@ bcea2b98:7ccef3c9

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/842405

@ 23b0e2f8:d8af76fc

Necessário

• Um Android que você não use mais (a câmera deve estar funcionando).
• Um cartão microSD (opcional, usado apenas uma vez).
• Um dispositivo para acompanhar seus fundos (provavelmente você já tem um).

Algumas coisas que você precisa saber

• O dispositivo servirá como um assinador. Qualquer movimentação só será efetuada após ser assinada por ele.
• O cartão microSD será usado para transferir o APK do Electrum e garantir que o aparelho não terá contato com outras fontes de dados externas após sua formatação. Contudo, é possível usar um cabo USB para o mesmo propósito.
• A ideia é deixar sua chave privada em um dispositivo offline, que ficará desligado em 99% do tempo. Você poderá acompanhar seus fundos em outro dispositivo conectado à internet, como seu celular ou computador pessoal.

---

O tutorial será dividido em dois módulos:

• Módulo 1 - Criando uma carteira fria/assinador.
• Módulo 2 - Configurando um dispositivo para visualizar seus fundos e assinando transações com o assinador.

---

No final, teremos:

• Uma carteira fria que também servirá como assinador.
• Um dispositivo para acompanhar os fundos da carteira.

---

Módulo 1 - Criando uma carteira fria/assinador

1. Baixe o APK do Electrum na aba de downloads em https://electrum.org/. Fique à vontade para verificar as assinaturas do software, garantindo sua autenticidade.

2. Formate o cartão microSD e coloque o APK do Electrum nele. Caso não tenha um cartão microSD, pule este passo.

1. Retire os chips e acessórios do aparelho que será usado como assinador, formate-o e aguarde a inicialização.

1. Durante a inicialização, pule a etapa de conexão ao Wi-Fi e rejeite todas as solicitações de conexão. Após isso, você pode desinstalar aplicativos desnecessários, pois precisará apenas do Electrum. Certifique-se de que Wi-Fi, Bluetooth e dados móveis estejam desligados. Você também pode ativar o modo avião.\ (Curiosidade: algumas pessoas optam por abrir o aparelho e danificar a antena do Wi-Fi/Bluetooth, impossibilitando essas funcionalidades.)

1. Insira o cartão microSD com o APK do Electrum no dispositivo e instale-o. Será necessário permitir instalações de fontes não oficiais.

1. No Electrum, crie uma carteira padrão e gere suas palavras-chave (seed). Anote-as em um local seguro. Caso algo aconteça com seu assinador, essas palavras permitirão o acesso aos seus fundos novamente. (Aqui entra seu método pessoal de backup.)

---

Módulo 2 - Configurando um dispositivo para visualizar seus fundos e assinando transações com o assinador.

1. Criar uma carteira somente leitura em outro dispositivo, como seu celular ou computador pessoal, é uma etapa bastante simples. Para este tutorial, usaremos outro smartphone Android com Electrum. Instale o Electrum a partir da aba de downloads em https://electrum.org/ ou da própria Play Store. (ATENÇÃO: O Electrum não existe oficialmente para iPhone. Desconfie se encontrar algum.)

2. Após instalar o Electrum, crie uma carteira padrão, mas desta vez escolha a opção Usar uma chave mestra.

1. Agora, no assinador que criamos no primeiro módulo, exporte sua chave pública: vá em Carteira > Detalhes da carteira > Compartilhar chave mestra pública.

1. Escaneie o QR gerado da chave pública com o dispositivo de consulta. Assim, ele poderá acompanhar seus fundos, mas sem permissão para movimentá-los.

2. Para receber fundos, envie Bitcoin para um dos endereços gerados pela sua carteira: Carteira > Addresses/Coins.

3. Para movimentar fundos, crie uma transação no dispositivo de consulta. Como ele não possui a chave privada, será necessário assiná-la com o dispositivo assinador.

1. No assinador, escaneie a transação não assinada, confirme os detalhes, assine e compartilhe. Será gerado outro QR, desta vez com a transação já assinada.

1. No dispositivo de consulta, escaneie o QR da transação assinada e transmita-a para a rede.

---

Conclusão

Pontos positivos do setup:

• Simplicidade: Basta um dispositivo Android antigo.
• Flexibilidade: Funciona como uma ótima carteira fria, ideal para holders.

Pontos negativos do setup:

• Padronização: Não utiliza seeds no padrão BIP-39, você sempre precisará usar o electrum.
• Interface: A aparência do Electrum pode parecer antiquada para alguns usuários.

Nesse ponto, temos uma carteira fria que também serve para assinar transações. O fluxo de assinar uma transação se torna: Gerar uma transação não assinada > Escanear o QR da transação não assinada > Conferir e assinar essa transação com o assinador > Gerar QR da transação assinada > Escanear a transação assinada com qualquer outro dispositivo que possa transmiti-la para a rede.

Como alguns devem saber, uma transação assinada de Bitcoin é praticamente impossível de ser fraudada. Em um cenário catastrófico, você pode mesmo que sem internet, repassar essa transação assinada para alguém que tenha acesso à rede por qualquer meio de comunicação. Mesmo que não queiramos que isso aconteça um dia, esse setup acaba por tornar essa prática possível.

---

@ f9c0ea75:44e849f4

Nos anos 80, o Brasil testemunhou um dos momentos mais patéticos da sua história econômica: os "Fiscais do Sarney". Movidos por um decreto inútil, cidadãos foram incentivados a denunciar comerciantes que não seguissem o tabelamento de preços imposto pelo governo. O resultado? Um fracasso absoluto, prateleiras vazias, inflação descontrolada e a certeza de que a mentalidade fiscalizadora não gera valor para ninguém – apenas sufoca a economia e reforça o atraso.

Agora, décadas depois, vemos a mesma mentalidade derrotada ressurgir na Receita Federal com a fiscalização automática sobre transações acima de R$ 5.000 via PIX. Em vez de buscar um ambiente mais produtivo e inovador, o governo se empenha em monitorar cada centavo que circula, tratando qualquer movimentação um pouco maior como suspeita. Quem ganha com isso? Certamente não é o cidadão honesto, nem a economia real.

E quem são os protagonistas dessa história? Os novos fiscais da Receita Federal, que assumem um papel tão irrelevante quanto o dos fiscais de Sarney. Um trabalho de baixo valor agregado, que não contribui para a criação de riqueza ou inovação. São apenas burocratas modernos, presos na mentalidade de que controlar e punir é mais importante do que fomentar o crescimento e a liberdade financeira.

A história já provou que o fiscalismo estatal é um modelo falido, seja tabelando preços ou perseguindo transações financeiras. Enquanto alguns criam, inovam e geram valor, outros se ocupam apenas de vigiar e tributar. O tempo sempre mostrou quem estava certo.

Nos anos 80, o Brasil testemunhou um dos momentos mais patéticos da sua história econômica: os "Fiscais do Sarney". Movidos por um decreto inútil, cidadãos foram incentivados a denunciar comerciantes que não seguissem o tabelamento de preços imposto pelo governo. O resultado? Um fracasso absoluto, prateleiras vazias, inflação descontrolada e a certeza de que a mentalidade fiscalizadora não gera valor para ninguém – apenas sufoca a economia e reforça o atraso.

Agora, décadas depois, vemos a mesma mentalidade derrotada ressurgir na Receita Federal com a fiscalização automática sobre transações acima de R$ 5.000 via PIX. Em vez de buscar um ambiente mais produtivo e inovador, o governo se empenha em monitorar cada centavo que circula, tratando qualquer movimentação um pouco maior como suspeita. Quem ganha com isso? Certamente não é o cidadão honesto, nem a economia real.

E quem são os protagonistas dessa história? Os novos fiscais da Receita Federal, que assumem um papel tão irrelevante quanto o dos fiscais de Sarney. Um trabalho de baixo valor agregado, que não contribui para a criação de riqueza ou inovação. São apenas burocratas modernos, presos na mentalidade de que controlar e punir é mais importante do que fomentar o crescimento e a liberdade financeira.

A história já provou que o fiscalismo estatal é um modelo falido, seja tabelando preços ou perseguindo transações financeiras. Enquanto alguns criam, inovam e geram valor, outros se ocupam apenas de vigiar e tributar. O tempo sempre mostrou quem estava certo.

@ 1cb14ab3:95d52462

---

Previous Works in the Series:

TAIPEI

TIANJIN

KYOTO

---

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 these photos, please feel free to send a zap. Enjoy life on a Bitcoin standard.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na danas.rs

22.09.2024 / Autor: Marko Matanović

---

Bitkoin je 2009. godine zamišljen da bude digitalni keš. Zvučalo je revolucionarno zbog toga što je mnoge dovelo u dilemu: kako nešto potpuno digitalno može da ima vrednost i bude valuta.

Pre 15 godina smo živeli u društvu u kome je preko 95 odsto ukupnog novca u opticaju već potpuno digitalno i virtuelno.

Danas je još više izražena digitalizacija novca. Bitkoin je bio deo procesa evolucije više nego revolucije kada je u pitanju barem forma “novca”.

Petnaest godina kasnije bitkoin nije zamenio tradicionalne valute: dolare, evre, dinare. I verovatno to neće uraditi. Nije ispunio početnu zamisao, digitalni novac.

Ali se nametnuo kao čuvar vrednosti. Jedan od razloga je jednostavan. Kada posedujemo bilo koji oblik imovine, uvek ćemo za plaćanje (čemu novac većini ljudi i služi) koristiti najmanje kvalitetan novac, onaj koji vremenom ne dobija na vrednosti ili je gubi čak.

Veći deo vlasnika bitkoina veruje da će njegova vrednost rasti vremenom. Dok s druge strane imamo dinar, evro ili dolar koji će 100 odsto za godinu dana vredeti dva odsto ili 15 odsto manje. Zbog toga većina vlasnika bitkoina ga neće koristiti da kupuje hleb ili plaća račune za telefon, tj. kao sredstvo plaćanja.

Za razliku od fizičkog zlata, svima poznatog, jedna od prednosti bitkoina je prenosivost. Bitkoin infrastruktura funkcioniše tako da se svaka transakcija prenosa bitkoina obavlja u proseku za 10-ak minuta, 24/7/365.

Ta transakcija će se realizovati 100 odsto ako je usklađena sa pravilima Bitkoin ekosistema. Pravila su pritom transparentna, ista, lako primenljiva za sve. Iz ovoga se nameće i druga i treća potencijalna prednost bitkoina u odnosu na zlato. Bez obzira na količinu i vrednost bitkoina koji se kroz transakciju prenose, vreme tog prenosa je oko 10 minuta. A cena obrade transakcije zanemarljiva. Par dolara ili manje. Na dan pisanja teksta, kilogram zlata je vredeo oko 84.000 dolara ili 10 kilograma oko 840.000 dolara itd. Slične vrednosti je 1,4 bitkoin, tj. 14 bitkoina…

Postoje ozbiljni regulatorni, sigurnosni, vremenski, troškovni izazovi prenosa pomenutih količina zlata s jedne lokacije na drugu ili u drugu državu. Za prenos 0.0001 btc-a (bitkoina), vrednosti oko šest dolara ili za prenos 1.000 btc, vrednosti oko 60 miliona dolara trebaće vam 10 minuta. Transakcije vas mogu koštati i manje od jednog dolara!

I ne postoji bezbednosni rizik. Neuporedivo brže, sigurnije, jeftinije. Neki kažu da je bitkoin „digitalno zlato“ i pouzdana mreža za prenos vrednosti.

Bitkoin su u početku koristili samo pojedinci, fizička lica. Danas ga koriste i kompanije i neke države. Pojedinci deo sredstava prebacuju u bitkoine, kako bi se sačuvali od inflacije koja je u skoro svim ekonomijama prisutna i obezvređuje novac koji posedujemo.

Neki u njemu vide potencijal rasta vrednosti. Neki se bave “trading-om”, špekulisanjem u nadi da će kratkoročno zaraditi. Neki ga koriste da bi preneli vrednost brže i lakše.

U ratom zahvaćenih delovima sveta, deo populacije je kroz bitkoin i kriptovalute imao jedinu mogućnost da spase svoju do tada stečenu imovinu. U tim situacijama ne možete nekretninu, zlato, umetnička dela, automobile lako preneti ili sačuvati. Često su tada blokirani bankarski računi ili rad banaka. Ali, deo sredstava se može prebaciti u kriptovalute.

Zbog toga u Srbiji puno ljudi koji su se sklonili iz Rusije i Ukrajine zapravo koristi kriptovalute. Globalno, kompanije kupuju bitkoine, jer imaju investiciono usmerenje ili usmerenje ka diversifikaciji sredstava. I takođe bitkoin ili neke druge kriptovalute koriste kao sredstvo plaćanja u internacionalnom poslovanju. Neuporedivo je veća brzina realizacije transakcija kritpovaluta u poređenju sa transakcijama koje idu kroz bankarski sistem.

Postoje jurisdikcije koje nisu integrisane u globalne finansijske sisteme i ne postoji način naplate i saradnje dve kompanije iz dve države. Sve dok se kripto nije pojavio. Države imaju različite stavove po pitanju kripta. Neke ga kupuju. Neke ga rudare čak.

Ali većina je donela regulatorne okvire koji definišu zakonske mogućnosti i načine korišćenja kriptovaluta. I za građane i za kompanije. I za firme koje pružaju usluge povezane za kriptovalutama u tim državama. U Srbiji se primenjuje Zakon o digitalnoj imovini od 2021. godine i time su postavljeni dodatni regulatorni okviri.

SPLET konferencija koja se 8. oktobra održava u Beogradu je deo svog programa posvetila temama povezanim sa kriptovalutama, tokenizacijom, pravnim aspektima tog sveta.

ECD.rs, prva kriptomenjačnica u Srbiji, će imati svoje predstavnike i paneliste na SPLET-u. Cilj je da još dublje zaronimo u ove teme. Želimo da ponudimo dodatne uvide, odgovore. Delićemo iskustvo od 12 i više godina bavljenja kriptovalutama. Vidimo se na SPLET-u!

