkih transakcija putem središnjih vlasti koje imaju globalni uvid u valutu u optjecaju. Za digitalni novac, koji ne može iskoristiti takvu vrstu provjere, kriptografija pruža osnovu za povjerenje u legitimnost zahtjeva korisnika. Konkretno, kriptografski digitalni potpisi omogućuju korisniku da potpiše digitalnu imovinu ili transakciju čime dokazuje vlasništvo nad tom imovinom. Uz odgovarajuću arhitekturu, digitalni potpisi također se mogu koristiti za rješavanje problema s dvostrukom potrošnjom.

Kada je kriptografija počela postajati široko dostupna i shvaćena u kasnim 80-ima, mnogi su istraživači pokušali koristiti kriptografiju za konstrukciju digitalnih valuta. Ti rani projekti digitalne valute izdavali su digitalni novac, obično s pokrićem u nacionalnoj valuti ili plemenitim metalom poput zlata.

Iako su te ranije digitalne valute funkcionirale, bile su centralizirane i kao rezultat toga, vlade država i hakeri su ih lako napadali. Rane digitalne valute koristile su središnji zavod zbirnog vođenja računa za podmirivanje svih transakcija u pravilnim intervalima, baš kao i tradicionalni bankarski sustav. Nažalost, u većini slučajeva ove novonastale digitalne valute bile su na meti zabrinutih vlada i na kraju su kroz sudske sporove uklonjene. Neke su propale u spektakularnim padovima kada je matična tvrtka naglo likvidirana. Za otpornost protiv intervencija protivnika, bilo da su legitimne vlade ili kriminalni elementi u pitanju, bila je potrebna decentralizirana digitalna valuta kako bi se izbjegla jedna točka napada. Bitcoin je takav sustav, koji je dizajniran decentralizirano, bez ikakvih središnjih autoriteta ili točke kontrole koji mogu biti napadnuti ili oštećeni.

Povijest Bitcoina

Bitcoin je izumljen 2008. godine objavljivanjem rada pod naslovom „Bitcoin: Peer-to-peer elektronički gotovinski sustav“,[1] napisanog pod pseudonimom Satoshi Nakamoto. Nakamoto je kombinirao nekoliko prethodnih izuma kao što su b-money i HashCash kako bi stvorio potpuno decentralizirani elektronički gotovinski sustav koji se ne oslanja na središnje tijelo za izdavanje valute i potvrđivanje transakcija. Ključna inovacija bila je upotreba distribuiranog sustava izračunavanja (nazvanog algoritam Proof-of-Work) za provođenje globalnih „izbora“ svakih 10 minuta, omogućujući decentraliziranoj mreži da postigne konsenzus o stanju transakcija. Time se elegantno rješava problem dvostruke potrošnje u kojem se jedna valuta može potrošiti dva puta. Prije toga, problem s dvostrukom potrošnjom predstavljao je slabost digitalne valute, a riješen je provjerom svih transakcija putem središnjeg zavoda zbirnog vođenja računa.

Bitcoin mreža pokrenuta je 2009. godine, koju je objavio Nakamoto i koju su tada revidirali mnogi drugi programeri. Procesna snaga algoritma Proof-of-Work (rudarenje), koji pruža sigurnost i otpornost bitcoina, povećala se eksponencijalno te sada nadmašuje kombiniranu procesnu snagu najboljih svjetskih super-računala. Ukupna tržišna vrijednost bitcoina već je premašila 135 milijardi američkih dolara. Najveća transakcija koju je mreža do sada procesuirala bila je 400 milijuna američkih dolara, koja je poslana odmah i obrađena za naknadu od 1 dolara.

Satoshi Nakamoto povukao se iz javnosti u travnju 2011., prepuštajući odgovornost za razvijanje koda i mreže skupini dobrovoljaca. Još uvijek nije poznat identitet osobe ili ljudi koji stoje iza bitcoina. No, ni Satoshi Nakamoto, niti bilo tko drugi ne vrši individualnu kontrolu nad bitcoin sustavom, koji djeluje na temelju potpuno transparentnih matematičkih principa, otvorenog koda i konsenzusa među sudionicima. Sam izum je revolucionaran i već je pokrenuo novu znanost na područjima distribuiranog računalstva, ekonomije i ekonometrije.

[…]

Knjiga “Mastering Bitcoin” pruža detaljan opis tehničkih pojmova, strukture i rada bitcoina te bitcoin mreže. Daje odgovore na mnoga tehnička pitanja i prednosti koje bitcoin pruža. Njen autor, Andreas Antonopoulos najpoznatiji je edukator u Bitcoin zajednici koji dugi niz godina održava brojne govore i edukacijske seminare o važnosti bitcoina diljem svijeta. Sudjelovao je u nekoliko parlamentarnih saslušanja na kojima je educirao političke državne vrhove o novonastaloj bitcoin tehnologiji. Njegovi brojni govori mogu se naći na Youtube kanalu aantonop [3], a neki od njih sakupljeni su u knjige “The Internet of Money (Vol. I, Vol. II)” [4]

Stvaranje šire slike

Nakon usvajanja novih informacija i tehničkih pojmova počet ćemo dobivati širu sliku o bitcoinu. Možda nam i dalje neće biti jasni pojmovi poput rudarenja, 51% napada, Problem bizantinskih generala, kreiranje privatnih i javnih ključeva itd., ali postoje mnogi Youtube videi koji to na slikovit način vrlo dobro objašnjavaju.

Potkovani tehničkim znanjem o bitcoinu, možemo krenuti postavljati pitanja što novcu daje vrijednost, zašto zlato ima vrijednost, koja je sličnost između zlata i bitcoina, zašto su standardne valute inflacijske, kako bitcoin kao deflacijska valuta funkcionira, kako funkcionira monetarna ekonomija i koje su mane današnjeg monetarnog sustava.

Odgovore na ova bitna ekonomska pitanja možemo pronaći u knjizi “The Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banking” autora Saifedeana Ammousa [5] koja će uskoro biti prevedena na hrvatski jezik u nakladništvu Mate d.o.o.

Saifedean Ammous u svojoj knjizi govori o rijetkosti u pogledu omjera Stock-to-Flow (zaliha i proizvodnje). Objašnjava zašto se zlato i bitcoin razlikuju od ostalih metala poput bakra, cinka, nikl. Zbog toga što imaju visok Stock-to-Flow omjer (SF).

„Za bilo koju potrošnu robu (…) udvostručenje proizvodnje značajno će umanjiti sve postojeće zalihe, što će srušiti cijenu i naštetiti vlasnicima. Skok cijene zlata, koji bi uzrokovao udvostručenje godišnje proizvodnje, bio bi neznatan, povećavajući zalihe za 3% umjesto 1,5%.”

„Upravo je ta konstantno niska stopa stvaranja zaliha zlata temeljni razlog zašto je zlato zadržalo svoju novčanu ulogu kroz ljudsku povijest.”

„Visoka vrijednost stock-to-flow omjera zlata čini ga robom čija tržišna ponuda ima najnižu elastičnost cijene.”

„Postojeće zalihe bitcoina u 2017. bile su oko 25 puta veće od novih bitcoina proizvedenih u toj godini. Taj omjer je upola manji u usporedbi s omjerom za zlato, ali oko 2022. stock-to-flow bitcoina nadmašit će zlato”- Saifedean Ammous

Stock-to-Flow pristup kao pokretač ekonomske analize Bitcoina

Nakon objavljivanja knjige “The Bitcoin Standard”, Stock-To-Flow pristup koji ima porijeklo u analizi tržišta robe, počeo se koristiti kao alat za analizu Bitcoina. Pristup je u skladu s osnovnom idejom koja stoji iza Bitcoina koji je izričito zamišljen kao novo monetarno dobro i usmjeren prema formi novca plemenitih metala. Prema tome novi se bitcoini ne mogu rudariti proizvoljno. Bitcoin je potpuno digitalan stoga se često naziva digitalnim zlatom.

Postoji snažna povezanost između tržišne vrijednosti bitcoina i Stock-To-Flow omjera. Model koji pokazuje ovaj statistički značajan odnos prvi je napravio autor PlanB i iznio rezultate u članku pod nazivom Modeling Bitcoin’s Value with Scarcity.[6]

Iako statistički modeli poput ovoga mogu ukazivati na snažnu zavisnu korelaciju, ne mogu uzeti u obzir utjecaje mnogih drugih, najčešće nepredvidljivih faktora, stoga uvijek postoji šansa da u potpunosti krivo prognoziraju budućnost.

Rana faza

Bitcoin je vrlo mlada tehnologija nastala tijekom svjetske financijske krize. U prvih 10 godina postojanja prošao je kroz mnoge faze. Od uporabe na crnom tržištu, trgovanja na nereguliranim burzama i hakerskih napada na njih do reguliranog trgovanja bitcoin terminskim ugovorima (futures contract), teme rasprava i korištenja u financijskim analizama poznatih svjetskih banaka te ostalih financijskih institucija itd.

Zbog povijesnog dugoročnog rasta cijene bitcoina te njegovog velikog potencijala kao nove tehnologije, mnogi se odlučuju ne koristiti ga još kao platno sredstvo nego ga nakon kupnje čuvaju. Do sada se pokazao kao dugoročno dobar instrument očuvanja vrijednosti osobne imovine, poput zlata, no idući pravi test za bitcoin bit će pojavom nove financijske krize.

Razvoj bitcoina podsjeća na razvoj interneta ranih 90-ih godina. Mnogi nisu razumjeli što internet predstavlja, korporacije čije je poslove ugrožavao, predviđale su mu propast te su smatrale da kućanstva neće imati potrebu za njime, stvorena je medijska slika da se internetom služe samo kriminalci, pedofili, ljubitelji pornografije. Danas se struktura interneta uvelike razlikuje u odnosu na njegovu ranu fazu te je neizostavan dio naših života koji je pokrenuo digitalnu revoluciju i unaprijedio životni standard ljudi diljem svijeta. Bitcoin se danas naziva i internetom novca.

Lightning network

Drugi sloj protokola na bitcoin mreži pod nazivom Lightning network, predstavljen je 2016. godine kao potencijalno rješenje za problem skalabilnost bitcoin mreže. Skalabilnost trenutno ne predstavlja problem, ali ako uporaba bitcoina postane široko rasprostranjena tj. ako se bitcoin počne koristiti u budućnosti kao svakodnevno platno sredstvo, iznimno je važno da mreža može podržati i obraditi veliki broj transakcija po sekundi. Lightning network je trenutno u beta fazi razvoja te preostaje vidjeti hoće li zaživjeti ili će se možda pojaviti neko drugo naprednije rješenje.

Zaključak

U ovom članku osvrnuli smo se na razine informiranosti o bitcoinu i znanja koja bismo trebali usvojiti za dublje razumijevanje bitcoina. Naveli smo izvore za tehničku i ekonomsku stranu bitcoina pomoću kojih možemo doći do odgovora na mnoga pitanja i dobiti širu sliku o bitcoinu.

Nitko ne zna što budućnost donosi i u kojem smjeru će se bitcoin razvijati — hoće li nadmašiti zlato u ulozi očuvanja vrijednosti osobne imovine, hoće li postati uvaženo globalno platno sredstvo te smanjiti monetarnu moć centralnih banaka ili nešto sasvim treće. Jedino što je sigurno da se svijest o trenutnom velikom nesrazmjeru bogatstva i moći širi, kao i zlouporaba moći za vlastite političke interese pojedinaca, na štetu naroda kojem se oduzimaju privatnost, sloboda, mogućnost izbora te da su u društvu potrebne mnoge promjene.