Splet konferenciju zajednički organizuju projekti „Preduzmi ideju“ u realizaciji Inicijative „Digitalna Srbija“ i „Srbija Inovira“, koje sprovodi ICT HUB, u saradnji sa Američkom agencijom za međunarodni razvoj (USAID). Ovogodišnju konferenciju realizuju i uz podršku i pokroviteljstvo Ministarstva nauke, tehnološkog razvoja i inovacija.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst za nin.rs.

09.10.2024 / Autor: Marko Matanović

---

Najveći deo stvari merimo zajedničkim imeniteljem – novcem. Fantastični izum društva. Olakšava komunikaciju, saradnju i napredak civilizacije. Trenutna novčana vrednost mnogih stvari ne mora biti pokazatelj realne ili vrednosti na duge staze.

Bitkoin kao kriptovaluta ima svojih uspona i padova. U ceni. Kada nešto vredi nula pa krene od par mesta desno iza decimalnog zareza u $ protivvrednosti i završi na 50.000 ili 70.000$, može se reći da je bilo više uspona nego padova.

Zamišljen i najavljen je kao digitalni keš 2008. godine. Preskačući prvu godinu ili dve, rezervisane skoro isključivo za uzak krug programera, sledi poistovećivanje bitkoina sa sredstvom za plaćanja ilegalnih usluga i proizvoda. Zbog delimične zablude da su transakcije bitkoinom anonimne.

Godine 2013. godine pada Silk Road platforma, online marketplace, na kome se za bitkoin moglo kupiti puno toga ilegalnog. Po nekima to je i konačni pad bitkoina. Iz današnje perspektive, neupućena osoba može i dalje ostati pri stavu da je bitkoin pretežno tu za izvršenje ilegalnih transakcija. Bitkoin i danas postoji, Silk Road ne.

Par meseci posle Silk Road-a, pada i tada pratkično jedina “ozbiljna” kripto berza Mt. Gox. U to vreme odgovorna za 70%+ svih bitkoin transakcija. Tačno 10 godina kasnije, svedoci smo vraćanja dela izgubljenih sredstava (oko 25%) tadašnjim vlasnicima naloga na Mt. Gox berzi. Bitkoin je danas 100 puta vredniji nego pre 2014. Taj vraćeni “delić” izgubljenih bitkoina njegovim vlasnicima je danas “samo” 25 puta vredniji.

Bilo je još dosta propalih kripto projekata. I biće ih. Među poznatijim, prevara iza OneCoin-a. Sunovrat UST-a i Lune, Celsius i FTX bankroti. Svaki odogovoran za gubitke koji prelaze milijarde dolara. Bitkoin je i dalje tu. Bitkoin je imao i konkurente iz redova kriptovaluta. Poslednji pravi je iz 2017. godine i “Bitcoin Cash”. Danas kada se pogleda gde je jedan a gde drugi sve je jasno.

Satoshi Nakamoto, ime iza ideje bitkoina i njegovog lansiranja, je postavio fascinantne postulate na kojima će prva kriptovaluta funkcionisati. A inspirisan manjkavostima globalnog finansijskog sistema. Bitkoin je baziran na transparentnom, decentralizovanom sistemu. Dostupan svima, sa jednakim i izuzetno niskim barijerama ulaska i izlaska iz tog ekosistema. Funkcioniše po setu pravila koja su ista za sve. Ukoliko se poštuju, transakciju bitkoinom niko ne može osporiti i ne može se retroaktivno manipulisati.

Prvi put imamo digitalni sadržaj koji se ne može kopirati. Bitkoin ekosistem funkcioniše 15 godina pratkično bez down-time-a. Usko je shvatanje reći da je rudarenje bitkoina proces koji bespotrebno troši previše energije. Ili da bitkoin nema uporište u nekoj opipljivoj vrednosti. Ta skupa reč je poverenje. Ničijom svesnom namerom, već organski, bitkoin je od digitalnog keša postao prepoznat kao čuvar vrednosti, digitalno zlato. Jer zašto da koristiš za svakodnevna plaćanja nešto što može vredeti za godinu ili godine 5%,10%, 50% više, ako imaš RSD, EUR ili $ koji će 100% za godinu dana vredeti 2% ili 15% manje?

Danas bitkoin koriste obični ljudi, kompanije i države.

Satoshi je svakako imao drugačiju viziju ove kriptovalute – digitalni keš i pošteniji novac. Kreirajući ekosistem na koji svi mi možemo vršiti uticaj barem podjednako koliko i Satoshi, ostavljena su otvorena vrata da se vizija promeni. Vizija je prilagođena, prepuštena našim prethodnim i budućim postupcima i društvenim okolnostima. Važno je da su postulati i dalje tu. Sa njima i Bitkoin.

@ 4720beb1:fde5de50

I just published the new version of my NIP-404. It basically a way to have real ephemeral interactions on Nostr, so developers can model Stories and messages that disappear etc and providing a good level of plausible deniability. Here is the new version: https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/1676

This is a follow-up of a previous proposal I did in last November. I tried to tackle most of issues that npub12262qa4uhw7u8gdwlgmntqtv7aye8vdcmvszkqwgs0zchel6mz7s6cgrkj npub1l2vyh47mk2p0qlsku7hg0vn29faehy9hy34ygaclpn66ukqp3afqutajft npub1acg6thl5psv62405rljzkj8spesceyfz2c32udakc2ak0dmvfeyse9p35c have raised.

There is a "working" example (I'm not a cryptographer, have mercy on me): https://github.com/gu1p/nip404_demo

TL;DR;

NIP-404: Ghost Events

This NIP introduces Ghost Events—a protocol for creating events that are plausibly deniable with a ephemeral nature, providing a weak binding to the author's identity. It leverages ring signatures, elliptic curve point-hashing, and a distance-based proof-of-work that references Bitcoin block hashes for chronological anchoring.

High-Level Mechanics

• Ring Signature over exactly two keys:
  1) Your real key
  2) A “mined” key — found by solving a proof-of-work puzzle (attacker) or randomly (by the real signer).
• Distance-based PoW: The mined key’s public key must be within distance δ of a “challenge point” derived from your public key and a Bitcoin block hash.
• Deniability: Verifiers can only tell that one of the two keys signed the event, not which one. Because all components are public, anyone can forge a Ghost Event referencing your key.

---

2. Detailed Protocol

2.1. Reference a Bitcoin Block

Pick a Bitcoin block B with hash H_B and timestamp t_B. This block anchors the event in time.

2.2. Derive a Challenge Point

1. Take your main public key P_A and concatenate it with H_B.
2. Compute S = SHA256(P_A || H_B)
3. Map S to secp256k1 (RFC 9380 “Hashing to Elliptic Curves”): challenge_PK = HashToCurve(S)

Anyone can verify this point by performing the same steps.

2.3. Pick a “Mined Key” P_mined

• Let x_c be the x-coordinate of challenge_PK.
• Find x_m such that |x_m - x_c| <= δ and (x_m, y_m) is a valid secp256k1 point.

• δ reflects the “difficulty” of finding such a key.

• In the proposal I have provide a way to get a δ given the number of tries and target probability you expect someone to mine the P_mined and also the inverse, compute the δ given a number of tries.

• Compute $T$ (number of tries) given $\delta$ and target probability.

2.4. Create a Ring Signature

Form a ring of two public keys: {P_A, P_mined}.
Use your real private key to sign, producing a ring signature that proves one of the private keys (either sk_A or sk_mined) signed — but not which one.

2.5. Publish the Ghost Event

Publish a standard Nostr event (kind, content, etc.) plus tags:

• ["ghost", "block-hash", "<H_B>"]
• ["ghost", "block-hash-timestamp", "<t_B>"]

The event’s sig field is the ring signature. Verifiers can:

1. Check validity of the ring signature over {P_A, P_mined}.
2. Recompute challenge_PK from <P_A, H_B>.
3. Measure how close P_mined is to challenge_PK (i.e., proof-of-work difficulty).
4. Conclude: “Either Alice really signed, or someone else who found a matching P_mined did.”

Practical Tips

• Picking δ:

• Decide how quickly you want deniability to set in. If you pick a very small δ, it requires more CPU time for an attacker to replicate—but also temporarily ties the event more strongly to you.

• If you want faster deniability, pick a larger δ, but accept that forging a second “mined” key becomes easier.

• If you want avoid OTS, pick a larger δ and reference older blocks.

• Verifying a Received Ghost Event:

• Check the actual δ provided.
• Estimate the tries T needed for a given success probability.
• Check the Key/s rate necessary to produce the event since the block was mined.

---

7. Example Ghost Event JSON

Alice: Today is a good day to post wild picture of me on Nostr! Maybe I will regret it later...
Alice: Let post as a ghost event!
Alice: I will set a PoW of 86400000000 tries for a 30% of success. It is an easy one!

json { "id": "f9d32cace9ead9457d121041c4c17a779ab84cecf90f08d90ccacd9673f1bab4", "pubkey": "npub1r587vuykqhf8k7x4e06380edc7mr7pkz59r44tausmlwq970wkyqv9dh85", "created_at": 1736350383, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "ghost", "block-hash", "00000000000000000000c75dc9d3296751a8bb62b2463fbc49035ee75ab45f39" ], [ "ghost", "block-hash-timestamp", 1736264059 ] ], "content": "Hi! This is Alice... Here is a picture of me drinking a beer!", "sig": "...<ring signature>...." }

Bob: Wow! There is an event from Alice!
Bob: Let's check the signature to make sure it is from Alice
Bob: Alice didn't sign this event!
Bob: I see some ghost tags here...
Bob: It is a ghost event!
Bob: There are 2 possible signers!
Bob: Alice is one of the possible signers!
It was produced, allegedly, after the block a 00000000000000000000c75dc9d3296751a8bb62b2463fbc49035ee75ab45f39
Bob: It says that the block was mined at 1736264059
Bob: Let see if this block is real!
Bob: The block is real!
Bob: Let's check the PoW
Bob: The other signer is: npub1jktevjlge6vjp2yfaltrlvuv99th2uxaxy8eglvcsvr7e2r9h5lq2978dz
Bob: The challenge public key is: npub1jktevjldsr7kr52f90602gfhmc8cac9quq6yy8k9vy94w2qptsasz9cfps
Bob: Let's figure out how hard it was to mine the private key
Bob: The distance between the challenge and the alleged mined public key is 494635222290174920048599093528121665305037827746663102318405983997
Bob: For having 50% of chance of figuring out this key, the signer should have done 83496150448 tries
Bob: The signer should have mined 967231 keys per second, since the block was mined
Bob: It is not a hard PoW!

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na novaekonomija.rs

05.12.2024 / Autor: Dragan Milić

---

Kada se desio prvi veliki „hajp“ oko bitkoina i kriptovaluta generalno (veći od prethodnih), negde krajem 2017-te, verujem da nije bilo čoveka koji tada bar u prolazu nije čuo da neko pominje te čudne, nove reči i fraze. Sećam se da mi je neki taksista, ničim izazvan, rekao da ulazi u posao sa rudarenjem kripta i da je uložio novac u grafičke karte koje treba da stignu preko veze, jer ih nema u prodaji. U tom trenutku to je moglo imati dvojako značenje. Ili da je kripto konačno ušao u mejnstrim i da ga je zajednica široko prihvatila ili da je vreme za izlazak iz tog biznisa i rasprodaju silnih altkoina koji su nicali kao pečurke posle kiše. Ispostavilo se da je ovo drugo bio ispravan odgovor odnosno dobra odluka.

Već u januaru sledeće, 2018. godine ceo sistem je počeo da se urušava kao kula od karata. Zagovornici kripta su govorili da je u pitanju samo korekcija i da će se stvar već na proleće popraviti, ali bitkoin se nije vratio na 17.000 dolara naredne tri godine. A mnoge druge kriptovalute zauvek su izgubile svoju vrednost.

Iako je to novo tržište volatilnost pratila godinama, a prati ga i danas, sada, na izmaku 2024. godine možda već možemo reći da je bitkoin na neki način prošao test vremena i „da je tu da ostane“. Dugo se bitkoin kretao u granicama između 50 i 70 hiljada američkih dolara, ali poguran rezultatima izbora u SAD i drugim makroekonomskim efektima koji su već konstanta, početkom decembra 2024. probio je psihološku granicu od 100.000 USD, čime su se dokazale tvrdnje da vreme digitalne imovine tek dolazi. Dan pre probijanja ovog limita, Džerom Pauel predsednik FED-a, nazvao je bitkoin digitalnim zlatom, i dodatno ubrzao ceo proces.

Mnogima ni danas nije jasno šta je zapravo kripto imovina i kako funkcioniše blokčejn na kojoj ista počiva. Što je opravdano jer je reč o veoma kompleksnoj tehnologiji čije razumevanje podrazumeva solidnu tehničku potkovanost i informisanost.

Činjenica je da nije potrebno poznavati tehnološki aspekt kripta da bi ga posedovali i trgovali istim, međutim to nas dovodi do starog pravila da investirate samo u stvari odnosno poslove koje razumete. Možda je to razlog zašto se tradicionalni ulagač i dalje drži S&P500 indeksa i nekretnina kao primarnog izbora, koji su uvek sigurnija opcija i manje podložna nestabilnosti.