“The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve.” — Satoshi Nakamoto

Reference

[1] https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf — Satoshi Nakamoto, 2008

[2] Mastering Bitcoin: Programming the Open Blockchain — Andreas A. Antonopoulos, 2016

[3] https://www.youtube.com/user/aantonop

[4] The Internet of Money (Vol. I, Vol. II) — Andreas A. Antonopoulos, 2016-2017

[5] The Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banking — Saifedean Ammous, 2018

[6] Modeling Bitcoin’s Value with Scarcity — PlanB @100trillionUSD, 2019

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

On HTLCs and arbiters

This is another attempt and conveying the same information that should be in Lightning and its fake HTLCs. It assumes you know everything about Lightning and will just highlight a point. This is also valid for PTLCs.

The protocol says HTLCs are trimmed (i.e., not actually added to the commitment transaction) when the cost of redeeming them in fees would be greater than their actual value.

Although this is often dismissed as a non-important fact (often people will say "it's trusted for small payments, no big deal"), but I think it is indeed very important for 3 reasons:

1. Lightning absolutely relies on HTLCs actually existing because the payment proof requires them. The entire security of each payment comes from the fact that the payer has a preimage that comes from the payee. Without that, the state of the payment becomes an unsolvable mystery. The inexistence of an HTLC breaks the atomicity between the payment going through and the payer receiving a proof.
2. Bitcoin fees are expected to grow with time (arguably the reason Lightning exists in the first place).
3. MPP makes payment sizes shrink, therefore more and more of Lightning payments are to be trimmed. As I write this, the mempool is clear and still payments smaller than about 5000sat are being trimmed. Two weeks ago the limit was at 18000sat, which is already below the minimum most MPP splitting algorithms will allow.

Therefore I think it is important that we come up with a different way of ensuring payment proofs are being passed around in the case HTLCs are trimmed.

Channel closures

Worse than not having HTLCs that can be redeemed is the fact that in the current Lightning implementations channels will be closed by the peer once an HTLC timeout is reached, either to fulfill an HTLC for which that peer has a preimage or to redeem back that expired HTLCs the other party hasn't fulfilled.

For the surprise of everybody, nodes will do this even when the HTLCs in question were trimmed and therefore cannot be redeemed at all. It's very important that nodes stop doing that, because it makes no economic sense at all.

However, that is not so simple, because once you decide you're not going to close the channel, what is the next step? Do you wait until the other peer tries to fulfill an expired HTLC and tell them you won't agree and that you must cancel that instead? That could work sometimes if they're honest (and they have no incentive to not be, in this case). What if they say they tried to fulfill it before but you were offline? Now you're confused, you don't know if you were offline or they were offline, or if they are trying to trick you. Then unsolvable issues start to emerge.

Arbiters

One simple idea is to use trusted arbiters for all trimmed HTLC issues.

This idea solves both the protocol issue of getting the preimage to the payer once it is released by the payee -- and what to do with the channels once a trimmed HTLC expires.

A simple design would be to have each node hardcode a set of trusted other nodes that can serve as arbiters. Once a channel is opened between two nodes they choose one node from both lists to serve as their mutual arbiter for that channel.

Then whenever one node tries to fulfill an HTLC but the other peer is unresponsive, they can send the preimage to the arbiter instead. The arbiter will then try to contact the unresponsive peer. If it succeeds, then done, the HTLC was fulfilled offchain. If it fails then it can keep trying until the HTLC timeout. And then if the other node comes back later they can eat the loss. The arbiter will ensure they know they are the ones who must eat the loss in this case. If they don't agree to eat the loss, the first peer may then close the channel and blacklist the other peer. If the other peer believes that both the first peer and the arbiter are dishonest they can remove that arbiter from their list of trusted arbiters.

The same happens in the opposite case: if a peer doesn't get a preimage they can notify the arbiter they hadn't received anything. The arbiter may try to ask the other peer for the preimage and, if that fails, settle the dispute for the side of that first peer, which can proceed to fail the HTLC is has with someone else on that route.

@ 6f6b50bb:a848e5a1

Che cosa significherebbe trattare l'IA come uno strumento invece che come una persona?

Dall’avvio di ChatGPT, le esplorazioni in due direzioni hanno preso velocità.

La prima direzione riguarda le capacità tecniche. Quanto grande possiamo addestrare un modello? Quanto bene può rispondere alle domande del SAT? Con quanta efficienza possiamo distribuirlo?

La seconda direzione riguarda il design dell’interazione. Come comunichiamo con un modello? Come possiamo usarlo per un lavoro utile? Quale metafora usiamo per ragionare su di esso?

La prima direzione è ampiamente seguita e enormemente finanziata, e per una buona ragione: i progressi nelle capacità tecniche sono alla base di ogni possibile applicazione. Ma la seconda è altrettanto cruciale per il campo e ha enormi incognite. Siamo solo a pochi anni dall’inizio dell’era dei grandi modelli. Quali sono le probabilità che abbiamo già capito i modi migliori per usarli?

Propongo una nuova modalità di interazione, in cui i modelli svolgano il ruolo di applicazioni informatiche (ad esempio app per telefoni): fornendo un’interfaccia grafica, interpretando gli input degli utenti e aggiornando il loro stato. In questa modalità, invece di essere un “agente” che utilizza un computer per conto dell’essere umano, l’IA può fornire un ambiente informatico più ricco e potente che possiamo utilizzare.

Metafore per l’interazione

Al centro di un’interazione c’è una metafora che guida le aspettative di un utente su un sistema. I primi giorni dell’informatica hanno preso metafore come “scrivanie”, “macchine da scrivere”, “fogli di calcolo” e “lettere” e le hanno trasformate in equivalenti digitali, permettendo all’utente di ragionare sul loro comportamento. Puoi lasciare qualcosa sulla tua scrivania e tornare a prenderlo; hai bisogno di un indirizzo per inviare una lettera. Man mano che abbiamo sviluppato una conoscenza culturale di questi dispositivi, la necessità di queste particolari metafore è scomparsa, e con esse i design di interfaccia skeumorfici che le rafforzavano. Come un cestino o una matita, un computer è ora una metafora di se stesso.

La metafora dominante per i grandi modelli oggi è modello-come-persona. Questa è una metafora efficace perché le persone hanno capacità estese che conosciamo intuitivamente. Implica che possiamo avere una conversazione con un modello e porgli domande; che il modello possa collaborare con noi su un documento o un pezzo di codice; che possiamo assegnargli un compito da svolgere da solo e che tornerà quando sarà finito.

Tuttavia, trattare un modello come una persona limita profondamente il nostro modo di pensare all’interazione con esso. Le interazioni umane sono intrinsecamente lente e lineari, limitate dalla larghezza di banda e dalla natura a turni della comunicazione verbale. Come abbiamo tutti sperimentato, comunicare idee complesse in una conversazione è difficile e dispersivo. Quando vogliamo precisione, ci rivolgiamo invece a strumenti, utilizzando manipolazioni dirette e interfacce visive ad alta larghezza di banda per creare diagrammi, scrivere codice e progettare modelli CAD. Poiché concepiamo i modelli come persone, li utilizziamo attraverso conversazioni lente, anche se sono perfettamente in grado di accettare input diretti e rapidi e di produrre risultati visivi. Le metafore che utilizziamo limitano le esperienze che costruiamo, e la metafora modello-come-persona ci impedisce di esplorare il pieno potenziale dei grandi modelli.

Per molti casi d’uso, e specialmente per il lavoro produttivo, credo che il futuro risieda in un’altra metafora: modello-come-computer.

Usare un’IA come un computer

Sotto la metafora modello-come-computer, interagiremo con i grandi modelli seguendo le intuizioni che abbiamo sulle applicazioni informatiche (sia su desktop, tablet o telefono). Nota che ciò non significa che il modello sarà un’app tradizionale più di quanto il desktop di Windows fosse una scrivania letterale. “Applicazione informatica” sarà un modo per un modello di rappresentarsi a noi. Invece di agire come una persona, il modello agirà come un computer.

Agire come un computer significa produrre un’interfaccia grafica. Al posto del flusso lineare di testo in stile telescrivente fornito da ChatGPT, un sistema modello-come-computer genererà qualcosa che somiglia all’interfaccia di un’applicazione moderna: pulsanti, cursori, schede, immagini, grafici e tutto il resto. Questo affronta limitazioni chiave dell’interfaccia di chat standard modello-come-persona:

• Scoperta. Un buon strumento suggerisce i suoi usi. Quando l’unica interfaccia è una casella di testo vuota, spetta all’utente capire cosa fare e comprendere i limiti del sistema. La barra laterale Modifica in Lightroom è un ottimo modo per imparare l’editing fotografico perché non si limita a dirti cosa può fare questa applicazione con una foto, ma cosa potresti voler fare. Allo stesso modo, un’interfaccia modello-come-computer per DALL-E potrebbe mostrare nuove possibilità per le tue generazioni di immagini.

• Efficienza. La manipolazione diretta è più rapida che scrivere una richiesta a parole. Per continuare l’esempio di Lightroom, sarebbe impensabile modificare una foto dicendo a una persona quali cursori spostare e di quanto. Ci vorrebbe un giorno intero per chiedere un’esposizione leggermente più bassa e una vibranza leggermente più alta, solo per vedere come apparirebbe. Nella metafora modello-come-computer, il modello può creare strumenti che ti permettono di comunicare ciò che vuoi più efficientemente e quindi di fare le cose più rapidamente.

A differenza di un’app tradizionale, questa interfaccia grafica è generata dal modello su richiesta. Questo significa che ogni parte dell’interfaccia che vedi è rilevante per ciò che stai facendo in quel momento, inclusi i contenuti specifici del tuo lavoro. Significa anche che, se desideri un’interfaccia più ampia o diversa, puoi semplicemente richiederla. Potresti chiedere a DALL-E di produrre alcuni preset modificabili per le sue impostazioni ispirati da famosi artisti di schizzi. Quando clicchi sul preset Leonardo da Vinci, imposta i cursori per disegni prospettici altamente dettagliati in inchiostro nero. Se clicchi su Charles Schulz, seleziona fumetti tecnicolor 2D a basso dettaglio.

Una bicicletta della mente proteiforme

La metafora modello-come-persona ha una curiosa tendenza a creare distanza tra l’utente e il modello, rispecchiando il divario di comunicazione tra due persone che può essere ridotto ma mai completamente colmato. A causa della difficoltà e del costo di comunicare a parole, le persone tendono a suddividere i compiti tra loro in blocchi grandi e il più indipendenti possibile. Le interfacce modello-come-persona seguono questo schema: non vale la pena dire a un modello di aggiungere un return statement alla tua funzione quando è più veloce scriverlo da solo. Con il sovraccarico della comunicazione, i sistemi modello-come-persona sono più utili quando possono fare un intero blocco di lavoro da soli. Fanno le cose per te.

Questo contrasta con il modo in cui interagiamo con i computer o altri strumenti. Gli strumenti producono feedback visivi in tempo reale e sono controllati attraverso manipolazioni dirette. Hanno un overhead comunicativo così basso che non è necessario specificare un blocco di lavoro indipendente. Ha più senso mantenere l’umano nel loop e dirigere lo strumento momento per momento. Come stivali delle sette leghe, gli strumenti ti permettono di andare più lontano a ogni passo, ma sei ancora tu a fare il lavoro. Ti permettono di fare le cose più velocemente.

Considera il compito di costruire un sito web usando un grande modello. Con le interfacce di oggi, potresti trattare il modello come un appaltatore o un collaboratore. Cercheresti di scrivere a parole il più possibile su come vuoi che il sito appaia, cosa vuoi che dica e quali funzionalità vuoi che abbia. Il modello genererebbe una prima bozza, tu la eseguirai e poi fornirai un feedback. “Fai il logo un po’ più grande”, diresti, e “centra quella prima immagine principale”, e “deve esserci un pulsante di login nell’intestazione”. Per ottenere esattamente ciò che vuoi, invierai una lista molto lunga di richieste sempre più minuziose.

Un’interazione alternativa modello-come-computer sarebbe diversa: invece di costruire il sito web, il modello genererebbe un’interfaccia per te per costruirlo, dove ogni input dell’utente a quell’interfaccia interroga il grande modello sotto il cofano. Forse quando descrivi le tue necessità creerebbe un’interfaccia con una barra laterale e una finestra di anteprima. All’inizio la barra laterale contiene solo alcuni schizzi di layout che puoi scegliere come punto di partenza. Puoi cliccare su ciascuno di essi, e il modello scrive l’HTML per una pagina web usando quel layout e lo visualizza nella finestra di anteprima. Ora che hai una pagina su cui lavorare, la barra laterale guadagna opzioni aggiuntive che influenzano la pagina globalmente, come accoppiamenti di font e schemi di colore. L’anteprima funge da editor WYSIWYG, permettendoti di afferrare elementi e spostarli, modificarne i contenuti, ecc. A supportare tutto ciò è il modello, che vede queste azioni dell’utente e riscrive la pagina per corrispondere ai cambiamenti effettuati. Poiché il modello può generare un’interfaccia per aiutare te e lui a comunicare più efficientemente, puoi esercitare più controllo sul prodotto finale in meno tempo.

La metafora modello-come-computer ci incoraggia a pensare al modello come a uno strumento con cui interagire in tempo reale piuttosto che a un collaboratore a cui assegnare compiti. Invece di sostituire un tirocinante o un tutor, può essere una sorta di bicicletta proteiforme per la mente, una che è sempre costruita su misura esattamente per te e il terreno che intendi attraversare.

Un nuovo paradigma per l’informatica?

I modelli che possono generare interfacce su richiesta sono una frontiera completamente nuova nell’informatica. Potrebbero essere un paradigma del tutto nuovo, con il modo in cui cortocircuitano il modello di applicazione esistente. Dare agli utenti finali il potere di creare e modificare app al volo cambia fondamentalmente il modo in cui interagiamo con i computer. Al posto di una singola applicazione statica costruita da uno sviluppatore, un modello genererà un’applicazione su misura per l’utente e le sue esigenze immediate. Al posto della logica aziendale implementata nel codice, il modello interpreterà gli input dell’utente e aggiornerà l’interfaccia utente. È persino possibile che questo tipo di interfaccia generativa sostituisca completamente il sistema operativo, generando e gestendo interfacce e finestre al volo secondo necessità.

All’inizio, l’interfaccia generativa sarà un giocattolo, utile solo per l’esplorazione creativa e poche altre applicazioni di nicchia. Dopotutto, nessuno vorrebbe un’app di posta elettronica che occasionalmente invia email al tuo ex e mente sulla tua casella di posta. Ma gradualmente i modelli miglioreranno. Anche mentre si spingeranno ulteriormente nello spazio di esperienze completamente nuove, diventeranno lentamente abbastanza affidabili da essere utilizzati per un lavoro reale.

Piccoli pezzi di questo futuro esistono già. Anni fa Jonas Degrave ha dimostrato che ChatGPT poteva fare una buona simulazione di una riga di comando Linux. Allo stesso modo, websim.ai utilizza un LLM per generare siti web su richiesta mentre li navighi. Oasis, GameNGen e DIAMOND addestrano modelli video condizionati sull’azione su singoli videogiochi, permettendoti di giocare ad esempio a Doom dentro un grande modello. E Genie 2 genera videogiochi giocabili da prompt testuali. L’interfaccia generativa potrebbe ancora sembrare un’idea folle, ma non è così folle.

Ci sono enormi domande aperte su come apparirà tutto questo. Dove sarà inizialmente utile l’interfaccia generativa? Come condivideremo e distribuiremo le esperienze che creiamo collaborando con il modello, se esistono solo come contesto di un grande modello? Vorremmo davvero farlo? Quali nuovi tipi di esperienze saranno possibili? Come funzionerà tutto questo in pratica? I modelli genereranno interfacce come codice o produrranno direttamente pixel grezzi?

Non conosco ancora queste risposte. Dovremo sperimentare e scoprirlo!Che cosa significherebbe trattare l'IA come uno strumento invece che come una persona?

Dall’avvio di ChatGPT, le esplorazioni in due direzioni hanno preso velocità.

La prima direzione riguarda le capacità tecniche. Quanto grande possiamo addestrare un modello? Quanto bene può rispondere alle domande del SAT? Con quanta efficienza possiamo distribuirlo?

La seconda direzione riguarda il design dell’interazione. Come comunichiamo con un modello? Come possiamo usarlo per un lavoro utile? Quale metafora usiamo per ragionare su di esso?

La prima direzione è ampiamente seguita e enormemente finanziata, e per una buona ragione: i progressi nelle capacità tecniche sono alla base di ogni possibile applicazione. Ma la seconda è altrettanto cruciale per il campo e ha enormi incognite. Siamo solo a pochi anni dall’inizio dell’era dei grandi modelli. Quali sono le probabilità che abbiamo già capito i modi migliori per usarli?

Propongo una nuova modalità di interazione, in cui i modelli svolgano il ruolo di applicazioni informatiche (ad esempio app per telefoni): fornendo un’interfaccia grafica, interpretando gli input degli utenti e aggiornando il loro stato. In questa modalità, invece di essere un “agente” che utilizza un computer per conto dell’essere umano, l’IA può fornire un ambiente informatico più ricco e potente che possiamo utilizzare.

Metafore per l’interazione

Al centro di un’interazione c’è una metafora che guida le aspettative di un utente su un sistema. I primi giorni dell’informatica hanno preso metafore come “scrivanie”, “macchine da scrivere”, “fogli di calcolo” e “lettere” e le hanno trasformate in equivalenti digitali, permettendo all’utente di ragionare sul loro comportamento. Puoi lasciare qualcosa sulla tua scrivania e tornare a prenderlo; hai bisogno di un indirizzo per inviare una lettera. Man mano che abbiamo sviluppato una conoscenza culturale di questi dispositivi, la necessità di queste particolari metafore è scomparsa, e con esse i design di interfaccia skeumorfici che le rafforzavano. Come un cestino o una matita, un computer è ora una metafora di se stesso.

La metafora dominante per i grandi modelli oggi è modello-come-persona. Questa è una metafora efficace perché le persone hanno capacità estese che conosciamo intuitivamente. Implica che possiamo avere una conversazione con un modello e porgli domande; che il modello possa collaborare con noi su un documento o un pezzo di codice; che possiamo assegnargli un compito da svolgere da solo e che tornerà quando sarà finito.

Tuttavia, trattare un modello come una persona limita profondamente il nostro modo di pensare all’interazione con esso. Le interazioni umane sono intrinsecamente lente e lineari, limitate dalla larghezza di banda e dalla natura a turni della comunicazione verbale. Come abbiamo tutti sperimentato, comunicare idee complesse in una conversazione è difficile e dispersivo. Quando vogliamo precisione, ci rivolgiamo invece a strumenti, utilizzando manipolazioni dirette e interfacce visive ad alta larghezza di banda per creare diagrammi, scrivere codice e progettare modelli CAD. Poiché concepiamo i modelli come persone, li utilizziamo attraverso conversazioni lente, anche se sono perfettamente in grado di accettare input diretti e rapidi e di produrre risultati visivi. Le metafore che utilizziamo limitano le esperienze che costruiamo, e la metafora modello-come-persona ci impedisce di esplorare il pieno potenziale dei grandi modelli.

Per molti casi d’uso, e specialmente per il lavoro produttivo, credo che il futuro risieda in un’altra metafora: modello-come-computer.

Usare un’IA come un computer

Sotto la metafora modello-come-computer, interagiremo con i grandi modelli seguendo le intuizioni che abbiamo sulle applicazioni informatiche (sia su desktop, tablet o telefono). Nota che ciò non significa che il modello sarà un’app tradizionale più di quanto il desktop di Windows fosse una scrivania letterale. “Applicazione informatica” sarà un modo per un modello di rappresentarsi a noi. Invece di agire come una persona, il modello agirà come un computer.

Agire come un computer significa produrre un’interfaccia grafica. Al posto del flusso lineare di testo in stile telescrivente fornito da ChatGPT, un sistema modello-come-computer genererà qualcosa che somiglia all’interfaccia di un’applicazione moderna: pulsanti, cursori, schede, immagini, grafici e tutto il resto. Questo affronta limitazioni chiave dell’interfaccia di chat standard modello-come-persona:

Scoperta. Un buon strumento suggerisce i suoi usi. Quando l’unica interfaccia è una casella di testo vuota, spetta all’utente capire cosa fare e comprendere i limiti del sistema. La barra laterale Modifica in Lightroom è un ottimo modo per imparare l’editing fotografico perché non si limita a dirti cosa può fare questa applicazione con una foto, ma cosa potresti voler fare. Allo stesso modo, un’interfaccia modello-come-computer per DALL-E potrebbe mostrare nuove possibilità per le tue generazioni di immagini.

Efficienza. La manipolazione diretta è più rapida che scrivere una richiesta a parole. Per continuare l’esempio di Lightroom, sarebbe impensabile modificare una foto dicendo a una persona quali cursori spostare e di quanto. Ci vorrebbe un giorno intero per chiedere un’esposizione leggermente più bassa e una vibranza leggermente più alta, solo per vedere come apparirebbe. Nella metafora modello-come-computer, il modello può creare strumenti che ti permettono di comunicare ciò che vuoi più efficientemente e quindi di fare le cose più rapidamente.

A differenza di un’app tradizionale, questa interfaccia grafica è generata dal modello su richiesta. Questo significa che ogni parte dell’interfaccia che vedi è rilevante per ciò che stai facendo in quel momento, inclusi i contenuti specifici del tuo lavoro. Significa anche che, se desideri un’interfaccia più ampia o diversa, puoi semplicemente richiederla. Potresti chiedere a DALL-E di produrre alcuni preset modificabili per le sue impostazioni ispirati da famosi artisti di schizzi. Quando clicchi sul preset Leonardo da Vinci, imposta i cursori per disegni prospettici altamente dettagliati in inchiostro nero. Se clicchi su Charles Schulz, seleziona fumetti tecnicolor 2D a basso dettaglio.

Una bicicletta della mente proteiforme

La metafora modello-come-persona ha una curiosa tendenza a creare distanza tra l’utente e il modello, rispecchiando il divario di comunicazione tra due persone che può essere ridotto ma mai completamente colmato. A causa della difficoltà e del costo di comunicare a parole, le persone tendono a suddividere i compiti tra loro in blocchi grandi e il più indipendenti possibile. Le interfacce modello-come-persona seguono questo schema: non vale la pena dire a un modello di aggiungere un return statement alla tua funzione quando è più veloce scriverlo da solo. Con il sovraccarico della comunicazione, i sistemi modello-come-persona sono più utili quando possono fare un intero blocco di lavoro da soli. Fanno le cose per te.