Međutim, kako vreme odmiče, polako se stvara poverenje i u digitalnu imovinu kao opciju za ulaganje, koja nosi veliki rizik ali i veliku mogućnost zarade. Na primer, ko je pre nekoliko godina kupio bitkoin, na srednji rok je mogao višestruko da umnoži svoje ulaganje. A ko je bio u stanju da izađe iz okvira saveta „uloži onoliko koliko si spreman da oprostiš“ mogao je značajno da uveća svoj kapital. Na primer, da sam početkom 2020-te u jeku pandemije imao hrabrosti da kupim bitkoin po 5.000 dolara, sada bih zaradio dvadeset puta više. Ali, moglo je da bude i drugačije. Naknadna pamet ne važi…

Inače, moja lična predviđanja iz perioda s početka ove priče, dakle iz 2017-te, su bila polovično optimistična. Smeo sam se kladiti na blokčejn kao tehnologiju i njenu budućnost, međutim nisam bio siguran u bitkoin, jer sam mislio da će ubrzo biti prevaziđen. Naročito zbog svog Proof of work-a odnosno trošenja velike količine energije i računarskih resursa za odobravanje transakcija što nije bio slučaj kod nekih, u to vreme, novih kriptovaluta.

U avgustu 2017. u autorskom tekstu za jedan portal, sam napisao da kako god da završi Bitcoin kao čudo koje je okrenulo ekonomiju naglavačke ili i sam padne u revoluciji čiji je pionir i začetnik, Blockchain kao jedinstveno i genijalno tehnološko rešenje za transferisanje digitalnog novca će ostati. I mnogi upravo u ovoj tehnologiji vide budućnost novca. I pogrešio sam. Blokčejn i dalje čeka na svojih pet minuta, ali bitkoin odoleva i uči nas da na njega moramo računati.

U međuvremenu se dakle mnogo toga promenilo. Bitkoin se i pored volatilnosti uvukao u portfolije ozbiljnih investitora, odobreni su takozvani ETF-ovi (Exchange-Traded Fund), koji omogućavaju investitorima da ulažu u bitkoin bez potrebe da ga direktno poseduju ili upravljaju svojim digitalnim novčanicima i privatnim ključevima.

Glavna prepreka, u vidu nedostatka regulative, takođe je prevaziđena u mnogim pravnim sistemima. Možemo s ponosom istaći da je Republika Srbija jedna od prvih država u Evropi koja je regulisala Digitalnu imovinu. Ubrzo nakon usvajanja Zakona o digitalnoj imovini, izmenjen je i Zakon o porezu na dohodak građana, gde je bar na papiru, osvetljen i poreski tretman kripta. Problema u praksi i dalje ima, naročito oko podnošenja poreskih prijava i utvrđivanja poreske osnovice odnosno obračuna poreza, ali bar u delu vrste poreza i poreske stope pravne nesigurnosti više nema. Takođe, svako ko želi da se bavi pružanjem usluga može proći ne tako jednostavnu proceduru pribavljanja odgovarajućih dozvola u skladu sa zakonom i otpočeti taj posao u potpuno legalnim okvirima, što je do pre nekoliko godina bila siva zona i kod nas i u većini zemalja.

Bitkoinova mlađa braća nešto kaskaju sa dostizanjem svog ATH-a (All Time High), pa na primer ETH (Itirijum) u trenutku pisanja ovog teksta još uvek nije dostigao za njega magičnih 5.000 dolara, ali sva je prilika da će bitkoin prokrčiti put i za druge tokene odnosno kriptovalute na tržištu. Bar one koji su prošli test vremena i iza kojih postoji ozbiljnija infrastruktura i poslovanje.

@ 7ed7d5c3:6927e200

Can't decide if the terrible book you just read is a 1 or 1.5 star book? Look no further than this chart. Was it Shit or just Bad? Was that movie you watched Very Good or just Decent? How many things out there are really Life Changing?

Finally, a rating scale for humans. Use it for anything in your life that needs a rating out of 5 stars.

Rating / Description

0.5 – The worst 1.0 – Shit 1.5 – Bad 2.0 – Eh 2.5 – Entertaining, but not great 3.0 – Neutral 3.5 – Alright 4.0 – Decent 4.5 – Very good 5.0 – Life Changing

P.S. Do not use it to rate your wife's cooking. The author is not liable for any damages.

@ 2355757c:5ad3e04d

Non-Native Electromagnetic Fields (nnEMFs) are in my opinion, the least discussed and most pervasive environmental toxin in modern society that is negatively affecting our health. We live in a toxic soup world, where we are being attacked from every angle. Polluted air, water, plastics, chemicals in our food/clothes, endocrine disruptors in our personal care and cooking products…the list goes on and on. It is the unfortunate reality of living in a modern fiat world, where all big companies cut corners with cheap, toxic ingredients just so you can have a $20 cooking pan and a $15 t-shirt. 

On the bright side of things, most of those toxins are pretty easily avoidable by just swapping for higher quality or more natural alternatives. You can also filter or buy better water and eat real food that was raised locally without toxic herbicides (to a pretty easy degree). Enter nnEMFs, something that is IMPOSSIBLE to fully avoid and MUCH more challenging to mitigate exposure to. That is because technology is so ubiquitous in our modern society. Cell phones and wifi routers in every house, smart appliances, cell towers on every block, power distribution and transmission lines, 5G rollout…we are surrounded by nnEMFs on a daily basis.

What are nnEMFs and why are they bad for my health?

A nnEMF is any EMF generated from a non-native source AKA a result of modern human technology. The three most common sources of nnEMFs are from our electrical power grid, radiofrequency (RF) communication, and microwave frequencies. These three sources differ by function and frequency. 

• Electrical Power Grid - 60Hz Frequency - In “Extremely Low Frequency Range (ELF)”

• Radio Frequency (RF) - 3kHz to 300GHz - Mobile/Societal Communication/TV/Radio 

• Microwave (MW) - 300MHz to 300GHz - Radar/Satellite/Space Communication

It gets a bit confusing in the nomenclature between RF and MW, but in reality the only difference is the type of application above 300MHz. Below 300MHz and it is distinctly an RF frequency. All transmission and distribution of power to industry/homes/businesses is occurring at 60Hz. Vast differences in frequency, both turn out to be pretty detrimental for our health. Here’s a few reasons why:

1. Classified as a possible carcinogen by the IARC (Group 2B)

RF-EMFs and ELF EMFs have been classified by the IARC as possibly carcinogenic based on the current scientific evidence. Now this is still a lower classification than red meat, so does this carry any merit? I say yes. Many researchers agree, such as in THIS study where researchers looked at mobile phone radiation and risk of brain tumors and concluded that RF fields should be classified as a probable carcinogenunder the criteria used by the IARC. 

1. RF and ELF Fields Increase Oxidative Stress

Oxidative stress. If you are a regular here in the health space you know how much comes down to maintaining redox homeostasis in our mitochondria (the supplier of ATP in our cells). Dysfunctional mitochondria = dysfunctional health and it just so happens that nnEMFs can significantly increase oxidative stress in our cells, with review studies like THIS one documenting how the most electromagnetic organs (brain, heart) as well as reproductive organs (testes, ovaries) were the MOST affected. (I wrote a recent substack post on declining sperm count and nnEMFs was the star of the show). Increased oxidative stress is consistent with OG findings from the likes of Dr. Robert Becker and Dr. Andrew Marino in their research. It is high level, but increased levels of oxidative stress predisposes you to increased risk of ALL KNOWN CHRONIC DISEASES. Because of this, nnEMFs have been strongly linked to increased risk of the following:

• Neurodegenerative diseases

• Reproductive issues

• Cancer 

• Cardiovascular disease 

• Diabetes

• Disturbed Sleep

We live in a toxic soup world. Achieving restorative sleep is the only way our body is able to fight back and restore our health from all of these toxic exposures. ANYTHING that impedes sleep restoration is a premature nail in the coffin in my eyes. Don’t believe me on the importance and power of melatonin and our circadian rhythm? Check out THIS thread I wrote on melatonin (anti-cancer, potent anti-oxidant, mitochondrial composer, etc.). Exposure to nnEMFs during the day AND at night disturb our sleep and prevent the ability to have that highly restorative sleep needed to detoxify and replenish our cells. Lose quality sleep, lose the ability to handle stressors that you are exposed to daily.

DON’T BELIEVE ME THAT nnEMFs are harmful to human health? You are not alone. Many mainstream media outlets, researchers, and industry “experts” dismiss the level of non-ionizing radiation coming from things like cell phones as dangerous to human health. This is has been ongoing since the 1970s. However, if you are subscribed to this newsletter you may have more of an open mind to believing everything you read from CNN, Forbes, or the WHO. I know you all question things more than the average member of society. So if you question the efficacy and morality of the vaccine, why would you not also question the potential health hazards of nnEMF exposure? Even Presidential Nominee RFK is on board. Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Food…there is no difference! Centralized industry will do anything it takes to cover up research that is sound and not funded by themselves. Here is an example…

Dr. Henry Lai from University of Washington Emeritus has compiled the most comprehensive set of research articles regarding nnEMFs and biological impacts. He has reviewed OVER 2,500 studies. His conclusion?

Dr. Lai reports concluded from his research that exposure to RFR or ELF EMF produces oxidative effects or free radicals, and damages DNA. Downstream effects of studies examined include significant effects on genetic, neurological and reproductive functions. Among hundreds of studies of Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR), 70% to 89% reported significant biological effects. Among hundreds of studies of Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) and static fields, 74% to 91% reported significant biological effects.

Still don’t believe me, read the book Going Somewhere by Dr. Andrew Marino. It will blow your mind on how much effort has gone to cover up research on the biological effects of nnEMFs since the 1970s. Or Google Russia’s stance on nnEMFs. 

You can also listen to one of our latest Decentralized Radio episodes with Anthony Smith, COO of EMF Safe. EMF Safe is a fantastic company that offers, in my opinion, the MOST effective nnEMF mitigation technology for your house. Hint: it’s not a f*cking pendant or harmonizer. YouTube link or Spotify link HERE.

Now that we got through the depressing side of the story, let's talk about WHAT YOU CAN DO to protect yourself from the harmful effects of nnEMFs without having to live in the woods-not a perfect solution either ;) 

HOW TO MITIGATE nnEMF detrimental health effects: DURATION + DISTANCE \

\ TIME/DURATION. Your worst enemy in being exposed to nnEMFs is the duration of exposure. Nearly all of the negative studies showed that after 48-72hrs of exposure (chronic), detrimental health effects were seen. HOWEVER, the same studies showed less conclusive negative health effects for exposures less than 24-48hrs (with variance). For me that means the following action items:

• Turn off the wifi-router at night 

• Turn phone on airplane mode when not using for >10 min

• Turn appliances OFF when not in use in your home 

• Create a sleep sanctuary with minimal/no electronics in the bedroom 

• Do not move to an area right next to High Voltage Transmission Lines, Substation, Airport, Hospital, etc. (any area with high powered communication/RF equipment or power distribution equipment) 

DISTANCE. Distance is your best friend in mitigating nnEMFs. Why? Inverse square law. Inverse square law is the fact that the magnitude of the EMF is calculated with the square of the distance in the denominator of the equation. This means that for every doubling of distance you have between you and the EMF source, the magnitude weakens by a factor of FOUR. Triple the distance, EMF magnitude goes down by a factor of NINE (and so forth). For me that results in the following action items:

• Do not keep your cell phone ON your body when ON & receiving calls/texts 

• Do NOT hold your cell phone up to your ear when making calls (use headphones/speaker)

• Move your bed 6-12 inches AWAY from any electrical outlets in your bedroom (especially near your head)

• Do not stand immediately next to high powered appliances when ON & in use (microwave, washer, dryer, blender, etc.)

There exists a lot of other nnEMF “mitigating/harmonizing” technologies, however I would be highly suspect of anyone trying to sell you something. EMFs are extremely complex. The angle of incidence, power level, and frequency matter tremendously. Most folks who aren’t engineers or have a deep knowledge of physics likely won’t be able to have the baseline knowledge to know what is a scam and what is not. OR what to prioritize from an nnEMF mitigation perspective. I gave a pretty good starting point above for what actionable steps you can take. THis does not mean all products are a scam. nnEMF shielding has its place and I use some of these products…but whenever a topic is extremely complex to the layperson, it is easy for someone to convince you that a product works. Especially when proof is challenging to come up with (EMF readers are an okay tool at best). 

As someone who holds a M.S. in Electrical Engineering, I never thought that my degree would come in handy for health optimization. Now in 2023, here I am realizing how electromagnetism is likely the MOST important topic to conceptualize to really crack the optimal health code. We are electromagnetic beings, and the research in this space has only just begun to scratch the surface.

If you want to learn more in depth about nnEMFs, mitigation tactics, what products work and do not, etc…subscribe to stay up to date on the latest. I am directly working with some renowned EMF experts on developing more educational content/courses that I will be launching in the near future to help practitioners and fellow esoteric health connoisseurs better understand nnEMFs more in depth to help themselves and their clients live a more optimal life. 

Here on Decentralized Health, I will be writing in depth about the electromagnetic aspects of health alongside other topics I am passionate about such as environmental toxins, regenerative agriculture, decentralization, Bitcoin and more. I want as many people as possible to become empowered through education so that they can escape the dependencies of the centralized systems that are tarnishing our quality of life. 

This is just the tip of the nnEMF iceberg. 

Stay Sovereign,

Tristan

Originally published Sep 25. 2023

@ f96073dc:5951c7c2

Introduction

The food we consume plays an obvious yet undervalued role in not just sustaining us, but also in shaping who we become.

The phrase "You are what you eat" transcends cliché to embody a profound truth: our diet directly influences our life experience.

Debates continue about the optimal food sources for human health and longevity.

These discussions often involve emotionally charged arguments influenced by faith, traditions, economic interests, and political opinions concerning the global climate crisis and sustainability.

My goal isn’t to delve into the weeds of this emotional & political debate, but instead to strip things back and provide a birds eye view on nutrition, whilst offering alternative lenses through which we can view food.

## Understanding Food as Information

More than mere fuel, food serves as crucial information for our bodies.

This concept may sound strange, as much of our nutritional understanding has been dumbed down to ‘energy in, energy out’, or ‘calories in, calories out’.

This perspective bypasses the importance of micro nutrients—the vitamins & minerals our bodies interrelate with, or don’t.

Food information determines how our cells function and regenerate, impacting everything from energy levels to cognitive ability.

The challenge lies in deciphering what constitutes "good information."

For centuries, nature provided a simple guide.

Our ancestors thrived on a diet of organ meats, plants, seafood, fruit, muscle meats, bones, and eggs—foods naturally rich in nutrients and absent of modern chemicals.

The question remains: If our forebears thrived on these natural foods, why have we deviated so drastically?

## The Shift in Food Paradigms

The introduction of heavily processed "Frankenfoods" laden with chemicals represents a stark departure from the diets of our grandparents and great-grandparents.

They consumed what we now coin "organic" food out of necessity rather than choice.

Food is pleasure, but it’s also a tool for a healthy self.

This ratio has been disproportionally thrown out of alignment.

The modern supermarket, with its aisles dominated by hyper palatable and processed products, reflects a concerning shift in our eating habits.

On the periphery of supermarkets lie fruits, vegetables, dairy, and animal based products, many of which have been sprayed with chemicals like glyphosate, or raised under inhumane conditions.

This brings us to the troubling paradox: while some parts of the world suffer from over-consumption and associated health issues like obesity and metabolic diseases, others face malnutrition and starvation due to food scarcity. (See red line below)

*HFCS: High fructose corn syrup

Questioning Current Food Paradigms

Our current food systems are broken.

A hard truth and pill to swallow, but if you look around, people have never been this unwell and overweight.

Misleading ‘Health Star Ratings’ and a flawed food pyramid, reflect a deeper societal malaise.

These systems often promote products that are not conducive to health, with processed carbohydrate forms serving as our staple, while nutrient and caloric dense foods like meat, fish, dairy, and natural fats have been marginalised.

## Whole Foods and Balanced Nutrients

So, what’s the ideal diet?

There is no universal diet that fits everybody.

The journey to finding the right diet involves personal experimentation.

However, a diet emphasising whole foods, which humans have consumed for millennia, remains a sound choice.

Eating natural foods avoids the pitfalls of ultra-processed foods and provides a balanced array of nutrients.

Side note: historically, meat was always the prized resource.

## Beyond Pesticides

Every year, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) puts together a list of 15 foods with the lowest amounts of pesticide residues, and conversely, 12 of the most contaminated foods with pesticides.

This is known as the ‘Clean Fifteen’ and ‘Dirty Dozen’.

When financially feasible, it’s advised to consume organic and pasture raised products.

If buying organic isn’t possible, one strategy to reduce pesticides is to soak the produce in water and a teaspoon of baking soda or a splash of apple cider vinegar for a few minutes.

## Nutritional Strategies for Specific Needs

Strategies like the elimination diet can help individuals identify how specific foods affect their bodies, allowing them to make informed choices that resonate with their unique physiological needs.

Tracking macronutrients and particularly protein intake can be crucial for specific health goals like muscle growth or weight loss.

Gaining a baseline understanding of the macros in your food can be an important piece of the puzzle, but should not become an obsessive practice.

Many diets serve a purpose, and depending on your goals as well as physiology, can be leveraged for great benefit.

This broad concept has been developed into a growing area of research called Nutrigenomics, defined as the study of how different foods may interact with specific genes to modify the risk of common chronic diseases, such as heart disease, stroke, and certain cancers.

For example, a ketogenic diet can help those with neurological disorders such as epilepsy or Alzheimer's disease, intermittent fasting can facilitate weight loss, and a carnivore diet can heal chronic skin or gut issues.

## Conclusion

In an era where diet-related health issues are rampant, returning to a more natural, informed way of eating is not just beneficial; it is necessary.

The prevalence of heavily processed "Frankenfoods" deviates from the nutrient-rich diets of our ancestors, contributing to a paradox of overconsumption and malnutrition.

Challenging current food paradigms is necessary to address misleading nutritional guidelines and flawed food systems.

Empower yourself to explore food in a deeper fashion, seeking a diet that not only nourishes your body but also aligns with your lifestyle goals and fosters a sense of vitality and well-being.

Eating well is a form of a self respect, and while we get the chance to inhabit this physical form, it should be our duty to make the most of this life and embody our fullest potential.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na danas.rs

11.01.2021 / Autor: Aleksandar Milošević

---

Ima više od osam godina otkako sam prvi put čuo za to nešto što se zvalo bitkoin.

Libertarijanski san: „Decentralizovana“ valuta koju ne kontroliše nijedna država; na koju nijedna centralna banka ne može da utiče; koju je zahvaljujući „blokčejn“ tehnologiji nemoguće falsifikovati i koja nudi anonimnost kakvu poznaje samo keš.

Valuta čija je ukupna količina unapred fiksirana pa joj je rast vrednosti usađen u DNK.

I to još valuta koju je moguće dobiti besplatno, ali po zasluzi, jer bitkoini nastaju tako što vaš kompjuter reši komplikovani matematički zadatak iza kojeg se „krije“ jedan od ovih magičnih novčića.

To što je čitav sistem osmislio misteriozni matematički genije poznat kao Satoši Nakamoto, koji možda postoji, a možda i ne postoji i što se ceo finansijski establišment obrušio na čitavu bitkoin-maniju kombinacijom podsmeha i represivnih pretnji, moglo je samo da ubrza moju tadašnju odluku da kupim XFX ATI RADEON HD 5870 grafičku karticu za nekih 200 evra (maksimum koji sam od skromne novinarske plate mogao sebi da oprostim) i priključim se drugoj velikoj zlatnoj groznici, nekih 150 godina nakon one originalne, kalifornijske.

Ipak, kao što se da pretpostaviti iz činjenice da danas pišem ovaj tekst umesto da na nekom tropskom ostrvu vežbam skokove u vodu, sudbina nije htela da se obogatim rudareći bitkoine.

Ispostavilo se, naime, da moja moćna grafička karta ne odgovara mojoj dosta nesposobnoj matičnoj ploči, pa sam uz pomoć najgore „cost-benefit“ analize u istoriji biznisa zaključio da je bolje da prodam grafičku sa 20 evra gubitka i zaboravim na sve, nego da zarad svoje igrarije menjam čitav kompjuter.

Ta greška koštala me je nekih 700.000 dolara.

Toliko bih, žalosno je, danas imao da sam propalu investiciju u pogrešan hardver pretvorio u novotariju zvanu kriptovaluta, po tadašnjem kursu od 10 dolara za novčić, umesto što sam „zaboravio na sve“.

Bitkoin je, ispostavilo se, postao prilično velika stvar.

S kursom od 40.000 dolara za jedan bitkoin, s međunarodnim bankama koje spekulišu ovom valutom, s nuklearnim naučnicima hapšenim jer su ruski državni superkompjuter upregli da za njih rudari bitkoin, sa novinskim izveštajima o ljudima koji idu u zemlje s jeftinom strujom da u njima instaliraju čitava skladišta puna računara za traženje bitkoina, pa čak i sa poslednjim pričama koje krive upravo bitkoin za to što je u Pakistanu pao napon struje za 200 miliona ljudi i što je 500 miliona Evropljana zamalo ostalo bez svetla, nema nikakve sumnje da je bitkoin nešto veliko.

A opet, to nešto veliko i dalje uporno ostaje – ništa.

Ma koliko neverovatna cena od 40.000 dolara delovala zavodljivo, bitkoin entuzijasti su već jednom, pre tačno dve godine, sve to već doživeli, kada je ova valuta prvi put u meteorskom usponu za samo par nedelja dostigla 20.000 dolara, da bi se onda jednako naglo i jednako neobjašnjivo survala nazad, ostavljajući mnoge sa velikom i nimalo virtuelnom rupom u džepu.

Osnovni problem bitkoina, uzrok njegove karakteristične nestabilnosti – ogromnih skokova i jednako spektakularnih padova – jeste to što niko ne zna za šta je on koristan.

Ma kako uzbudljivo delovala čitava priča o novcu koji je van kontrole vlade, koji nudi anonimnost transakcija i koji je navodno nemoguće falsifikovati, činjenica je da prosečnoj osobi ništa od toga nije potrebno.

Tačnije, bitkoin – sem u uskom krugu slučajeva – ne nudi ništa što već ne možete da dobijete sa svojom valutom, a da vam je potrebno.

Za anonimnost je većini dovoljan keš, rizik od falsifikata je dovoljno mali da je zanemarljiv, a kontrola države i nezavisnost od monetarnih vlasti su priče koje su ljudima eventualno intelektualno zanimljive, ali nikog neće naterati da u praksi krene da koristi neku virtuelnu valutu.

Zato je bitkoin ostao novac ponajviše upotrebljavan za nezakonite transakcije – otkup podataka od hakera, prodaju droge i tome slično – gde su anonimnost i elektronski transfer novca bitniji od svega.

Zašto onda raste cena bitkoinu?

Zato što svi kupuju bitkoine nadajući se da će im cena skočiti i da će zaraditi.

Kako raste tražnja tako raste cena i očekivanje se ispunjava.

Onda kad tražnja nestane, a to će se desiti kad svi koji su upravo sad čuli za bitkoin pokupuju virtuelne novčiće videvši koliki je rast cene u poslednjim danima, cena će krenuti da pada.

Jer – bitkoini nikom nisu potrebni i niko ne želi da ih zadrži. Sve što svi žele je da ih kupe, da im cena „iz nekog razloga skoči“ i da ih onda zamene za „pravi novac“.

U toj igri, koja se stalno ponavlja kako naiđe novi talas publiciteta, neko naravno mora i da izgubi.

Bitkoin neće postići stabilnost i neće uspeti da iskaže svoju „deflatornu“ prirodu u koju se svi uzdaju da im trajno podiže vrednost novčića koje poseduju, sve dok se ne bude pronašla njegova svrha kao valute.

Dok dovoljno veliki broj ljudi ne bude hteo da drži i koristi bitkoine za ono za šta je svaka valuta namenjena – za kupovinu roba i usluga.

Droga, oružje, ucene i ostale oblasti kriminalne ekonomije nisu dovoljni da bi se takva stabilnost postigla.

Glavni problem bitkoina je zato njegova praznina.

Bitkoin nije zlato našeg doba. Pre je blato.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ d93ce2e3:824940b5

牧原股份因出售携带蓝耳病毒的违规种猪引发疫病，全场生猪感染死亡，养殖户索赔近700万元，揭露其疫苗管理混乱及法律违规行为，行业龙头面临信任危机。

牧原股份 #蓝耳病毒 #疫苗管理 #违规销售 #养殖户索赔

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ c11cf5f8:4928464d

Here we are again with our monthly Magnificent Seven, the summary giving you a hit of what you missed in the ~AGORA territory.

---

Top-Performing Ads

This month, the most engaging ones are:

• 00 [SELL] STACKER NEWS Merch: T-Shirts & Cap [32100 sats + shipping] by me :)
• 01 Beeswax Dinner Candles For Sale by @kr
• 02 I'd Buy ~bitcoin Territory At The Right Price by @0xbitcoiner
• 03 Bitcoin Watches by @jakoyoh629
• 04 SN merch live on amazon by @stack_harder
• 05 A couple programming bounties payable in BTC (Javascript/Typescript, C++) by @springfield_data_recovery
• 06 [SELL] Accepting SATs ~ Genuine Authentic SHAQ (Shaquille O'Neal) Autograph by @watchmancbiz
• 07 PlebBook 📖 - (Update: Jan 2025 - Earn Sats in AGORA) by @PlebLab
• 08 HereComes Bitcoin SATSCARD™ - Summer of Bitcoin by @Design_r
• 09 [OFFER] 12K sats for any item in The Bullish Shop (BOLT12 only) by @thebullishbitcoiner
• 10 Bitcoin Shirt on Walmart 👀 by @96dffdc39e

---

Cowboys Credits Buyers

Yes, this Jan 3rd CCs have been deployed, a unique SN feature that enable everyone to play around and upvote/reward interesting contents and stackers. Has been an interesting number of stackers enetring the market and setting the rate

• @siggy47 Will Pay Sats For Cowboy Credits https://stacker.news/items/837713/r/AG Make him an offer. His territories rent are due.
• @ek [BUY] 100 cowboy credits for one satoshi https://stacker.news/items/837469/r/AG Sender must pay the 30% sybil fee, so the sender has to pay 100/0.7=142 CCs to get 1 sat
• @Darth first ever CCs offer, and always with his third eye looking at the future, want too [SWAP] SN Cowboy credits https://stacker.news/items/723069/r/AG _{PS: posted in October 2024}

Professional Services accepting Bitcoin

• I https://stacker.news/items/813013/r/AG @gpvansat's [OFFER][Graphic Design]

From the paste editions (It's important to keep these offers available) * II https://stacker.news/items/775383/r/AG @TinstrMedia - Color Grading (Styling) Your Pictures as a Service * III https://stacker.news/items/773557/r/AG @MamaHodl, MATHS TUTOR 50K SATS/hour English global * IV https://stacker.news/items/684163/r/AG @BTCLNAT's OFFER HEALTH COUNSELING [21 SAT/ consultation * V https://stacker.news/items/689268/r/AG @mathswithtess [SELL] MATHS TUTOR ONLINE, 90k sats per hour. Global but English only.

In case you missed

Here some interesting post, opening conversations and free speech about markets and business on the bitcoin circular economy:

• Buy Kratum With Bitcoin https://stacker.news/items/806578/r/AG by @siggy47
• How Is Shipping Handled? https://stacker.news/items/832303/r/AG by @siggy47
• Building a List of 'Buy It For Life' Products https://stacker.news/items/809655/r/AG by @kr
• Sender must pay the 30% sybil fee, so the sender has to pay 100/0.7=142 CCs to get 1 sat https://stacker.news/items/811292/r/AG by @Fabs
• How to (Ethically) Get Rid of Your Unwanted Stuff https://stacker.news/items/829228/r/AG by @mo
• The Calgary Sat Market - A driven community of Bitcoiners, making magic together https://stacker.news/items/811666/r/AG by @supratic
• ɅGOᏒɅ 🏜️ First Year Recap: A Thriving 2024 for Stacker News P2P Marketplace https://stacker.news/items/821255/r/AG by @AGORA

🏷️ Spending Sunday is back!