Questo contrasta con il modo in cui interagiamo con i computer o altri strumenti. Gli strumenti producono feedback visivi in tempo reale e sono controllati attraverso manipolazioni dirette. Hanno un overhead comunicativo così basso che non è necessario specificare un blocco di lavoro indipendente. Ha più senso mantenere l’umano nel loop e dirigere lo strumento momento per momento. Come stivali delle sette leghe, gli strumenti ti permettono di andare più lontano a ogni passo, ma sei ancora tu a fare il lavoro. Ti permettono di fare le cose più velocemente.

Considera il compito di costruire un sito web usando un grande modello. Con le interfacce di oggi, potresti trattare il modello come un appaltatore o un collaboratore. Cercheresti di scrivere a parole il più possibile su come vuoi che il sito appaia, cosa vuoi che dica e quali funzionalità vuoi che abbia. Il modello genererebbe una prima bozza, tu la eseguirai e poi fornirai un feedback. “Fai il logo un po’ più grande”, diresti, e “centra quella prima immagine principale”, e “deve esserci un pulsante di login nell’intestazione”. Per ottenere esattamente ciò che vuoi, invierai una lista molto lunga di richieste sempre più minuziose.

Un’interazione alternativa modello-come-computer sarebbe diversa: invece di costruire il sito web, il modello genererebbe un’interfaccia per te per costruirlo, dove ogni input dell’utente a quell’interfaccia interroga il grande modello sotto il cofano. Forse quando descrivi le tue necessità creerebbe un’interfaccia con una barra laterale e una finestra di anteprima. All’inizio la barra laterale contiene solo alcuni schizzi di layout che puoi scegliere come punto di partenza. Puoi cliccare su ciascuno di essi, e il modello scrive l’HTML per una pagina web usando quel layout e lo visualizza nella finestra di anteprima. Ora che hai una pagina su cui lavorare, la barra laterale guadagna opzioni aggiuntive che influenzano la pagina globalmente, come accoppiamenti di font e schemi di colore. L’anteprima funge da editor WYSIWYG, permettendoti di afferrare elementi e spostarli, modificarne i contenuti, ecc. A supportare tutto ciò è il modello, che vede queste azioni dell’utente e riscrive la pagina per corrispondere ai cambiamenti effettuati. Poiché il modello può generare un’interfaccia per aiutare te e lui a comunicare più efficientemente, puoi esercitare più controllo sul prodotto finale in meno tempo.

La metafora modello-come-computer ci incoraggia a pensare al modello come a uno strumento con cui interagire in tempo reale piuttosto che a un collaboratore a cui assegnare compiti. Invece di sostituire un tirocinante o un tutor, può essere una sorta di bicicletta proteiforme per la mente, una che è sempre costruita su misura esattamente per te e il terreno che intendi attraversare.

Un nuovo paradigma per l’informatica?

I modelli che possono generare interfacce su richiesta sono una frontiera completamente nuova nell’informatica. Potrebbero essere un paradigma del tutto nuovo, con il modo in cui cortocircuitano il modello di applicazione esistente. Dare agli utenti finali il potere di creare e modificare app al volo cambia fondamentalmente il modo in cui interagiamo con i computer. Al posto di una singola applicazione statica costruita da uno sviluppatore, un modello genererà un’applicazione su misura per l’utente e le sue esigenze immediate. Al posto della logica aziendale implementata nel codice, il modello interpreterà gli input dell’utente e aggiornerà l’interfaccia utente. È persino possibile che questo tipo di interfaccia generativa sostituisca completamente il sistema operativo, generando e gestendo interfacce e finestre al volo secondo necessità.

All’inizio, l’interfaccia generativa sarà un giocattolo, utile solo per l’esplorazione creativa e poche altre applicazioni di nicchia. Dopotutto, nessuno vorrebbe un’app di posta elettronica che occasionalmente invia email al tuo ex e mente sulla tua casella di posta. Ma gradualmente i modelli miglioreranno. Anche mentre si spingeranno ulteriormente nello spazio di esperienze completamente nuove, diventeranno lentamente abbastanza affidabili da essere utilizzati per un lavoro reale.

Piccoli pezzi di questo futuro esistono già. Anni fa Jonas Degrave ha dimostrato che ChatGPT poteva fare una buona simulazione di una riga di comando Linux. Allo stesso modo, websim.ai utilizza un LLM per generare siti web su richiesta mentre li navighi. Oasis, GameNGen e DIAMOND addestrano modelli video condizionati sull’azione su singoli videogiochi, permettendoti di giocare ad esempio a Doom dentro un grande modello. E Genie 2 genera videogiochi giocabili da prompt testuali. L’interfaccia generativa potrebbe ancora sembrare un’idea folle, ma non è così folle.

Ci sono enormi domande aperte su come apparirà tutto questo. Dove sarà inizialmente utile l’interfaccia generativa? Come condivideremo e distribuiremo le esperienze che creiamo collaborando con il modello, se esistono solo come contesto di un grande modello? Vorremmo davvero farlo? Quali nuovi tipi di esperienze saranno possibili? Come funzionerà tutto questo in pratica? I modelli genereranno interfacce come codice o produrranno direttamente pixel grezzi?

Non conosco ancora queste risposte. Dovremo sperimentare e scoprirlo!

Tradotto da:\ https://willwhitney.com/computing-inside-ai.htmlhttps://willwhitney.com/computing-inside-ai.html

@ 502ab02a:a2860397

แสงแดด วิตามิน D, A, K2-MK7 กับสุขภาพกระดูกและหลอดเลือด ว่าด้วยเรื่องของ DAK2 นั้นเคยเขียนไว้นานแล้ว แต่จำได้ว่าเป็นกึ่งๆบทความบ่นๆ แต่ไม่ได้อธิบายเป็นภาษามนุษย์นักครับว่า ตกลงจะหมายถึงอะไรกันแน่ ด้วยวาระโอกาสจะจบปี 2024 เลยคิดว่า นำมาปิดท้ายเนื้อหาหนักๆช่วงปลายๆของ season3 นี้กันดีกว่า

แสงแดด ไม่ใช่สิ่งที่ควรหลีกเลี่ยงเสมอไป แม้ว่าหลายคนจะกังวลเกี่ยวกับความเสี่ยงของโรคมะเร็งผิวหนัง แต่หากได้รับในปริมาณที่เหมาะสม แสงแดดเป็นสิ่งสำคัญที่ช่วยกระตุ้นกลไกของวิตามิน D ในร่างกาย ซึ่งทำงานร่วมกับ วิตามิน A และ วิตามิน K2-MK7 เพื่อดูแลสุขภาพกระดูกและหลอดเลือด รวมถึงช่วยลดความเสี่ยงจากโรคร้ายแรง เช่น โรคกระดูกพรุนและหลอดเลือดอุดตันครับ บทความนี้จะอธิบายถึงกลไกการทำงานของวิตามินเหล่านี้กับร่างกาย เพื่อส่งเสริมการดูดซึมแคลเซียม ลดการสะสมแคลเซียมผิดที่ และสร้างความเข้าใจว่าความเสี่ยงจากการตากแดดนั้น ต่ำกว่าที่หลายคนเข้าใจนักครับ คือ ถ้าไม่ชอบตากก็ไม่ต้องอ้างอะไรอื่นครับ ลองพิจารณาสิ่งที่ผมจะเล่าให้นี้ก่อนว่าซื้อมั๊ย ผมพยายามจะรวบรัดให้สั้นๆนะครับ

หลักการที่ผมมโนออกมาเป็นคำสั้นๆว่า DAK2 ซึ่งผมมักจะเรียกว่า แดก หรือเต็มๆคือ ตากแดดแล้วแดกด้วย คือกิจกรรมตากแดดของเรานั้น จะส่งผลดีได้อีกด้านนึงด้วย ถ้าคุณได้รับวิตามินครบทั้ง DAK2 ครับ เพราะว่า

-วิตามิน D เป็นรากฐานของการดูดซึมแคลเซียม วิตามิน D เป็นจุดเริ่มต้นของกระบวนการที่ช่วยให้ร่างกายดูดซึมแคลเซียมอย่างมีประสิทธิภาพและนำไปใช้อย่างเหมาะสม เมื่อผิวหนังได้รับรังสี UVB จากแสงแดด ร่างกายจะสังเคราะห์ วิตามิน D3 (cholecalciferol) วิตามิน D3 จะถูกเปลี่ยนเป็น calcidiol ในตับ และcalcitriol ที่ไต ซึ่งตรงนี้นะครับ มันจะถูกเปลี่ยนเป็น calcitriol รูปแบบที่ร่างกายนำไปใช้งานได้ ซึ่งเจ้า Calcitriol นี่แหละที่ ช่วยเพิ่มการดูดซึม แคลเซียม และ ฟอสฟอรัส จากอาหารในลำไส้ ทำให้มีแร่ธาตุเพียงพอสำหรับการสร้างและบำรุงกระดูก

-วิตามิน K2-MK7 รับบทผู้ควบคุมแคลเซียมในร่างกาย วิตามิน K2 ตัวนี้สำคัญ หายากและขาดมากที่สุดครับ โดยเฉพาะในรูปแบบ MK7 (menaquinone-7) มีบทบาทสำคัญในการนำแคลเซียมไปสะสมในกระดูกและป้องกันการสะสมในหลอดเลือด โดย K2 นั้นกระตุ้นโปรตีน osteocalcin ซึ่งทำหน้าที่ดึงแคลเซียมเข้าสู่กระดูก นอกจากนี้ K2 ยังช่วยกระตุ้น matrix Gla-protein (MGP) ซึ่งป้องกันการสะสมแคลเซียมไม่ให้ไปเกาะในหลอดเลือดแดงและเนื้อเยื่ออ่อน ดังนั้นการได้รับ K2 เพียงพอจึงช่วยลดความเสี่ยงของโรคหลอดเลือดอุดตัน

คำถามคือทำไมต้อง MK7???? นั่นเพราะ MK7 มีคุณสมบัติที่เหนือกว่า K2 รูปแบบอื่น เนื่องจากมีการทำงานในร่างกายได้นานกว่าวิตามิน K2 ตัวอื่นๆก่อนจะถูกขับทิ้งออกไป จึงช่วยให้เกิดผลลัพธ์ที่ยาวนานและมีประสิทธิภาพสูงที่สุด

-วิตามิน A ผู้สนับสนุนกระดูกและหลอดเลือด วิตามิน A (ในรูป retinoic acid) ทำงานร่วมกับวิตามิน D และ K2 เพื่อช่วยควบคุมการเจริญเติบโตของกระดูกและลดการสะสมแคลเซียมผิดที่ครับ โดยวิตามิน A จะกระตุ้นเซลล์สร้างกระดูก (osteoblasts) และช่วยปรับสมดุลของเซลล์สลายกระดูก (osteoclasts)ควบคุมการทำงานของเซลล์ทำลายกระดูก รวมถึงมีส่วนช่วยในการสร้างเซลล์เยื่อบุหลอดเลือด (endothelial cells) ให้แข็งแรง ช่วยลดการสะสมของคราบแคลเซียมในหลอดเลือด

เมื่อทำงานร่วมกับ วิตามิน K2 (ที่ป้องกันแคลเซียมสะสมในหลอดเลือด) จะช่วยลดความเสี่ยงของโรคหลอดเลือดอุดตัน แล้ววิตามิน A นั้นก็ยังช่วยเสริมสร้างเซลล์เยื่อบุหลอดเลือด ทำให้หลอดเลือดแข็งแรง ลดความเสี่ยงการสะสมของคราบแคลเซียม เมื่อร่างกายได้รับ วิตามิน A, D, และ K2 ร่วมกัน กระบวนการสร้างกระดูกและการสะสมแร่ธาตุในกระดูกจะมีประสิทธิภาพมากขึ้น

ข้อควรระวัง การได้รับวิตามิน A มากเกินไป (เกิน 10,000 IU/วัน) อาจขัดขวางการทำงานของวิตามิน D และเสี่ยงต่อการสูญเสียมวลกระดูก ดังนั้นควรได้รับในปริมาณที่เหมาะสม ไม่ใช่ว่าพอคิดว่าดีแล้วจัดกันแบบไม่ยั้งนะครับ อันนี้อันตรายนะ

สรุปการทำงานร่วมกันของวิตามิน D, A, K2-MK7 วิตามิน D ช่วยเพิ่มการดูดซึมแคลเซียมและฟอสฟอรัสเข้าสู่กระแสเลือด วิตามิน K2-MK7 ช่วยนำแคลเซียมไปสะสมในกระดูก และป้องกันการสะสมในหลอดเลือด วิตามิน A ช่วยปรับสมดุลการเจริญเติบโตและการสลายกระดูก พร้อมเสริมความแข็งแรงของเยื่อบุหลอดเลือด

อาหารที่ช่วยเสริมวิตามิน D, A, K2-MK7 ปกติเราจะท่องๆกันว่า ในเนื้อวัวตับวัว มีครบเกือบทุกอย่าง เว้นวิตามิน K2 เรามาลองดูตัวอย่างอาหารอื่นๆกันบ้างครับ วิตามิน D: ปลาแซลมอน, ปลาซาร์ดีน, น้ำมันตับปลา วิตามิน A: ตับ, ไข่ วิตามิน K2-MK7: นัตโตะ (ถั่วหมักญี่ปุ่น), ชีส, ไข่ไก่จากไก่ที่เลี้ยงปล่อย ส่วนที่มีคนถามว่า กิมจิหล่ะ คือ กิมจิ มีปริมาณวิตามิน K2 จริงครับแต่โดยปกติจะอยู่ในรูปแบบ MK4 ไม่ใช่ MK7 แคลเซียม: นม, กระดูกอ่อนต่างๆ, น้ำซุปกระดูก. ตับ ทีนี้พอเราเห็นภาพรวมแล้ว ก็ต้องบอกว่า จงเลิกมายาที่ต้องมานั่งท่องว่า ตากแดดเวลาไหนดีที่สุด เพราะคุณไม่ต้องไขว่คว้าหาอะไรที่ดีที่สุดเลยครับ คติของการตากแดดคือ ดีทุกเวลา เอาที่ว่าคุณไหวนั่นแหละ ไอ้ที่บอกว่าตากเช้าดีสุดนี่ ตากเช้าเท่านั้น เวลาอื่นห้ามตาก ตากแล้วจะเป็นมะเร็ง โคตรโม้ครับ อย่าเชื่อผมนะ คุณค่อยๆพิจารณา verify ไปทีละจุด ตากแค่เช้าจะได้อะไร ตากสะสมหลายๆเวลาได้อะไร แล้วประโยคที่ส่งต่อกันจังเลยว่า ตากแดดเช้ามันดีสุดจริงไหม

เลิกถามนะครับ ว่าตากเวลาไหนดีที่สุด มัน out แล้ว

#SundaySpecialเราจะไปเป็นหมูแดดเดียว #กูต้องรู้มั๊ย #PirateKeto

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

"Você só aprendeu mesmo uma coisa quando consegue explicar para os outros"

Mentira. Tá certo que existe um ponto em que você acha que sabe algo mas não consegue explicar, mas não necessariamente isso significa não saber. Conseguir explicar não depende de saber, mas de verbalizar. Podemos saber muitas coisas sem as conseguir verbalizar. Aliás, para a maior parte das experiências humanas verbalizar é que é a parte difícil. Por último, é importante dizer que a verbalização é uma abstração e portanto quando alguém tenta explicar algo e se força a fazer uma abstração está arriscando substituir a experiência concreta ou mesmo o conhecimento difuso de algo por aquela abstração e com isso ficar mais burro -- me parece que esse é risco é maior quanto mais prematura for a tentativa de explicação e quando mais sucesso a abstração improvisada fizer.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na luxb.substack.com.

27.10.2022 / Autor: Lux Bitcoin

---

Najosnovniji način prijenosa vrijednosti je trampa.

Trampa, međutim, ima tri glavna ograničenja: zahtijeva podudarnost razmjera, prostora i vremena.

Podudarnost razmjera: ono što želite možda nema istu vrijednost kao ono što želite dati.

Podudarnost prostora: ono što želite može biti na različitim mjestima od onoga što želite dati.

Podudarnost vremena: ono što želite možda nema istu kvarljivost kao ono što želite dati.

Kako bi se prevladala ova ograničenja, pokušalo se koristiti intermedijarni dobra, s funkcijom novca.

Ta su dobra morala biti lako djeljiva, lako prenosiva, lako prepoznatljiva i nekvarljiva. Stoga su morala biti potrošna u razmjeru, prostoru i vremenu.

Potrošnost kroz vrijeme je najzanimljivije svojstvo.

Neko dobro se može potrošiti kroz vrijeme ako je fizički nepromjenjivo. Ali nepromjenjivost materijala nije dovoljna za očuvanje vrijednosti, potrebno je i održavati stabilnom količinu dostupnu na tržištu.

Da bismo razumjeli ovaj koncept, uzmimo primjer RAI kamenja, koje se koristilo kao valuta na otoku Yap.

Izvorno je nabaviti ovo kamenje bilo vrlo teško, pa nije bilo načina da se ih se previše inflacionira, ali iskrcavanjem kapetana O'Keefea 1871. situacija se promijenila. Zahvaljujući tehnološki naprednijim alatima kapetan je bio u stanju nabaviti nebrojeno kamenje, stvorivši inflaciju i uzrokovao da RAI izgubi status valute.

Inflacija nekog dobra uzrokuje mu gubitak vrijednosti.

Gubitak vrijednosti dobra otežava njegovu trošnost.

Povijest novca

Nakon pokušaja sa stokom, kamenjem, školjkama, žitaricama i solju, odlučeno je da se metalima pripiše funkciju novca, budući da ih se moglo modelirati u jednakim jedinicama.

Među metalima koji su se koristili kao novac, zlato je postalo dominantno zbog svoje nepromjenjivosti i iznimne teškoće u pronalaženju. Ove dvije karakteristike omogućile su mu da zadrži svoju vrijednost tijekom godina.

Novac koji ne zadržava svoju vrijednost tijekom vremena uzrokuje ogromnu štetu zajednicama. Uzmimo primjer Rimskog carstva.

Uvođenje Aureusa od strane Julija Cezara omogućilo je ogromno i uspješno tržište koje se širilo diljem Europe i Mediterana.

Međutim, Neron je, u nedostatku sredstava, počeo kovati novac sa sve manjom količinom plemenitog metala. S ovim trikom mogao je računati na mnogo više sredstava da ugodi narodu, primjerice davanjem kruha i igara.

Što su financije bile lošije, to se više metala oduzimalo. Od 8 grama Cezarovog Aureusa, sa godinama se prešlo na novčić sa samo 4,5 grama zlata. To je omogućilo carevima da troše iznad svojih mogućnosti, stvarajući osnove za ekonomsku propast carstva.

Kraj Carigrada također se poklopio sa devalvacijom novca. Sa novčanim padom dogodio se i kulturni, financijski i vojni pad.

Pad rimskog carstva i stalna devalvacija novca stvorili su ozbiljne prepreke trgovini i naveli stanovništvo da se organizira u male samodostatne zajednice nepovjerljive jedna prema drugoj.

Preporod nakon razdoblja ratova i gladi koincidirao je s usvajanjem novog novčanog standarda. Sve je počelo u Firenci 1252. godine kada je grad uveo florin, zlatnik s fiksnom težinom. Zahvaljujući svojoj stabilnosti, florin je postupno zamijenio sve bakrene i brončane kovanice koje se lako inflatiralo i predstavljao je uzor cijeloj Europi. Venecija je bila prva koja je slijedila primjer Firence kujući Dukat, ali još 150 drugih gradova prilagodilo se novom standardu.

S procvatom trgovine Europa, a posebno Italija, doživjeli su veliki gospodarski i kulturni procvat.

Usvajanje jakog novca kroz povijest uvijek je bilo nagrađeno rastom i prosperitetom. Drugi primjer je Britansko Carstvo, najveće u ljudskoj povijesti, koje je usvojilo moderni zlatni standard 1717. Iako se zlatom nije više trgovalo u malim transakcijama, ono je i dalje ostalo kao referenca za novčanice.

Zemlje poput Indije i Kine skupo su platile izbor kasnije prilagodbe zlatnom standardu.

Dok je veći dio planeta usvajao zlatno standard, stigla je La Belle Epoque, jedno od najprosperitetnijih razdoblja u ljudskoj povijesti. Uz jaki novac zajednički svim zemljama poticana je trgovina, a stabilnost novca tijekom vremena omogućila je akumulaciju kapitala potrebnog za ulaganja.

Godine 1914., s Prvim svjetskim ratom, zlatni standard je suspendiran.

Ako su sa jakim novcem ratovi završavali kad je državi nedostajalo novca, sa slabim novcem to više nije bio problem. Skriveni porez, inflacija, omogućio je nastavak ratova sve dok cjelokupno nacionalno bogatstvo nije erodirano.

Nakon rata, Sjedinjene Države doživjele su najgoru gospodarsku krizu ikada zabilježenu: Veliku depresiju. Uvriježeneo je mišljenje da se iz depresije izašlo zahvaljujući povećanju javne potrošnje (New Deal). Zapravo, kreditna ekspanzija 1920-ih je to uzrokovala, a New Deal je samo pogoršao situaciju.

U 1930-ima države su nastavile napuhavati valute.

Totalitarni režimi imali su svaki interes financirati se bez ubiranja poreza.

Keynes, ekonomist koji je rat smatrao učinkovitim načinom borbe protiv nezaposlenosti, teoretizirao je izlazak iz zlatnog standarda.

Drugi svjetski rat doista nije kasnio.

Godine 1971. Sjedinjene države definitivno napuštaju zlatni standard, započevši neobuzdanu monetarnu ekspanziju koja traje sve do danas. Za predodžbu: ako je 1971. unca zlata vrijedila 35 dolara, danas vrijedi 1500.

Korištenjem lako inflatornih valuta riskira se hiperinflaciju, odnosno drastičan gubitak kupovne moći u kratkom vremenu.

Primjeri hiperinflacije su Njemačka 1920-ih s dnevnom inflacijom od 20%, te Mađarska 1940-ih s dnevnom inflacijom od 207%.

U Mađarskoj su se cijene udvostručavale svakih 15 sati, što je učinilo apsolutno nemogućim uštedu i prijenos vrijednosti tijekom vremena.

Očigledno sve to ne bi bilo moguće s novcem koji teško podliježe inflaciji.

Bitcoin

Prije Bitcoina bile su moguće samo dvije vrste plaćanja:

• Gotovinska plaćanja bez posrednika

• Elektronička plaćanja putem posrednika

Gotovinska plaćanja su trenutna, ali zahtijevaju fizičku prisutnost obiju strana. Elektronička plaćanja mogu se izvršiti i na daljinu, ali za to je potreban posrednik koji ovjerava plaćanje i naplatu.