Share your most recent Bitcoin purchases of just check what other stackers are buying with their sats! Read more https://stacker.news/items/837629/r/AG

---

Just a reminder for you all

This territory aims to connect stackers and curious buyers for IRL P2P Bitcoin deals. Have fun checking what else stackers are shilling globally in the ~AGORA. This is a great time for you to make some space un-dusting some stuff that has been sitting there for too long and get some sats for it!

---

Create your Ads now!

Looking to start something new? Hit one of the links below to free your mind:

• 💬 TOPIC for conversation,
• [⚖️ SELL] anything! or,
• if you're looking for something, hit the [🛒 BUY]!
• [🧑‍💻 HIRE] any bitcoiner skill or stuff from bitcoiners
• [🖇 OFFER] any product or service and stack more sats
• [🧑‍⚖️ AUCTION] to let stackers decide a fair price for your item
• [🤝 SWAP] if you're looking to exchange anything with anything else
• [🆓 FREE] your space, make a gift!
• [⭐ REVIEW] any bitcoin product or LN service you recently bought or subscribed to

---

Or contact @AGORA team on nostr DM and we can help you publish a personalized post.

. #nostr #stuff4sats #sell #buy #plebchain #grownostr #asknostr

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/842103

@ 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!‌

@ 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.

@ 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!

@ 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)

@ 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!

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ b4d9d1f3:8f3dda8c

Creating a real quantum multitemporal messaging system to send messages to the past or interact with it is not feasible with current quantum technology or known physics. However, we can simulate this concept for a fictional or learning environment. Here's a plan:

1. Emulating Qubits:
2. Use quantum computing libraries like Qiskit to simulate qubits.
3. Model how quantum information might be "encoded."
4. Messaging Interface:
5. An input/output system to send and receive "fictitious" messages.
6. Generate altered timestamps to simulate messages sent to the past.
7. Temporal Impact Simulation:
8. Create logs where the message appears to have been received before it was sent.
9. Optionally: Generate interactions based on a "past server."

Python Code: Quantum Multitemporal Messaging Simulation

This script uses Qiskit (quantum simulator) to emulate sending and receiving messages across different times. Install Qiskit first: bash pip install qiskit

```python from qiskit import QuantumCircuit, Aer, execute from datetime import datetime, timedelta import random import time

def quantum_encode_message(message: str): """ Encodes a message into a quantum circuit. Simulates quantum superposition for multitemporal messaging. """ # Create a quantum circuit with 1 qubit and 1 classical bit qc = QuantumCircuit(1, 1)

# Apply Hadamard gate to put the qubit into superposition
qc.h(0)

# Encode the message as a "rotation" on the qubit
rotation = sum(ord(char) for char in message) % 360  # Message as an angle
qc.rx(rotation, 0)

# Measure the qubit
qc.measure(0, 0)

return qc

def send_message_to_past(message: str): """ Simulates sending a message to the past using quantum encoding. """ print(f"Sending message: '{message}'") qc = quantum_encode_message(message)

# Simulate execution on a quantum simulator
simulator = Aer.get_backend('qasm_simulator')
result = execute(qc, simulator, shots=1).result()
state = list(result.get_counts().keys())[0]

# Generate a "past" timestamp
past_time = datetime.now() - timedelta(minutes=random.randint(1, 60))
print(f"Message encoded in quantum state: {state}")
print(f"Message appears to have been delivered on: {past_time.strftime('%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S')}\n")
return past_time

def receive_message(): """ Simulates receiving a message that was "sent from the future". """ future_time = datetime.now() + timedelta(minutes=random.randint(1, 60)) message = random.choice(["Hello from the future", "Quantum messaging works!", "This is a test message."])

print(f"Received a message: '{message}'")
print(f"Message appears to have been sent on: {future_time.strftime('%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S')}\n")
return message, future_time

Main simulation loop

if name == "main": print("== Quantum Multitemporal Messaging System ==")

# Simulate sending a message to the past
send_message_to_past("This is a quantum message to the past.")

# Simulate receiving a message from the future
receive_message()

print("Simulation complete.")

```

How the Code Works 1. Quantum Message Encoding: - Uses a basic quantum circuit with a qubit in superposition (Hadamard gate) to encode the message. - Encoding is simulated as rotations based on the message's content.

1. Simulating Messages to the Past:
2. Generates fictitious timestamps that make it appear as if the message was delivered to the past.

3. Uses quantum simulation to "encode" the data.

4. Simulating Messages from the Future:

5. Generates predefined messages with timestamps that appear to be from the future.

Limitations - This is a simulated system and does not actually interact with the past or future. - It is designed to learn basic concepts of quantum computing and simulation.