Bitcoin je prvi oblik novca koji omogućuje elektronička plaćanja bez uključivanja posrednika kao što su države ili banke, a to ga također čini prvom valutom koja nije podložna inflaciji, koja se ne može zaplijeniti, koja se ne može cenzurirati, koja može prenijeti vrijednost bolje od bilo čega kroz redove veličine, prostor i vrijeme.

Ako zlato ima inflaciju koja fluktuira oko 2%, Bitcoin ima inflaciju koja se prepolovi svake 4 godine sve dok ne dosegne nulu i ostane tamo zauvijek. Bitcoin je, dakle, prva valuta u povijesti koja će imati nultu inflaciju.

Prednosti Bitcoina u odnosu na zlato su ogromne: lakše ga je prenositi, omogućuje veću transparentnost i jamči manju inflaciju.

S manje inflacije:

1 - čuva se vrijednost tijekom vremena;

2 - olakšava se trgovanje;

3 - olakšava se ekonomska računica;

4 - jamči se sloboda pojedincima neovisno od središta moći.

Vremenska preferencija

Racionalnim pojedincima je uvijek bolje odmah pristupiti nekom dobru nego to odgađati tijekom vremena. Upravo zato se čekanje u gospodarstvu uvijek mora nagraditi.

Vrednovanje budućnosti u odnosu na sadašnjost omogućuje proizvodnju kapitalnih dobara, odnosno dobara stvorenih ne za potrošnju, već korisnih za proizvodnju budućih dobara.

Primjer: s čamcem se ulovi više ribe nego golim rukama, ali da bi se izgradio čamac potrebno je žrtvovati vrijeme i energiju bez istančane nagrade.

Zamislimo dvije individue na pustom otoku.

Laura budućnost shvaća vrlo ozbiljno;

Mario preferira trenutačno zadovoljstvo.

Mario provodi 8 sati dnevno kako bi golim rukama ulovio potrebnu ribu. Laura čini isto, ali nakon pecanja još dva sata posvećuje izradi štapa za pecanje. Nakon tjedan dana Laura je dovršila štap za pecanje i time može pokriti svoje dnevne potrebe u pola vremena koliko je potrebno Mariu. Sljedećih mjeseci, radeći isto sati kao i Mario, Laura ima vremena izgraditi čamac, mrežu i druge alate koji joj omogućuju da u jednom satu ulovi puno više ribe nego što Mario ulovi kroz cijele dane.

Na Stanfordu, 1960. napravljen je eksperiment.

Djeci je ponuđen slatkiš uz obećanje da će dobiti još jedan ako izdrže 15 minuta da ga ne pojedu. Djeca su stoga morala birati hoće li odmah dobiti jedan slatkiš ili dva nakon 15 minuta. Godinama kasnije, pronađena je korelacija između onih koji su uspjeli odgoditi zadovoljstvo i onih koji su postigli veće akademske i sportske rezultate.

Odgađanje zadovoljstva omogućuje štednju.

Štednja omogućuje investicije.

Investicije povećavaju produktivnost.

Štednja se općenito potiče u sigurnim društvima, gdje su porezi niski i gdje je vlasništvo zaštićeno. Temeljni čimbenik u jamčenju štednje je imati jaku valutu, koju se ne može lako napuhati. Ako valuta stalno gubi vrijednost, više se potiče da je se potroši nego da je se sačuva.

Prijelaz s valute koja gubi vrijednost na valutu koja svoju vrijednost zadržava stoga je ključno na duge staze, jer to može činiti razliku izmađu rasta ili pada jednog društva.

Valuta koja s vremenom gubi vrijednost obeshrabruje štednju u korist potrošnje, rizičnih ulaganja i zaduživanja.

Jaka valuta, osim što pogoduje štednji, poboljšava i ekonomsku računicu, odnosno omogućuje mjerenje iskusnosti resursa i donošenje racionalnih odluka o proizvodnji i potrošnji.

Npr: ako je roba za kojom postoji velika potražnja oskudna, povećanje cijene potiče njezinu proizvodnju i obeshrabruje potrošnju.

Obrnuto, ako dobra za kojim nema potražnje ima puno, pad cijene obeshrabruje njegovu proizvodnju i potiče potrošnju.

Ista dinamika vrijedi i za novac čija se cijena naziva “kamatna stopa”.

Trošak zajmova trebao bi se smanjiti ako je štednje puno, a porasti ako je štednje malo, kako bi uvijek postojala ispravna ravnoteža i ispravni poticaji.

Ponovimo koncept: ako malo tko posuđuje, kamate bi trebale pasti, tako da olakšava posuđivanje novca. Ako pak mnogi traže posudbe, kamate bi trebale porasti, kako bi se destimuliralo traženje kredita i poticala štednja.

Sa slabom valutom događa se umjesto toga da kamatne stope ne odražavaju ravnotežu između štednje i ulaganja. Centralne banke stvaraju kamatne stope koje su niže od tržišnih, potičući potrošnju i ulaganja čak i kad je štednja oskudna.

Uz investicije koje zahtijevaju više sredstava nego što su stvarno dostupna, sistemske krize su neizbježne.

Djeluje ovako:

• Stvori se nova valuta

• Povećaju se investicije

• Smanjuje se štednja

• Pokreće se više ulaganja nego što ima raspoloživih sredstava

• Investicije propadaju

Valute koje gube vrijednost ne dopuštaju cijenama da signaliziraju stvarnu oskudicu resursa, dakle da koordiniraju proizvodnju i potrošnju.

Loše investicije, nastale zbog niskih kamata i gubitka vrijednosti valute, glavni su uzrok gospodarskih kriza.

Cilj centralnih banaka je “jamčiti stabilnost cijena” povećanjem i smanjenjem količine novca. Ali osigurati stabilnost cijena promjenom mjerne jedinice je apsurdno. Mjerna jedinica je fiksna po definiciji, ne može se mijenjati ovisno o mjerenom objektu.

Stalno mijenjanje mjernih jedinica samo stvara zbunjenost, otežava ekonomsku kalkulaciju i onemogućuje pravilnu raspodjelu resursa.

Primjer: tvrtka kojoj su trebale godine da stekne konkurentsku prednost može gledati kako ona nestaje u nekoliko minuta ako je valuta zemlje dobavljača precijenjena, a valuta kupca devalvira. Tvrtka će stoga biti prisiljena zatvoriti se unatoč činjenici da realno proizvodi veliku vrijednost.

Postojanje stotina različitih valuta čija se vrijednost stalno mijenja stvara ekonomsku štetu, ne samo za resurse koji se koriste u razmjeni, već prije svega zbog nemogućnosti ekonomske kalkulacije.

Vjerujući da favoriziraju izvoz, države teže devalviranju valuta, ne shvaćajući da zapravo favoriziraju strane kupce. Novčana devalvacija nije ništa drugo nego javno financiranje izvoza, odnosno prodaja vlastite robe ispod cijene.

Ovi bi problemi nestali kad bi se koristila jedna globalna referentna valuta sa sigurnom vrijednošću.

Najveća iluzija suvremenog svijeta je ideja da vlada mora upravljati valutom.

Po Keynesu, vlada je morala poticati potrošnju u sadašnjosti i obeshrabrivati štednju za budućnost. Onima koji su mu isticali da su te politike dugoročno pogubne odgovarao bi da smo “dugoročno svi mrtvi”. Ali dugoročno, prije ili kasnije, stigne.

Jaku valutu po Keynesu je trebalo izbjegavati jer je obeshrabrivala potrošnju. Ono što nije razumio je da samo štednja dugoročno omogućuje održiva ulaganja.

Slabe valute i ratovi

Postoje tri faktora koji povezuju slabe valute i ratove:

1. Tečajne razlike i konkurentske devalvacije su prepreke slobodnoj trgovini koje se često rješavaju vojnim intervencijama. Jaka transnacionalna valuta olakšava trgovinu, ako prolazi roba nema potrebe za prolaskom vojske.

2. Ako su sa jakom valutom resursi za rat ograničeni na poreze, s inflatornom valutom država može izvlačiti bogatstvo bez ograničenja. Mogućnost stvaranja novca stoga omogućuje državama nastavak ratova i nakon što im ponestane sredstava u proračunu, sve do potpune erozije nacionalnog bogatstva.

3. Jaka valuta potiče suradnju i obeshrabruje sukobe koji bi mogli biti korisni samo kratkoročno. Što je više suradnje, što je veće tržište, to je više mogućnosti za specijalizaciju, a što je veća podjela rada, to je veća produktivnost.

Imati neinflatornu valutu također je jamstvo slobode protiv tirana.

Ako tiranin ne može stvarati novac, prisiljen ga je tražiti u obliku poreza ili posudbi, a ako se građani ne slažu sa suludom politikom tiranina mogu ga prestati financirati ili mu barem zagorčati život.

Slaba valuta, s druge strane, daje vladama mogućnost neograničene potrošnje i kupovanja pristanka stanovništva kratkoročnim ulaganjima.

Sposobnost stvaranja novca znači potencijalno neograničenu moć, a povijest je puna primjera u kojima je ta moć korištena na razorne načine.

Nije slučajnost da su svi najgori tirani u povijesti (Lenjin, Staljin, Mao, Hitler, Robespierre, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Kim Jon Il itd.) operirali sa slabom valutom koju su mogli stvarati po svom nahođenju. Jer izvlastiti je puno lakše nego naplatiti porez.

Bitcoin omogućuje prijenos novca i njegovo pohranjivanje bez potrebe za traženjem bilo čijeg dopuštenja.

Bitcoin se ne može uništiti, ne može se konfiscirati, ne može se krivotvoriti. Zbog toga je i osiguranje od pretjerane moći vlada i banaka.

Bitcoin je ekstremno učinkovit kao sredstvo razmjene budući da je digitalan, a iznimno je učinkovit kao pohrana vrijednosti imajući inflaciju koja teži ka nuli. Još uvijek je prevolatilan da bi bio obračunska jedinica, ali ima sve karakteristike da postane najbolja obračunska jedinica u povijesti.

Prevedeno s talijanskog lux_vitae@ln.tips ili lux@blink.sv

@ dfc7c785:4c3c6174

For many years I’ve been researching my family tree. I’ve always been intrigued by my middle name of Brewster which many of you (perhaps) might associate with William Brewster of the pilgrim fathers who settled in America some 400 years ago, after a treacherous journey across the Atlantic that lasted weeks; scary to think I crossed it in just 10 hours not so long ago much like tens of thousands do year upon year.

My grandmother was convinced he was a direct ancestor of ours. My Grandad disagreed on the basis that they set sail childless, their first born entering the world once they had settled on American shores. So how could it be possible that we were descendants?

Anyway I inherited my middle name from hers and was thus christened Nicholas Euan Brewster in 1972.

During my school years other kids found it amusing and being a bespectacled nerd, they teased me no end. I instead learnt to love it because for me, as I’ve learnt over the years, it represents bravery, ingenuity, leadership and a general resilience to the world around me. Surviving against all the odds.

I’ve never been able to draw a direct connection between myself and William, other than to learn about a city of the same name on Cape Cod, that I flew over recently on that same flight but still have never visited to this day. Not far from there in the American version of Plymouth they came ashore, some distance from their intended destination of Virginia. Weather prevented them from making their way down the coast, so Massachusetts became their new settlement point.

Many years ago I was researching the Brewsters and spoke to a fellow Brewster in the USA via Compuserve, who sent me a massive box of DVDs with genealogical data on them; holy Moses, I was overwhelmed and came to realise there were perhaps zillions of us. The information was interesting but I had no real way of making that link, even if there ever was one to be found.