@ b4d9d1f3:8f3dda8c

This script simulates a VPN that "connects" to a server in a fictional timeline (e.g., the past or future). It uses time zones, fictitious data generation, and connection simulation to make it appear real.

```python import time import random from datetime import datetime, timedelta import pytz

Configuration for the fictional timeline

def get_alternate_time(server_timezone: str, offset_hours: int): """ Returns the time from a fictional server in an alternate timeline. """ tz = pytz.timezone(server_timezone) server_time = datetime.now(tz) alternate_time = server_time + timedelta(hours=offset_hours) return alternate_time.strftime('%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S')

Simulate VPN connection

def simulate_vpn_connection(): """ Simulates a VPN connection to a server in another timeline. """ server_name = random.choice(["Server Alpha", "Server Beta", "Chronos Node 9"]) timezone = random.choice(["UTC", "US/Pacific", "Europe/Berlin", "Asia/Tokyo"]) offset = random.choice([-100, 100, -72, 72]) # Hours into the past or future

print("Establishing connection to the VPN server...")
time.sleep(2)  # Simulates connection delay
print(f"Connected to {server_name} ({timezone})")

# Get alternate timeline time
server_time = get_alternate_time(timezone, offset)
print(f"Server time: {server_time} (Alternate timeline)")

Generate fake data

def generate_fake_data(): """ Generates fictitious VPN usage data with altered timestamps. """ print("\nTransferring data:") for _ in range(5): fake_time = datetime.now() + timedelta(seconds=random.randint(-100000, 100000)) print(f"[{fake_time.strftime('%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S')}] Data packet transmitted.") time.sleep(1) # Simulates data transmission delay

Main execution

if name == "main": print("== VPN Simulation to an Alternate Timeline ==") simulate_vpn_connection() generate_fake_data() print("\nConnection terminated.") ```

Code Explanation

1. Function get_alternate_time:

2. Calculates an alternate time based on a time zone and an offset in hours (past or future).

3. VPN Connection Simulation:

4. Generates a fictional server name and time zone.

5. Displays the fictional server's time.

6. Fictitious Data Generation:

7. Prints altered timestamps to simulate data transmission.

How to Run

1. Save the code as fictional_vpn.py.
2. Run it in a Python environment:
   bash python fictional_vpn.py

@ 513d5051:8a622026

I've noticed some of my posts they become a kind 1 event while others become a kind 30023 event^1.

So if you see this post[^2] published as a note and has a bunch of markdown, and then another super simple post[^3] becomes an article.

How do you think it should behave?

I personally gravitate towards publishing everything as articles (kind 30023) since clients usually enable markdown to render them as we do, this is how we'll port the content to Nostr the closest to SN most of the time IMO.

[^2]: Complex post turned note [^3]: Simple post turned article

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/841530

@ 513d5051:8a622026

It angers me.

We just want freedom for fuck sake.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/841507

@ 2355757c:5ad3e04d

Originally published Feb, 23, 2024

Introduction

Sunlight is the most important nutrient for our body. That may sound delusional to some, but the definition of a nutrient is: a substance that provides nourishment essential for growth and the maintenance of life. Sunlight certainly is necessary and essential for growth and the maintenance of life, but most don’t understand why. Most do not understand that the real benefit of sunlight is that it provides a vast spectrum of electromagnetic radiation (light) that signals different functions in our biology. This is why we can never replace sunlight with artificial lights, because the sun is a “broad band emitter” and all artificial lights are “narrow band emitters”. This means they only have a few isolated wavelengths, whereas sunlight contains the whole swath. 

The other most important aspect of sunlight is that it is time and location dependent. It is always changing…and that change or shift in light frequencies is providing our body the right information about how to function properly in our given environment. Artificial light is constant and provides a consistent/un-natural input signal that confuses our biology. 

The last piece, which I will dive into more in a future post…is the fact that sunlight is a continuous electromagnetic wave while indoor lighting is highly pulsed. This is a major reason why eye strain and headaches from staring at screens is so common.

Let’s dive into the important biological effects of the various wavelengths in full spectrum sunlight. 

Summary

• Sunlight is a broad band emitter and artificial light is a narrow band emitter

• Sunlight is an un-polarized, continuous source of electromagnetic radiation. Artificial light is highly pulsed

• Sunlight that reaches the earth is comprised of light frequencies that range from 280nm (UVB) to 2500nm (NIR) and everything in between. Each category of wavelength serves as a different biological stimuli

• UVB radiation stimulates the production of vitamin D, as well as serotonin and beta-endorphins, UVA promotes the release of nitric oxide into the blood, and both have a positive effect on the diversity of the microbiome and our endogenous hormone production

• Violet light can reverse myopia and potentially improve sleep quality

• Blue light is the master circadian signaler, turning on/off the SCN via melanopsin photoreceptor…thus regulating cortisol/melatonin production as well as all circadian timing in the body

• Green light can treat skin issues and also be used as a pain releiver

• Red light, near-infrared radiation (NIR), and far-infrared (FIR) radiation have anti-inflammatory and tissue healing effects…NIR also stimulates the production of melatonin inside the mitochondria, a master anti-oxidant.

The Biological Effects of Sunlight: By Color/Wavelength

There are several wavelengths of energy from the sun that reach the earth’s surface and trigger specific actions within the body to influence our health. And, just as some of this spectrum is able to make it through the atmosphere, different wavelengths are also able to penetrate the skin to different depths of the body’s tissues and have certain effects on the cells within those tissues, as you can see in the figure below.

Those at the lower wavelengths (such as UVB) only penetrate the very surface of the skin, while those at higher wavelengths (such as visible light) are able to penetrate deeper. Think of how you are able to see the light from a flashlight on the back of your hand when held against the skin on the palm of the hand – you can visually see the energy traveling through the skin, muscles, blood vessels and tissues of the hand. Infrared radiation can even get into the cells and mitochondria, and can get through clothing and bone!

Ultraviolet-B Radiation (UVB) – Vitamin D, Neurotransmitters, Melanin and Beta-endorphins

UVB (280-315nm) is the highest energy wavelength that reaches surface of the earth. It is only present when the sun is >30 degrees above the horizon. You can use apps like “Circadian” and “dminder” to tell you when UVB is present. At the 45th latitude in Wyoming, I go WITHOUT UVB for around 2 months in winter time. This is a big deal, because UVB light stimulates vitamin D synthesis, one of the most important molecules/hormones in the body. More importantly, it stimulates synthesis of sulfated Vitamin D, which is more bioactive and has far more biological relevance compared to un-sulfated Vitamin D as you would get from a supplement. This is why you can’t replace sunlight with a supplement, especially when it comes to Vitamin D. Using a UVB lamp (outside or in combo with NIR) would be in my opinion a better option than supplementing Vit D, or if you do take a supplement take it mid day and get some UVB exposure after taking it. I wrote extensively about Vitamin D supplementation in a previous newsletter. 

The vitamin D produced in the skin can also help protect the skin cells from DNA damage, facilitate DNA repair directly upon any UV damage, help prevent cell death, and protect against melanoma. In fact, keratinocytes, which make up over 90% of the outermost layer of skin, cannot rely on vitamin D3 from supplements and must synthesize their own supply of vitamin D directly from sun exposure, or by topical application.

Besides vitamin D, UVB radiation also promotes the production of neurotransmitters and beta-endorphins, chemicals that drive cognition, mood, relaxation, pain relief, and boost immunity. It also triggers the synthesis of MELANIN. It does this by stimulating proopiomelanocortin (POMC) activity in the brain and via exciting our aromatic amino acids. 

POMC is a precursor protein of several neuropeptides, including adrenocorticotropin (ACTH), α-melanocyte stimulating hormone (α-MSH) and β-endorphin (β-END). Our aromatic amino acids (tryptophan, tyrosine, and phenylalanine) have ringed structures that allow them to trap UV light energy, and these aromatic amino acids are the precursors to neurotransmitters dopamine, serotonin, as well as melatonin and melanin. Serotonin is involved in cognition, regulation of feeding behavior, anxiety, aggression, pain, sexual activity, and sleep. These aromatics absorb heavily in the UVB/UVC range.

This UV-induced release of beta-endorphins means only one thing: there is an innate built in addiction pathway to the sun. Our biology is able to provide a “reward” for UV-induced vitamin D synthesis when vitamin D levels are low, during which time a greater amount of beta-endorphins are released upon exposure to UVB. As vitamin D levels rise, the sun-seeking behavior and resulting opioid response become repressed as less vitamin D is needed. It’s almost as if our body knows best, and we should go out of our way to listen to it. Instead, most people will continue to pour the Vit D supplements down their gully. 

Melanin, which is synthesized from UV light exposure and activation of alpha-MSH via POMC, is one of the most important molecules in our biology. It absorbs the entire EMR spectrum and acts as both a biological semiconductor and energy storage system (battery). I have written more about it in a previous newsletter and will dive even deeper very soon.

Ultraviolet-A Radiation (UVA) – Nitric Oxide + More

UVA (315-380nm) exists at a wavelength between UVB and visible light, and is able to reach deeper than UVB light but still only a few millimeters. UVA leads to the release of nitric oxide into the bloodstream which in turn benefits the cardiovascular and metabolic systems, and may offer other immunological benefits beyond those offered by nitric oxide. This vasodilatory effect enhances blood flow, lowers blood prressure and improves circulation. 

UVA can have similar effects to UVB such as stimulating POMC and the neuroendocrine axis, just with lesser efficiency compared to UVB light as it is a lower energy wavelength spectrum so it does not have as great of an excitatory effect on our biology. 

“UVA has better penetration reaching the reticular dermis but has 1000 times lower efficiency at inducing biological effects (expressed as the minimal erythema dose) than UVB”

For a deeper dive on UV lights impact on the brain and endocrine system, and the difference between UVC/UVB/UVA effects check out this paper.

UVA also shares some benefits with violet light (visible) such as reversing myopia in the eyes. Will discuss that more in the Violet light section. 

Ultraviolet Radiation (UVA + UVB) – The Most Important Input for Your Microbiome

Your gastrointestinal tract and the surface of the skin are home to trillions of microbes (bacteria, viruses, and yeast), called your “microbiome,” which act as their own organ and are crucial to your overall health. Skin health in particular is maintained by a balanced, diverse microbiome, which is in turn affected by nutrition, pH level, hygiene, exposure to toxins, barrier strength, stress levels, sunlight exposure, and overall health. 

UV exposure (and vitamin D itself) can have a healthy, regulatory effect on the microbiome of the skin and the gut, with UVB light having a beneficial impact on the diversity and abundance of the bacteria species of the gut microbiome, and UVB as well as UVA benefitting the skin microbiome. Studies have even shown that several molecules that help protect our skin from UV damage can be produced by the microbiome on our skin upon UV exposure, acting as a sort of natural sunscreen.

Why is UV light so good for our gut? Two reasons:

1. Remember those aromatic amino acids and neurotransmitters mentioned earlier? Well a vast majority of aromatics are synthesized by your gut microbes via the famous shikamate pathway (famous because glyphosate disrupts this). As a result, most of your neurotransmitter synthesis is happening in the gut. 90-95% of serotonin and 50% of dopamine is produced and stored in the gut. There is a reason it is called your second brain, and it is not fully due to the vagal nerve connection. 

2. Your bacteria absorb and fluoresce light constantly. We are made up of far more “bacteria” cells than our own cells and this microbiota is highly dependent on light input. It seems that UV light modulates pathogenic bacteria and helps beneficial bacteria proliferate. This is why UV light has been known as an effective method for cleaning surfaces.

UV Light Summary

UV light is imperative for properly functioning biology, and the fact that it has been demonized for “causing skin cancer” has resulted in a chronic health epidemic. Yes, solar tolerance and callus matters…that is why being outside all year round is imperative. UV light is the reason life began on this planet in the first place (read Nick Lane’s work on deep sea vents), and it stands true today that nearly ALL of the biological semi-conductors that power our biology absorb strongest in the UV range. When you can harness UV light, you become what it truly means to be a human being. 

Blue Light – Regulation of Circadian Rhythm, and Melatonin

Blue light (420-500nm) perhaps ma be the most well known light in the visible spectrum. It has been vilified (for good reason) as the light that will disrupt our sleep. This is true, but that does not mean that blue light has a negative impact on our health in the right context, the opposite actually. 

Blue light is the master circadian signaler. We sense it in our eyes and skin via the melanopsin receptor and the signal is what sets our bodies master circadian clock: the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN). This is how our body tells time, and this is why our blue light and overall light environment is so important. Blue light at night suppresses melatonin production far greater than any other color of light. Blue light conversely stimulates cortisol production, which is what provides wakefulness in the morning. 

Blue light is the highest energy wavelength that is present for almost the entirety of sunlight exposure, with an ever increasing amount until solar noon…and then decreasing amount in the afternoon. Again, this is how our body tells time. If you subscribe to the fact that our circadian rhythm is one of if not the most important aspect of our biology (timing is everything), then you would agree that your blue light environment may be the most important area of your health to tackle. This is why there has been such a monumental push on the education around artificial blue light and an entire industry made around blocking blue light. 

A healthy, regular circadian rhythm promotes healthy mood and improved cognition. Disruptions to circadian rhythm have been shown to increase the risk of most chornic diseases: including cancer, heart disease, neurodegenerative disease and metabolic conditions. Research has found that, compared to white light therapy, blue light is more effective for resetting circadian rhythms, suppressing nighttime melatonin, and enhancing performance. Other physiological actions of blue light suggested by the scientific literature include an increase in circulating beta endorphins, decreased systolic blood pressure due to nitric oxide mechanisms in the skin, an anti-bacterial effect, and a potential bio-modulating effect within the cells.

Blue light (like all areas of the light spectra) deserves an article of its own. I will be releasing an article dedicated to artificial blue light next month so stay tuned!

Red and Infrared Light - Healing Wavelengths

Red and infrared light is the most abundant portion of full spectrum sunlight, making up over 50% of the sunlight that hits the earth. Most of this is coming in the form of Near Infrared light (750-3000nm). Photo-biomodulation is a term used to describe the physiological effects from irradiation by red or near-infrared wavelengths. Red and near-infrared wavelengths have the ability to penetrate inside of our body’s tissues and cells, and can even penetrate through clothing. Studies have shown benefits such as improved tissue function, wound healing, anti-inflammatory effects, and improved energy metabolism from red and near-infrared wavelengths.

Conditions that may benefit from photobiomodulation include allergies, hypothyroidism, depression, dementia, cancer, diabetes related symptoms, exercise performance and recovery, pain, and cardiovascular diseases.

I have written an article on this substack that dives deep into the benefits of NIR light, and why I think it is the biggest nutrient deficiency worldwide (sunlight = NIR). NIR light (over 950 nm) may penetrate as deep as 8 cm and can penetrate bone, enter the cerebrospinal fluid and the brain.

Why is Red/NIR light so beneficial for our health ? Because it up-regulates ATP production and expands our exclusion zone water. You may have heard how fantastic Red/NIR light is for mitochondria…that is 100% true. Part of that reason is due to melatonin synthesis which is highlighted below. The other part is because it up regulates ATP production by expanding the exclusion zone water around the ATP nanomotor-reducing its viscosity and improving rotational torque. Bit complex yes, but that is the reality of our biology. ATP opens the binding site of proteins to water, which need to be hydrated to function properly as biological semiconductors so you could say that Red/NIR is IMPERATIVE for optimal biological function. 

NIR light & Intracellular Melatonin Synthesis

Recent research by Zimmerman, S. and Reiter R. suggests that melatonin (a master antioxidant) exists in two main forms within the body – circulatory melatonin, which is suppressed during the day upon exposure to blue light and has its major effect on sleep and the circadian rhythm, and sub-cellular melatonin, which is produced and used locally by the mitochondria within our cells. NIR light stimulates melatonin production in the mitochondria, which helps protect the cells from oxidative stress from whatever stressors/toxins make their way into the mitochondria. It also helps naturally combat the free radicals generated from UV exposure. This is why Red/NIR wavelengths are so healing, and balance out the high energy and biologically damaging (to some degree) Blue/UV wavelengths. There is always a far higher amount of NIR light than any other light in the spectrum when it comes to energy and power density.

I have written an in depth article about Melatonin as well, because it is so much more than a “sleep hormone”. Zimmerman brilliantly discusses this in his work and how most of the circadian community misses this piece. Melatonin is THE MASTER ANTIOXIDANT, being able to stabilize up to 10 free radicals per molecule due to its remarkable cascading antioxidant abilities.