In the end I turned back to reading the bundle of notes my late grandmother had left us, including a family tree and some papers on another man who became just as interesting to me. His name was Alfred Berry Brewster born of Victorian London.

The following was sourced from - https://www.soldiersofthequeen.com/softheq-nile-valley

Egypt, the Nile Valley & Sudan

In Khedival Service

What was the [[Khedival Service]]?

Alfred Berry Brewster was born in London, England on 7 November 1856.

Whereabouts in London was he born?

Brewster Bey entered Egyptian Service in 1877 (aged 21) in the Customs Administration and Coastguard Service. In 1879 he was appointed to the position of Director of Customs at [[Suakin]] by [[General Gordon]]. He served in the Commissariat staff during the Egyptian Campaign and was awarded the Egypt Medal w/Clasp as well as the Khedive's Star. He returned to Suakin and in 1883 did duty in Valentine Baker Pasha's Intelligence Department (1884).

In 1885 he served under General Graham at Suakin as Chief Interpreter and Secretary to the Intelligence Department.

He took part in several engagements and received a Mention in Despatches from General Graham (30 May 1885). Most notably Brewster entered the Dervish camp alone before a planned attack on Saukin and convinced a large number of the enemy to come over to the British side. These same men later served in the capture of Tamai.

Brewster remained Director of Customs for Saukin until 1890 when he transferred to the Coastguard Service as Secretary and Controller. He was chosen as Private Secretary by both Khedive Mohammed Tewfik and Abbas II.

![[Pasted image 20241229083331.png]] Further reading

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG121543

https://www.soldiersofthequeen.com/alfredberrybrewsterbey

https://www.soldiersofthequeen.com/alfredberrybrewsterbey

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Multi-service Graph Reputation protocol

The problem

1. Users inside centralized services need to know reputations of other users they're interacting with;
2. Building reputation with ratings imposes a big burden on the user and still accomplishes nothing, can be faked, no one cares about these ratings etc.

The ideal solution

Subjective reputation: reputation based on how you rated that person previously, and how other people you trust rated that person, and how other people trusted by people you trust rated that person and so on, in a web-of-trust that actually can give you some insight on the trustworthiness of someone you never met or interacted with.

The problem with the ideal solution

1. Most of the times the service that wants to implement this is not as big as Facebook, so it won't have enough people in it for such graphs of reputation to be constructed.
2. It is not trivial to build.

My proposed solution:

I've drafted a protocol for an open system based on services publishing their internal reputation records and indexers using these to build graphs, and then serving the graphs back to the services so they can show them to users when it is needed (as HTTP APIs that can be called directly from the user client app or browser).

Crucially, these indexers will gather data from multiple services and cross-link users from these services so the graph is better.

https://github.com/fiatjaf/multi-service-reputation-rfc

The first and single actionable and useful feedback I got, from @bootstrapbandit was that services shouldn't share email addresses in plain text (email addresses and other external relationships users of a service may have are necessary to establish links from users accross services), but I think it is ok if services publish hashes of these email addresses instead. At some point I will update the spec draft and that may have been before the time you're reading this.

Another issue is that services may lie about their reputation records and that will hurt other services and users in these other services that are relying on that data. Maybe indexers will have to do some investigative job here to assert service honesty. Or maybe this entire protocol is just failed and we will actually need a system in which users themselves will publish their own records.

See also

• P2P reputation thing
• idea: Graph subjective reputation as a service
• https://github.com/jangerritharms/reputation_systems

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Splitpages

The simplest possible service: it splitted PDF pages in half.

Created specially to solve the problem of those scanned books that come with two pages side-by-side as if they were a single page and are much harder to read on Kindle because of that.

It required me to learn about Heroku Buildpacks though, and fork or contribute to a Heroku Buildpack that embedded a mupdf binary.

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/splitpages
• https://splitpages.herokuapp.com/

@ 2355757c:5ad3e04d

Grounding or Earthing, names for getting your good ole bare feet on the surface of the earth. Sounds simple because it is simple, but are the benefits really that profound? Short answer: YES

Grounding is really only so a modern health hack because we are so disconnected. Until the invention of modern footwear with insulated rubber/plastic soles, we were connected to the surface of the earth pretty much 24/7. Why does this matter? The Earth’s surface is a POOL of free electrons waiting for us to tap into. Electrons? Why do those matter. Electrons are the true currency of energy and the input to our energy production system (Electron Transport Chain) that produces ATP. The human body, like all other living things is electromagnetic. We use electrical signaling to operate our biology. Without a sufficient amount of electrons and sufficient voltage potential, our body will not function properly. However, it is not so simple to say more electrons = more health. If that were the case then we’d all be hooked up to copper wires absorbing current to level up our biology. 

TOO MUCH of anything is bad. Our skin has resistance to protect us from shocks and lightning strikes (absorbing too much electrical current at once). However, our hands and feet (with thousands of nerve endings) have lower skin resistance. Lower resistance = better ability to conduct electricity. That is not a mistake. Through contact of our feet or hands on the ground, we are able to sustain a voltage differential up to a few hundred millivolts (depending on the surface). These electrons on the surface of the earth are willing to move to a less negatively charge area (us), and thus we are able to absorb a small amount of free flowing electrons into our body through our semi-conductive tissue on our hands and feet. Sounds cool, right? Now what are the actual benefits?

1. Managing Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) and/or free radicals

2. Maintaining Proper Blood Flow & Pressure 

3. Regulating Cortisol & Circadian Rhythm

Oxidative stress. Anti-oxidants. Free radicals. These are all terms you MAY be familiar with, but what do they actually mean? If you read my newsletter from last week on Travel, you will know a bit more about oxidative stress and the function of anti-oxidants (if not, I will link it HERE). The TLDR is that our energy production process in our mitochondria, otherwise known as the Electron Transport Chain (ETC), is not perfect. As a result of this, free radicals are generated. Free radicals are typically oxygen molecules or molecules that contain oxygen (aka reactive oxygen species) that have an unpaired electron in their valence shell. O2 is supposed to be converted into metabolic water (H2O), but as mentioned the efficiency is not 100%. Therefore you get molecules like superoxide (O2-) or hydroxyl radical (OH) that are hungry to fill the unpaired electron and go back to stability. “Anti-oxidants” combat these radicals by attempting to supply an electron before they steal one from elsewhere in the cell and cause damage. Enter in newly absorbed electrons from grounding. These free electrons absorbed from the earth can help combat the free radicals/ROS by acting as an anti-oxidant. This will in turn help your body get back to redox homeostasis and not suffer cellular damage from oxidative stress. Grounding, in turn “reduces inflammation”. The thermal images often touted alongside grounding (before/after) show a positive response (thermal imaging can be a bit dodgy in accuracy but it captures some essence of effectiveness).

Maintaining proper blood flow and blood pressure. Perhaps the most interesting and fundamentally undebatable benefit of grounding. As stated above we are electromagnetic beings, and our blood flow exemplifies that. Both the lining of the blood vessel and surface of our red blood cells have a negative charge. This negative charge is imperative because it prevents rouleaux and coagulation, or the stacking of blood cells. If you blood cells stack, they are far easier to clump/clot and cause a blockage. Like charges repel, so having a sufficient “zeta potential” or negative charge on our RBCs will keep the blood flowing smoothly. Grounding helps maintain that. A study linked HERE showed how Earthing/Grounding reduces blood viscosity. 

“Grounding increases the surface charge on RBCs and thereby reduces blood viscosity and clumping. Grounding appears to be one of the simplest and yet most profound interventions for helping reduce cardiovascular risk and cardiovascular events.”

Regulating our circadian rhythm. A lesser touted benefit to grounding is its ability to influence our circadian rhythm or our “body clock”.

I am under the belief now that our circadian health is THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT of HEALTH. Why? Because literally all of our downstream biological functions are dictated by our circadian rhythm. This is why light, meal/exercise timing, sleep, connection to nature are all so important & interconnected.

The main input might be light, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t more inputs to the complex system that is our body. Connection to the earth is another. How do we know? Grounding has been proven to regulate cortisol rhythms. One of the biggest signs of a irregular circadian rhythm is cortisol and melatonin cycles that are out of whack. When you are grounded you are connected to the earth in the position of your geographical location. This is not proven, but its quite logical that the reason grounding helps regulate circadian rhythm is because along with those electrons you are getting a signal sent to your brain about the location/time/season it is where you are in that moment. It is the only logical explanation and it is one of the reasons I am such a big fan of grounding as MUCH as possible, especially after travel.

I recently released my first health optimization guide that includes all the travel hacks I use (including grounding) to completely avoid jet lag on long haul flights: AVOIDING JET LAG-An In Depth Guide to Hacking the Stressors of Travel.

This guide is extremely comprehensive, and application specific. It is a 30 page PDF that goes into WHY travel is so bad for us, and what you can do pre/during/post travel to avoid jet lag completely. If you travel often, this is worth checking out…but I warn you it is dense and only worth purchasing if you are willing to learn. 

Grounding PROTOCOLS:

1. Just do it-bare feet on the ground

2. Length? 1 min is better than 0…5 min even better…2 hours even better still. There is no threshold dose. 

3. Surfaces? Dirt/Grass/Rocks/Sand/Ocean all great. If it is wet and post thunderstorm, even better. Concrete works but asphalt is not the best. 

4. Grounding shoes? Not comparable to barefoot but still better than rubber/plastic soled shoes. I will write more about this in the near future as I am conducting experiments with different shoes on different surfaces. 

5. IT IS LITERALLY FREE

Big Grounding did not pay me to write this, even though I am an electrical engineer. Seriously, grounding is a no brainer. You may not “feel” anything, but the more you do it and the more disconnected you are to start…the better you will feel I can guarantee that. We are electromagnetic creates of Earth, it is about damn time we get back to connecting with our natural input signals. 

Stay Sovereign, 

-Tristan

Originally written July 25th, 2023

@ dd81a8ba:3eb298a5

it's better to read 100 books 10 times than 1,000 books once

I don't know who originated this concept. I've heard it said by Naval. the idea is to go deep on a narrower slice of possible books than to be spread so thin. this isn't so much an algorithm as a heuristic, a tactic for filtering the kinds of books you read, and also a way to measure your own growth over time. I've had the experience of getting something different from reading the same book at different points in my life. deliberately checking in with different books regularly over time is a good way to get an informative but different perspective on your own mentality.

this is my list. I'll be short of 100 for a while, the point is to make a tangible artifact out of it, and update it over time. let me know if you have or make a similar list and I'll add a link to your list here.

update 2/24

since I created the 100 books page and started shaping my reading around it, I have reached 100 books, and now in order to add one to the list I must first evict one already on the list.

I have also encountered a different way to refer to this project, and a sharper take on what I’m doing. it comes from an author with one book on my list already and more to come, Italo Calvino. the introduction to his book “Why Read the Classics?” is a quick read, and well worth it.

A classic is a book that has never finished saying what it has to say.

first, he defines “classic” to mean any book that once read, you return to again and again, and continue finding new takes, new value, fresh perspectives on. actually he lists many criteria, but that’s roughly what it boils down to, books that have meaning to you, which you read repeatedly at different stages in your life, a through-line to return to.

The ranks of the old titles have been decimated, while new ones have proliferated in all modern literatures and cultures. There is nothing for it but for all of us to invent our own ideal libraries of classics. I would say that such a library ought to be composed half of books we have read and that have really counted for us, and half of books we propose to read and presume will come to count—leaving a section of empty shelves for surprises and occasional discoveries.

consider any of these books a welcomed topic of conversation.

the list was last updated on Jan 7th, 2025

| title | Author | Genre | |-------|--------|-------| | "The Myth of Sisyphus" | Albert Camus | philosophy | | "Brave New World" | Aldous Huxley | distopian science fiction | | "The Doors of Perception" | Aldous Huxley | non-fiction | | "The Civil War Short Stories of Ambrose Bierce" | Ambrose Bierce | supernatural horror | | "The Little Prince" | Antoine De Saint Exuprey | children's | | "Nichomachean Ethics" | Aristotle | philosophy | | "Rendezvous With Rama" | Arthur C Clarke | science fiction | | "Atlas Shrugged" | Ayn Rand | fiction | | "The Fountainhead" | Ayn Rand | fiction | | "The Fractal Geometry of Nature" | Benoit Mandelbrot | maths | | "The History of Western Philosophy" | Betrand Russell | philosophy | | "Four Archetypes: Mother/Rebirth/Spirit/Trickster" | Carl Jung | philosophy | | "The Undiscovered Self" | Carl Jung | philosophy | | "Roadside Geology of Missouri" | Charles Spencer | non-fiction | | "A Pattern Language" | Christopher Alexander | non-fiction | | "On the Good Life" | Cicero | philosophy | | "All the Pretty Horses" | Cormac McCarthy | fiction | | "Blood Meridian" | Cormac McCarthy | fiction | | "No Country for Old Men" | Cormac McCarthy | fiction | | "Stella Maris" | Cormac McCarthy | fiction | | "the crossing" | Cormac McCarthy | fiction | | "The Passenger" | Cormac McCarthy | fiction | | "The Road" | Cormac McCarthy | fiction | | "Flowers for Algernon" | Daniel Keyes | fiction | | "The Beginning of Infinity" | David Deutsch | non-fiction | | "Forty Tales From the Afterlives" | David Eagleman | magical realism | | "Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World" | David Easley and John Kleinberg | non-fiction | | "We Are Legion [We Are Bob]" | Dennis Taylor | science fiction | | "Godel, Escher, Bach" | Douglas Hofstadter | philosophy | | "The Discourses" | Epictetus | philosophy | | "The Revelations" | Erik Hoel | fiction | | "Kafka the Complete Stories" | Franz Kafka | fiction | | "The Mythical Man-Month" | Fred Brooks | non-fiction | | "Thus Spake Zarathustra" | Friedrich Nietzsche | philosophy | | "Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling Disruptive Products to Mainstream Customers" | Geoffrey A. Moore | non-fiction | | "Nineteen Eighty-Four" | George Orwell | distopian science fiction | | "A Swim in a Pond in the Rain" | George Saunders | literature | | "Eon" | Greg Bear | science fiction | | "On Bullshit" | Harry G Frankfurt | philosophy | | "Walden and Other Writings" | Henry David Thoreau | non-fiction | | "Moby Dick" | Herman Melville | fiction | | "Siddhartha" | Hermann Hesse | philosophy | | "I, Roboot" | Isaac Asimov | science fiction | | "The Foundation" | Isaac Asimov | science fiction | | "The Naked Sun" | Isaac Asimov | science fiction | | "The Proper Study of Mankind" | Isaiah Berlin | philosophy | | "Invisible Cities" | Italo Calvino | magical realism | | "The Perigrine" | J A Baker | non-fiction | | "Chaos: Making a New Science" | James Gleick | non-fiction | | "Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility" | James P. Carse | philosophy | | "Fancies and Goodnights" | John Collier | fantasy | | "The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows" | John Koenig | fiction | | "Annals of the Former World: " | John McPhee | non-fiction | | "The Curve of Binding Energy" | John McPhee | non-fiction | | "Collected Fictions" | Jorge Luis Borges | fantasy | | "Hero With a Thousand Faces: The Collected Works of Joseph Campbell" | Joseph Campbell | philosophy | | "Heart of Darkness" | Joseph Conrad | fiction | | "The Death of Ivan Illych and Other Stories" | Leo Tolstoy | literature | | "The Mandibles" | Lionel Schriver | fiction | | "A Wrinkle in Time" | Madeleine L'Engle | young adult | | "M.C. Escher: His Life and Complete Graphic Work" | many | non-fiction | | "Meditations" | Marcus Aurelius | philosophy | | "Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters" | Matt Ridley | science | | "Prey" | Michael Crichton | science fiction | | "Sphere" | Michael Crichton | fiction | | "Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy" | Michael Polanyi | philosophy | | "Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience: Steps Toward Enhancing the Quality of Life" | Mihaly Csikszentmihaly | non-fiction | | "The Epic of Gilgamesh" | N. K. Sandars | legendary fiction | | "An Introduction to Population Genetics" | Nielson and Slatkin | non-fiction | | "Ender's Game" | Orson Scott Card | science fiction | | "Alas Babylon" | Pat Frank | science fiction | | "Hackers and Painters: Big Ideas from the Computer Age" | Paul Graham | non-fiction | | "The Alchemist" | Paulo Coelho | magical realism | | "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" | Philip K Dick | science fiction | | "The Collected Stories of Philip K Dick Volume 5" | Philip K Dick | science fiction | | "The Trial and Death of Socrates" | Plato | philosophy | | "The Soundscape" | R. Murray Schafer | non-fiction | | "Dandelion Wine" | Ray Bradbury | fiction | | "Fahrenheit 451" | Ray Bradbury | fiction | | "Something Wicked This Way Comes" | Ray Bradbury | fiction | | "The Martian Chronicles" | Ray Bradbury | science fiction | | "The Selfish Gene" | Richard Dawkins | non-fiction | | "Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman" | Richard Feynman | biography | | "The Creative Act: A Way of Living" | Rick Rubin | self-help | | "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values" | Robert Persig | fiction | | "Letters From a Stoic" | Seneca | philosophy | | "The Art of Living" | Sharon Lebell | philosophy | | "The Dark Tower" | Stephen King | fiction | | "Piranesi" | Susanna Clarke | magical realism | | "Stories of Your Life and Others" | Ted Chiang | science fiction | | "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" | Thomas Kuhn | non-fiction | | "Common Sense" | Thomas Paine | philosophy | | "The Kon-Tiki Expedition: A Raft Across the South Seas" | Thor Heyerdahl | non-fiction | | "The Kingdom of Speech" | Tom Wolf | non-fiction | | "The Right Stuff" | Tom Wolf | historic fiction | | "True Names: and the Opening of the Cyberspace Frontier" | Vernor Vinge | cyberpunk | | "Man's Search for Meaning" | Viktor Frankl | philosophy | | "The Shape of Things" | Vilem Flusser | non-fiction | | "The Twilight World" | Werner Herzog | historic fiction | | "Neuromancer" | William Gibson | cyberpunk |

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Idéia de um sistema jurídico centralizado, mas com um pouco de lógica

um processo, é, essencialmente, imagino eu na minha ingenuidade leiga, um apelo que se faz ao juiz para que este reconheça certos fatos como probantes de um certo fenômeno tipificado por uma certa lei.

imagino então o seguinte:

uma petição não é mais um enorme documento escrito numa linguagem nojenta com referências a leis e a evidências factuais espalhadas segundo a (in) capacidade ensaística do advogado, mas apenas um esquema lógico - talvez até um diagrama desenhado (ou talvez quem sabe uma série de instruções compreensíveis por um computador?) - mostrando a ligação entre a lei e os fatos e os pedidos, por exemplo:

1. a lei tal diz que ninguém pode vender
2. fulano vendeu cigarros
3. é prova de que fulano vendeu cigarros ia foto tirada na rua tal no dia tal que mostra fulano vendendo cigarros
4. a mesma lei pede que fulano pague uma multa

este exemplo está ainda muito verborrágico, mas é só um exemplo simples. coisas mais complicadas precisariam de outras formas de expressão caso queiramos evitar as longas dissertações jurídicas em voga.

a idéia é que o esquema acima vale por si. um proto-juiz pode julgá-lo como válido ou inválido apenas pela sua lógica interna.

a outra parte do julgamento seria a ligação desse esquema com a realidade externa: anexados à petição viriam as evidências. no caso, anexada ao ponto 3 viria uma foto do fulano. ao ponto 1 também precisa ser anexado o texto da lei referida, mas isto pode ser feito automaticamente pelo número da lei.

uma vez que tenhamos um esquema lógico válido um outro proto-juiz, ou vários outros, pode julgar individualmente cada evidência: ver se o texto da lei confere com a interpretação feita no ponto 1, e se a foto anexada ao ponto 3 é mesmo a foto do réu vendendo cigarro e não a de um urso comendo laranjas.

cada um desses julgamentos pode ser feito sem que o proto-juiz tenha conhecimento do resto das coisas do processo: o primeiro proto-juiz não precisa ver a foto ou a lei, o segundo não precisa ver o esquema lógico ou a foto, o terceiro não precisa ver a lei nem o esquema lógico, e mesmo assim teríamos um julgamento de procedência ou não da petição ao final, o mais impessoal e provavelmente o mais justo possível.

a defesa consistiria em apontar erros no esquema lógico ou falhas no nexo entre a realidade é o esquema. por exemplo:

1. uma foto assim não é uma prova de que fulano vendeu, ele podia estar só passando lá perto.
2. ele estava de fato só passando lá perto. do que é prova este documento mostrando seu comparecimento a uma aula do curso de direito da UFMG no mesmo horário.

---

perdoem-me se estiver falando besteira, mas são 5h e estou ainda dormindo. obviamente há vários pontos problemáticos aí, e quero entendê-los, mas a forma geral me parece bem razoável.

o que descrevi acima é uma proposta, digamos, de sistema jurídico que não se diferencia em nada do nosso sistema jurídico atual, exceto na forma (não no sentido escolástico). é também uma tentativa de compreender sua essência.

as vantagens desse formato ao atual são muitas:

• menos papel, coisas pra ler, repetição infinita de citações legais e longuíssimas dissertações escritas por advogados analfabetos que destroem a língua e a inteligência de todos
• diminuição drástica do tempo gasto por cada juiz em cada processo
• diminuição do poder de cada juiz (se cada ato de julgamento humano necessário em cada processo pode ser feito por qualquer juiz, sem conhecimento dos outros aspectos do mesmo processo, tudo é muito mais rápido, e cada julgamento desses pode ser feito por vários juízes diferentes, escolhidos aleatoriamente)
• diminuição da pomposidade de casa juiz: com menos poder e obrigações maus simples, um juiz não precisa ser mais uma pessoa especial que ganha milhões, pode ser uma pessoa comum, um proto-juiz, ganhando menos (o que possibilitaria até ter mais desses e aumentar a confiabilidade de cada julgamento)
• os juízes podem trabalhar da casa deles e a qualquer momento
• passa a ter sentido a existência de um sistema digital de processos (porque é ridículo que o sistema digital atual seja só uma forma de passar documentos do Word de um lado para o outro)
• o fim das audiências de conciliação, que são uma monstruosidade criada apenas pela necessidade de diminuir a quantidade de processos em tramitação e acabam retirandobo sentido da justiça (as partes são levemente pressionadas a ignorar a validade ou não das suas posições e fazer um acordo, sob pena de o juiz ficar com raiva delas depois)

milhares de precauções devem ser tomadas caso um sistema desses vá ser implantado (ahahah), talvez manter uma forma de julgamento tradicional, de corpo presente e com um juiz ou júri que tem conhecimento de toda situação, mas apenas para processos que chegarem até certo ponto, e assim por diante.

Ver também

• P2P reputation thing para um fundamento de um sistema jurídico anárquico.