Violet, Green, Yellow/Orange Light

Violet light (visible) is hard to find research on but can be thought to range from 360-420nm, right after UVA (or even some overlap) and right before blue light in the ascending wavelength spectrum of full spectrum sunlight. 

Japanese research showed that violet light (360–400 nm wavelengths) suppressed the axial length elongation both in a chick myopia model and in human. They also spiked out the fact that we are violet light deficient in a modern, indoor world because of the fear mongering around UV light. Blue light from screens causes myopia and violet/UVA light reverses it…

Violet light is also being studied for its potential benefit to improve sleep quality. 

Green light (495-570nm) penetrates your dermis, almost reaching the subcutaneous tissue below. Studies have shown that green light is effective for relieving pain. Green light is also beneficial for treating skin condictions, especially with regard to skin tone and complexion. Sunspots, melasma, rosacea, eczema, and psoriasis can all benefit from green light. Another tout to the importance of full spectrum sun is the under discussed skin HEALING frequencies such as green + red to balance the high energy UV.

Green Light:

• Might be used in attempts to reduce skin redness and irritation.

• Has been studied for potential pain-reducing properties.

Yellow and Orange light. Lesser research around these wavelengths but including them anyways. These wavelengths penetrate the subcutaneous tissue beneath your dermis. Like green and blue light, they are effective at treating skin issues like eczema, sunburn, psoriasis, and creating an even skin tone. Yellow and orange light therapy is one of the less common types; however, it can help flush waste from your skin, elevate the functioning of your lymphatic system, and stimulate cellular energy to some extent.

One study proved that 590 nm light therapy after laser skin treatments reduced the intensity and healing time of skin irritation. 

Yellow light:

• Sometimes used to stimulate collagen production in the skin.

• Has been used in lightbox therapies for mood regulation.

Orange light:

• Often used in attempts to revitalize skin and promote a vibrant complexion.

• Might be utilized for its potentially energizing and uplifting effects.

Conclusion

You can not replace full spectrum sunlight with light therapies that have only a few isolated frequencies. Sunlight contains such a vast amount of frequencies that all affect our biology in different ways and together provides a very synergistic affect. Our biology has evolved over millions of years to take the FULL SPECTRUM sun as our main input signal. 

Light therapy can still be beneficial in certain scenarios without a doubt, but it will never replace full spectrum sunlight. This is a challenge in our modern indoor world we live in, and that is why we need to be so deliberate about going outside. That is also why I am so excited to be working with Daylight Computer, the world’s first computer that is designed to be used outside and has reflective screen technology that doesn’t destroy your retinas. Much more to come on Daylight Computer …so for now here is a repeat of the summary:

• Sunlight is a broad band emitter and artificial light is a narrow band emitter

• Sunlight is an un-polarized, continuous source of electromagnetic radiation. Artificial light is highly pulsed

• Sunlight that reaches the earth is comprised of light frequencies that range from 280nm (UVB) to 2500nm (NIR) and everything in between. Each category of wavelength serves as a different biological stimuli

• UVB radiation stimulates the production of vitamin D, as well as serotonin and beta-endorphins, UVA promotes the release of nitric oxide into the blood, and both have a positive effect on the diversity of the microbiome and our endogenous hormone production

• Violet light can reverse myopia and potentially improve sleep quality

• Blue light is the master circadian signaler, turning on/off the SCN via melanopsin photoreceptor…thus regulating cortisol/melatonin production as well as all circadian timing in the body

• Green light can treat skin issues and also be used as a pain releiver

• Red light, near-infrared radiation (NIR), and far-infrared (FIR) radiation have anti-inflammatory and tissue healing effects…NIR also stimulates the production of melatonin inside the mitochondria, a master anti-oxidant

Sunlight is the ultimate provider of light. Your light/EMF diet matters more than anything else in regards to health.

Biology is fundamentally electromagnetic.

Stay Sovereign,

Tristan

---

My NEW COURSE EMF-201 is officially out! An in depth educational course that follows my flagship EMF-101 course. Diving deep into Radio Frequencies, 5G, and Modern Tech with an appearance from an RF Engineer who has 20+ years of industry experience. 

Follow my Decentralized Radio podcast for some brilliant upcoming episodes on light and EMFs.

@ b4d9d1f3:8f3dda8c

Since Bitcoin’s inception in 2008, the identity of its creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, has remained one of the greatest mysteries in the tech and financial worlds. Satoshi vanished from the public eye in 2011, leaving the project in the hands of the community. However, a recent event has reignited speculation about whether Satoshi is still alive: the renewal of the bitcoin.org domain on October 31, 2023, a date rich with symbolism in Bitcoin's history.

The bitcoin.org domain was originally registered on August 18, 2008, by someone who used a privacy service to conceal their identity. It is widely believed that Satoshi was behind this action. According to records, the domain was purchased through a company in Iceland, a country known for its neutrality and strong privacy policies.

The 2023 Domain Renewal

The recent renewal of the bitcoin.org domain raises an intriguing question: Is Satoshi Nakamoto still active? October 31 is a significant date, marking the anniversary of the publication of the Bitcoin White Paper in 2008—a document that revolutionized digital currency.

While it’s possible that the renewal was automated or carried out by a third party managing the domain, the symbolic connection between the date and Satoshi’s legacy cannot be overlooked. This suggests that someone close to the original project might still be ensuring its memory lives on.

What Does This Mean?

The renewal of the domain doesn’t confirm that Satoshi is alive, but it opens the door to various theories:

• Satoshi is alive and active: This would excite the community, as it would mean the creator of Bitcoin is still keeping an eye on their creation.
• The domain is in the hands of a custodian: Satoshi may have entrusted control of the domain to someone reliable before disappearing.
• A symbolic gesture: Renewing the domain on this date could simply honor Bitcoin’s legacy without implying Satoshi’s direct involvement.

A Living Legacy

Whether Satoshi is alive or not, one thing is clear: their creation remains as vibrant as ever. Bitcoin has transcended its creator, becoming a global movement that challenges traditional financial systems and promotes economic freedom.

The renewal of the bitcoin.org domain serves as a reminder that, while Satoshi remains a mystery, their vision lives on. Whether or not they were behind this action, their influence continues to shape the future of money and technology.

The Mystery Endures

Satoshi Nakamoto remains a phantom in Bitcoin’s history, and perhaps that is their greatest strength. Their anonymity has protected Bitcoin from being controlled by a single person or entity, and events like the domain renewal only add to their mystique.

The world may never uncover the truth about Satoshi, but their legacy, like Bitcoin itself, continues to break barriers and defy expectations.

@ b4d9d1f3:8f3dda8c

There are cases where hackers have deliberately left clues, either as a game, to challenge authorities, or even inspired by movies. While not always directly related to films, hackers often draw ideas from popular culture, including cinematography, and incorporate them into their activities. Here are some examples or related situations:

Kevin Mitnick and "WarGames" (1983) Kevin Mitnick, one of the most famous hackers, didn’t leave movie-based clues, but his notoriety was tied to how the media portrayed hacking during his time, especially through the film WarGames. Mitnick was inspired by the social engineering concepts depicted in movies and entertainment.

The "LulzSec" Group and Cinematic Humor LulzSec, a hacker group known for its attacks in 2011, left clues and messages filled with humor, similar to the tone of movies like Hackers (1995). They used cultural references to mock authorities and victims, though not necessarily as direct clues.

Ciphers and Zodiac-Style Games Some hackers, like those responsible for the 2014 Sony data breach, left encrypted messages and cultural references reminiscent of thrillers like Se7en or The Matrix. This style mirrors the kind of clues a movie villain might leave to taunt authorities.

Hackers and Movie Quotes In some cases, hackers have left messages based on famous movie dialogues:

In the WannaCry ransomware attack, hackers left notes referencing The Matrix, implying that victims were trapped in a system of their own creation.

In attacks associated with Anonymous, quotes from V for Vendetta—a movie that inspires their iconography—have been used.

Why Do They Do It?

The relationship between hackers and movies is often symbolic:

To Build an Identity: Adopting a "movie-like" image makes them appear more sophisticated.

To Confuse Authorities: Using movie-inspired clues can divert attention or complicate investigations.

For Fun or Challenge: It’s often a game to see if authorities can decode the references.

@ b4d9d1f3:8f3dda8c

The American ideology is nothing but a cheap copy of the barberie , inequality , injustice , injustice , monetary decontrol , social barberie . It is a clear example of what not to do , their economy is based on Jewish elites not American elited , inflation will make them lose their global egomony , and their military power , to my understanding they already lost , unless they pull a trick out of their sleeve what is that trick ? Bitcoin ; but what if bitcoin was created in protest against the dollar and is therefore based on replacing the dollar , what then ? They would have to negotiate ! With whom ? With satoshi nakamoto. And who is satoshi nakamoto?

@ 6e4f2866:a76f7a29

Foreword

“What’s the best sex you’ve ever had?”

Imagine that being the question that changed your life’s work!

And no, it didn’t come from a sleazy porn director in the basement

of a dingy house directed towards the person sitting on the

casting couch. It was asked by Rob Brinded at Chelsea FC’s stateof-

the-art Sports and Injury Prevention Medical facility and directed

at one of the best Football players in the world at that time.

Why did Rob ask that question? What did it reveal to him, and

how did that lead to him quitting his ‘perfect life’?

Even before the athlete answered, Rob knew he had unlocked

an incredibly important discovery. A discovery that would change

the trajectory of his life. One that would trigger him to walk

away from a high-paying job, get dumped by his girlfriend, and be

shunned by his professional peers while facing the inner demons

and self-torture of disappointment.

During this time, Rob forged a new mindset, armed himself

with the tools to cure himself, and extended that healing touch to

anyone who had the fortune of interacting with him.

Like many of my new friends, I first met Rob on Twitter. He

approached me after I had been the featured guest on The Bitcoin

Standard Podcast. My discussion with host Saifedean Ammous \ \ centred around the intricacies of the current education system

and the benefits of homeschooling. Rob had been particularly

intrigued by my insights about teaching versus learning and

how our education system is designed to mould kids rather than

nurture and inspire them. But what truly piqued Rob’s curiosity

was what I didn’t say. Throughout the podcast conversation,

he wanted to ask about certain nuances, the pauses. Because, well,

that’s the way Rob’s mind works now!

Over the next few months, Rob and I stayed in contact and

eventually had the pleasure of meeting each other in Madeira when

we received an invitation to assemble with other bitcoiners to meet

the President, as he and his cabinet wanted to learn more about

bitcoin and the opportunities it might bring to their island.

Extended, in-person conversations with Rob about his work

are truly fascinating. During our first meet-up, I found myself

open to everything he shared. Some people he has encountered

have brushed him off as a ‘Guru’ or too ‘Woo-Woo’ and thought

his ideas were too far out there. The irony here is that their feelings

are triggered by the very conditioning and programming that

these people have been subjected to and have been running from

their whole lives. As Rob would explain, the only way to step off

the hamster wheel is to realise you are on it in the first place. Most

people don’t and will forever be trapped, running the same selfdeprecating

programmes for their whole lives.

I was so captivated by Rob’s ideas that I booked him for a

few sessions (paid in bitcoin) to learn more about his work and,

of course, myself. My goal was to understand why I thought the

way I thought and why I acted the way I acted under certain stressors.

With a spirit of open exploration, we embarked on a journey

through my past, present and future, engaging in candid conversations

that flowed effortlessly. Rob’s guidance helped me decipher

the programs I had been running in my head (my OS system) and

how to close them down. I can best surmise it with the analogy

of ‘force-quitting’ a program on your computer when you get the

‘spinning beach ball of death’.

Once you do this simple visualisation exercise, a remarkable

transformation occurs — you feel lighter and think clearer. Like

our minds, our bodies can react in the most incredible ways. Lifelong

ailments, aches, or pains can feel instantly better and even disappear

completely.

Rob’s conviction in his work is not from blind luck; it’s rooted

in decades of deep introspection mixed with theoretical and practical

study — and, importantly, from results. The outcomes Rob

has seen and shared in this book are beyond remarkable and worth

everyone’s attention. As you journey through these pages and into

this rabbit hole, remember to note what emotions are triggered

within YOU carefully. Because that, dear reader, is your personal

hamster wheel. Those triggered emotions have been programmed

into your OS since you were born, and those programs are what

hold you back mentally and physically from being your best self

and living a happier and freer life.

So, sit back and enjoy the ride. Welcome to the rabbit hole of

decentralising your mind!

Daniel Prince

Host of The Once Bitten Podcast and Author of Choose Life

Block Height 800,608 — SW France \ \ M I N D , D E C E N T R A L I S E D

@ 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!

▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃

@ 04ed2b8f:75be6756

One thing is sure : "Growth doesn’t come from comfort"—it comes from struggle. If you’re coasting through life without obstacles, you’re not growing; you’re just existing. The truth is simple yet harsh: the things that make you uncomfortable are the very things that will make you better.

Comfort Is the Enemy of Growth

Staying in your comfort zone might feel safe, but it’s a trap. Comfort keeps you stagnant. Growth, on the other hand, demands discomfort.
- No Challenge, No Progress: Muscles don’t grow without resistance. The same applies to your mind, your character, and your ambitions.
- Comfort Breeds Complacency: The longer you stay where it’s easy, the harder it is to leave. Meanwhile, the world moves forward, leaving you behind.

Why Challenges Are Necessary

Challenges are the forge where strength is built. They expose your weaknesses and demand that you face them.
- They Build Resilience: Every challenge overcome makes you tougher. You learn to bounce back, to adapt, to persevere.
- They Expand Your Limits: Challenges force you to do things you didn’t think you could. They show you that your limits are often self-imposed.
- They Shape Your Character: Struggle reveals who you are. It teaches you discipline, humility, and grit.

Avoiding Challenges Is Choosing Mediocrity

Let’s be clear: avoiding challenges doesn’t keep you safe—it keeps you mediocre.
- Regret > Discomfort: The discomfort of trying is temporary. The regret of not trying lasts forever.
- Success Requires Sacrifice: If you want to achieve something extraordinary, you have to be willing to face extraordinary challenges.

How to Embrace the Challenge

It’s not easy, but it’s worth it. Here’s how to shift your mindset and make challenges work for you:
- Reframe the Struggle: Instead of dreading the difficulty, see it as a chance to grow. Ask, “What can I learn from this?”
- Focus on the Outcome: Keep your eyes on the prize. Let the vision of success fuel your determination.
- Celebrate Small Wins: Every step forward, no matter how small, is progress. Recognize it, own it, and keep moving.

Challenges Change You for the Better

Think back to the hardest thing you’ve ever done. It wasn’t easy, but it made you stronger, didn’t it? Every challenge you face today is shaping the person you’ll become tomorrow. The discomfort is temporary, but the growth is permanent.

Final Thought

If you’re not being challenged, you’re not changing. And if you’re not changing, you’re not growing. Life isn’t meant to be easy—it’s meant to test you, to push you, to force you to rise. So embrace the challenge, because every struggle is a step toward the person you’re meant to be.

Let the hard times refine you, not define you.

@ 4462bda4:a6b29667

In recent years, the world has witnessed a surge in the adoption of decentralized technologies, driven by a growing need for privacy, autonomy, and censorship resistance. At the forefront of this movement are Bitcoin and Nostr, two transformative innovations that are reshaping how we perceive finance and communication, respectively.

What is Nostr? Nostr (Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays) is an open protocol designed to create a censorship-resistant, decentralized social network. Unlike traditional social media platforms, which rely on centralized servers controlled by corporations, Nostr operates on a peer-to-peer network where users own their data. It enables the creation of simple yet robust communication systems without reliance on centralized entities.

The protocol is designed to be minimalistic, making it easy to integrate with various applications. Users publish messages (or "notes") signed with their private keys, and these messages are distributed via relays. This model ensures that no single entity can control the flow of information, offering a solution to the issues of censorship and privacy invasion prevalent on centralized platforms.

Bitcoin and Nostr: A Natural Synergy Bitcoin, the world's first decentralized cryptocurrency, has already revolutionized finance by enabling peer-to-peer transactions without intermediaries. Its trustless, transparent nature makes it an ideal complement to Nostr's goals. The integration of Bitcoin with Nostr unlocks new possibilities for decentralized finance (DeFi) and communication:

Micropayments with the Lightning Network The Lightning Network, Bitcoin's second-layer solution, allows for instant and low-cost transactions. Integrating Lightning with Nostr enables features like tipping content creators, paying for premium services, or supporting developers—all without the need for centralized payment processors.

Identity Verification Bitcoin addresses can be used as decentralized identifiers (DIDs) within Nostr, enabling secure, pseudonymous authentication without the need for email addresses or phone numbers.

Censorship Resistance Both Bitcoin and Nostr share a commitment to censorship resistance. While Bitcoin ensures financial sovereignty, Nostr guarantees freedom of expression, making the two technologies complementary pillars of a decentralized future.

Adoption of Nostr and Bitcoin The adoption of both Nostr and Bitcoin is growing rapidly, driven by the increasing awareness of privacy and decentralization. High-profile endorsements from Bitcoin advocates like Jack Dorsey, who has publicly supported Nostr, have brought the protocol into the spotlight. Additionally, the integration of Bitcoin's Lightning Network into Nostr-based applications is driving user interest.

Developers are building a range of applications on the Nostr protocol, from social media platforms to communication tools, all designed to empower users. The open nature of the protocol encourages innovation, with projects like Damus, Iris, and others gaining traction.

On the Bitcoin side, global adoption is accelerating as more businesses accept Bitcoin as payment and countries explore its use as legal tender. The combination of Bitcoin's financial capabilities with Nostr's communication framework could create a decentralized ecosystem where users are fully in control of their digital lives.

Challenges and the Road Ahead Despite their potential, Nostr and Bitcoin face challenges that could impact their adoption. Scalability, user education, and regulatory scrutiny remain significant hurdles. For Nostr, the reliance on relays poses questions about network reliability and spam prevention. For Bitcoin, volatility and misconceptions about its energy consumption persist as barriers to mainstream acceptance.

However, ongoing technological advancements and a growing community of advocates are driving solutions to these issues. Both technologies continue to evolve, with new features and improvements being rolled out to enhance their functionality and user experience.

Conclusion The synergy between Nostr and Bitcoin represents a significant step toward a decentralized, censorship-resistant future. By combining the strengths of decentralized communication and finance, these technologies offer a compelling vision for a world where individuals have greater control over their data, speech, and money.

As adoption grows, Nostr and Bitcoin are likely to become integral to the digital landscape, providing a foundation for a more open and equitable internet. Together, they are not just tools but symbols of a broader movement toward decentralization and empowerment.

@ 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.

@ 000002de:c05780a7

Many years ago I read Linchpin: Are You Indispensable? by Seth Godin. It should be read by anyone entering their working years. Probably more relevant than ever.

The thing is, whether its machines or cheap labor we all are competing for work. Godin was the first person I heard explain how government schools are designed to create conformity and limit creativity. Reading this book opened by eyes to a new way of viewing work.

Using emotional energy in ANY job whether you are cleaning tables in a coffee shop, writing code, or fixing plumbing issues. Being human and caring are things that are hard to find because it takes work.

Doing good work in and of itself is rewarding. Phoning it in is not.

Great book.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/841353

@ 513d5051:8a622026

The Brazilian government has announced they have started monitoring every citizen's financials if their monthly accumulated movement (inflow + outflow) exceeds the equivalent to 819 dollars^1.

What is included in their surveillance: - All accounts (regular, savings, investment) balance, payments, cheques, transfers, yields, and redeems - Movement between accounts owned by the same person - Purchase and sale of foreign currencies - Investments credits, debits, purchase, sale, redeem, and liquidations - Pensions and insurances - Credit pools (often people do this to acquire expensive assets without paying too much interest)

Obviously this is a socialist/communist leaning government, so intervention and control is their bread and butter. They have introduced many new taxes after they came into power, but since they got some push back and our central bank isn't obeying them (they are independent but heavily pressured/influenced) to lower interest rates, they are trying to steal (through taxes) a lot more money from people to enable them to spend more and to help their accounts end every year less negative due to the consequences they've been suffering.

The only real answer would be to go full sovereign, close all accounts and only deal in Bitcoin or if I need fiat to keep the physical version instead. But that's too painful as you become isolated from the rest of the society.

What is the best answer?

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/841315

@ 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.

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

Am I only writing this post because I thought the name was dope?

Pretty much, but I'm also bored and it's been about a week since I joined the ownership group of ~Stacker_Sports, so let's take a look at how the territory's done this past week.

Territory Stats

| Posts | Comments| Stacking | Spending | Revenue | |-------|-------------|-----------|-----------|-----------| | 53 | 880! | 51k | 77.6k | 19.6k |

Awesome! We're well on our way to a profitable month.

---

Posts of the week

• by zaprank: Stacker Sports- Special Announcement
• by comments: NFL Weekly Pick 'em- Week 18
• by sats: NCAA College Football Playoff Points Challenge- SemiFinal Picks

---

I'm open to suggestions about what should go in these reports. Like I said at the top, I'm mostly doing this because I didn't want to waste the sweet ass name.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/841205

@ 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.

@ 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

@ 000002de:c05780a7

I was listening to the No Agenda podcast a few weeks ago and they played a clip from a programmer who goes by the handle the Primagen. He's an entertaining guy. He actually has a lot of good takes on programming topics.

He started talking about Artificial general intelligence. His focus was Sam Altman's recent comments about AGI being just around the corner. The Primagen brought up a point I hadn't heard anyone mention.

Why would a company create an artificial general intelligence that can create apps and entire infrastructures from a prompt and just sell access to it?

Why wouldn't they keep it a trade secret and just use it themselves? If you believed in your AGI wouldn't that make more sense? So does Altman really believe what he is pitching or is it typical fiat hype? A company like Altman's could use AGI to basically destroy all the competition and take over the tech world? Could they not? Its a big if, but If they create an AGI that can just create things it thinks up why would you want to sell that as a service instead of just owning all the amazing things it creates?

Here's what I think. The AGI Altman is talking about is mostly hype. It will not be able to create the next Facebook or Google. It might be able to make some crappy copies of apps at best. Look at the LLM tools we have today like ChatGPT. They can mimic patterns. They can copy writing styles that were created by humans but the majority of what they produce is pretty easy to spot as AI crap. At least it has been for me up to this point. It tends to function better the more a writing style has consistent patterns. True innovation breaks from patterns in interesting ways but builds upon them.

Many people are just blown away by ChatGPT. I find these people tend to be anything but critical thinkers. They also tend to have little experience with software engineering. I'm impressed with many of these tools but the more I understand how they work the less magical it becomes and the more I see the OZ pulling the strings.

All that said, I do not believe AGI is not right around the corner. That's a myth. I've been hearing that for the last 10 years. It's always right around the corner. And yet, people seem to still fall for this. Sam Altman is a pitchmen. Pretty much any founder in Silicon Valley is as well. You really have to take everything they say with a grain of salt because they are all pitchmen, they are marketing their products trying to get fiat funding. They are trying to get eyeballs they can sell.

They're always going to paint everything in the most rosy light. And that's really what you have to understand. You have to be skeptical, because most of the time you're being hyped. I've been around technology and worked in tech field long enough to see the patterns repeat.

I'm not saying there won't be improvements to "AI". I'm not saying that it hasn't already improved. It's useful, but it is not a general intelligence, and it is not going to take the jobs and engineers any time soon. I hesitate to even say any time soon as I doubt it will ever take engineer's jobs because there is always going to be a need for people that know how things work. No matter how advanced artificial intelligence becomes, it is not actually intelligence. It is at best an algorithm that mimics human patterns. There is no creativity. There is only human creativity. There is our human creativity being used as the seed. But humans are weird. We're organic. We're not machines. As patterns form someone breaks out of the pattern in a new and interesting way.

I'd love to hear counter arguments. Why would it make more sense to sell access to AGI vs. using it for yourself?

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/840982

@ 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?

@ 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.

@ 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

@ 2e8970de:63345c7a

Besides the obvious nonsensical unlabeled Y-axis: It's an interesting narrative for sure but I do find it quite weird. I never saw robotics ("physical AI") as an evolution or the next step of other AI disciplines. Also "perception AI" like classification or regression as a lower evolutionary step of this field. I rather see it as another category to the side of it.

It also implies that all work on robotics before next gen chatbots are work in their infancy or stuff humankind wasted their time on because we weren't ready for it yet?

Curious - what do you think about this narrative?

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/840769

@ 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

@ 2e8970de:63345c7a

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/project-digits/

What do you think? I can't help but notice how the form factor is super similar to the new Mac Mini. Which is weird because the development time for such a project should be longer than between these two announcements. Also why are we seeing a comeback in desktops in 2024?

I can't help but feel like something is happening behind the scenes. Is this coordinated for something in the future to happen where desktops are needed again? Or a common reason instead of coordinated? Maybe this something is as simple as locally hosted chatbots. But then again: didn't desktops unambiguously move on to the iMac & Surface-Studio form factor? Is there some huge innovation in display tech just around the corner that they aren't telling us about yet? Are they planning on selling VR to the world?

I'm probably overthinking here, isn't it? On the other hand I cannot think of any reason why Nvidia would waste their time with desktop PCs now.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/840717

@ 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

@ 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 |

@ ed84ce10:cccf4c2a

Hackathon Summary

The HackPrinceton Fall 2024 hackathon was held from November 8th to 10th at Princeton University. It attracted 238 developers who registered 99 projects, engaging participants in workshops, mentorship sessions, and presentations throughout the 36-hour event. The hackathon featured four main tracks: Education + Interaction, Healthcare, Finance, and Sustainability, which encouraged diverse and innovative ideas.

In addition to the main tracks, seventeen sponsored challenges were offered as bounties, adding a competitive element to the event. Participants submitted their projects via a public GitHub repository and showcased their work in two-minute presentations to judges on the final day. Notable outcomes included effective project demonstrations under time constraints, which enhanced the visibility of substantial ideas across different sectors.

Prizes were a significant motivator, with the grand overall prize being a set of AirPod Max for each member of the top team, while the second-place team received Xbox Series S consoles. HackPrinceton Fall 2024 facilitated skill development, collaboration, and creative solutions, showcasing robust engagement from both seasoned and first-time participants.

Hackathon Winners

Healthcare Prize Winners

• Bartimaeus: Stealing Vision Back - This project aids blind individuals in spatial navigation using audio guidance from a smartphone's camera, YOLO, and OpenCV, innovatively employing AI for precise pathfinding and object identification.

• PillPal Pro - A smart box solution ensures elderly patients adhere to medication routines through an ESP32 microcontroller, which facilitates tracking and notifications, complemented by a 3D-printed casing and Firebase integration.

• ReCall.ai - This project uses AI and wearable tech to recognize faces for individuals with cognitive impairments, supporting social interaction and providing cognitive health insights across various facilities.

• HealthSync - Enhances hospital coordination by assigning patient urgency scores and facilitating secure, real-time information exchange using a peer-to-peer network and advanced data security.

• Medbank - Offers a personalized health wallet that manages medical information and insurance details, utilizing AI for intelligent insurance processing and provider matching through geospatial analysis.

• HormoniQ - Addresses PCOS diagnosis challenges with a machine learning tool that analyzes hormonal patterns from health records, providing early intervention likelihoods to healthcare providers.

• World Translationator 5000 - This translation tool tackles language barriers in healthcare by employing quantum natural language processing for accurate translations of medical terminology.

Education and Interaction Prize Winners

• CrystalMath - An AI-driven platform for visualizing math problems through step-by-step animations and voiceovers, supported by Claude model computations and AWS hosting.

Finance Prize Winners

• Stratify - Democratizes investment by offering an AI-powered stock backtesting tool to optimize strategies through detailed analyses and user-friendly simulations.

• Asteroid Audit - Educates about taxes through a gamified experience, integrating Unity for game development and custom algorithms for visual tax estimation.

• Orbital Finance - Utilizes AI voice assistant technology for real-time customer interactions, offering advanced data analyses leveraging MATLAB and NLP for business growth.

Sustainability Prize Winners

• WasteWise - Analyzes waste data using computer vision and GPT-4 API to guide sustainable consumer habits through brand and recyclability evaluation.

• SustainAI - An AI-powered platform providing personalized sustainable lifestyle recommendations based on user data, integrating MATLAB for contextual data personalization.

Developer Tool Prize Winners

• Scraply - Simplifies deep learning education with a drag-and-drop interface for building neural networks, featuring algorithm suggestions and gamified learning.

Financial Innovation Prize Winners

• Chama - Facilitates crypto education with a real-time insights platform offering sentiment analysis and actionable recommendations, integrating OnChainKit for secure transactions.

• HackAwards - Empowers hackathon participation with NFTs via project ownership and contribution tracking, implemented using VerbWire API and Base Blockchain for efficient processing.

Explore all projects and further details at HackPrinceton Fall 2024.

About the Organizer:

HackPrinceton

HackPrinceton unites hackers globally to collaborate and innovate. Renowned for its immersive events, the organization provides workshops, lectures, and mentorship programs that foster skill development and inventive thinking. These sessions equip participants with the essential tools to create impactful projects, even for those without prior team or project ideas. HackPrinceton's dedication to nurturing creativity is evident in its comprehensive support for aspiring innovators, aligning with its mission to inspire the development of impactful, innovative ideas. More information is available at HackPrinceton's website.

@ fbf0e434:e1be6a39

Hackathon 总结

HackPrinceton Fall 2024 Hackathon 于 11 月 8 日至 10 日在普林斯顿大学举行。活动吸引了 238 名开发人员，他们注册了 99 个项目，参与者在为期 36 小时的活动中参与了研讨会、指导会议和展示。Hackathon 设有四个主要方向：教育 + 互动、医疗保健、金融和可持续性，鼓励多样化和创新的想法。

除了主要方向外，还提供了十七个由赞助商提供的挑战作为赏金，为活动增添了竞争元素。参与者通过公开的 GitHub 存储库提交他们的项目，并在最后一天向评委展示了两分钟展示。其中一个亮点是有效的项目"demo"，在时间限制下展示了不同行业的重大创意，提升了项目的可见度。

奖品是一个重要的激励因素，整体冠军奖是一套 AirPod Max，将颁发给获胜团队的每位成员，第二名团队将获得 Xbox Series S 游戏机。HackPrinceton Fall 2024 在技能发展、协作和创造性解决方案方面发挥了重要作用，展示了经验丰富和新手参与者的积极参与。

Hackathon 获奖者

Healthcare Prize Winners

• Bartimaeus: Stealing Vision Back - 该项目通过使用智能手机摄像头、YOLO 和 OpenCV 提供音频导航，帮助盲人进行空间导航，创新性地利用 AI 实现精准路径规划和物体识别。

• PillPal Pro - 一款智能盒子解决方案，通过 ESP32 微控制器确保老年患者遵循用药习惯，实现跟踪和通知功能，整合了 3D 打印外壳和 Firebase 功能。

• ReCall.ai - 该项目利用 AI 和可穿戴技术为认知障碍人士识别人脸，支持社交互动，并提供跨多种设施的认知健康洞察。

• HealthSync - 通过分配患者紧急程度评分并利用点对点网络和高级数据安全进行安全的实时信息交换，增强医院协调。

• Medbank - 提供个性化健康钱包，实现医疗信息和保险详情的管理，利用 AI 进行智能保险处理和地理空间分析实现供应商匹配。

• HormoniQ - 通过一款机器学习工具分析健康记录中的激素模式，解决 PCOS 诊断挑战，为医疗保健提供者提供早期干预可能性。

• World Translationator 5000 - 使用量子自然语言处理技术进行准确翻译，以解决医疗中的语言障碍。

Education and Interaction Prize Winners

• CrystalMath - 一个通过分步动画和语音解说可视化数学问题的 AI 驱动平台，使用 Claude 模型计算和 AWS 托管。

Finance Prize Winners

• Stratify - 提供一个 AI 驱动的股票回溯测试工具，通过详细分析和用户友好的模拟优化投资策略。

• Asteroid Audit - 通过游戏化的体验提供税务教育，整合 Unity 进行游戏开发，并使用自定义算法进行视觉税务估算。

• Orbital Finance - 使用 AI 语音助手技术进行实时客户互动，通过 MATLAB 和 NLP 提供深入的数据分析，助力业务增长。

Sustainability Prize Winners

• WasteWise - 使用计算机视觉和 GPT-4 API 分析垃圾数据，通过品牌和可回收性评价引导可持续的消费者习惯。

• SustainAI - 一个 AI 驱动的平台，根据用户数据提供个性化的可持续生活方式建议，利用 MATLAB 进行上下文数据个性化。

Developer Tool Prize Winners

• Scraply - 提供一个拖放界面简化深度学习教育，用于构建神经网络，具有算法建议和游戏化学习功能。

Financial Innovation Prize Winners

• Chama - 提供实时洞察平台，通过情感分析和可操作建议促进加密货币教育，整合 OnChainKit 进行安全交易。

• HackAwards - 通过项目所有权和贡献跟踪，使用 VerbWire API 和 Base Blockchain 实现高效处理，促进 Hackathon 参与。

浏览所有项目及更多详情请访问 HackPrinceton Fall 2024。

关于主办方：

HackPrinceton

HackPrinceton 将全球的黑客聚集在一起进行合作和创新。以沉浸式活动闻名，该组织提供研讨会、讲座和指导项目，促进技能发展和创新思维。这些活动为参与者提供了创造有影响力项目的必要工具，即使对那些没有初步团队或项目想法的人也是如此。HackPrinceton 致力于培养创造力，通过其全面支持为有抱负的创新者提供帮助，其使命是激发有影响力和创新性想法的生成。更多信息请访问 HackPrinceton 的网站。

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

How to Make a Peanut Butter Sandwich Step by Step

Are you looking for a quick and easy snack? Look no further than the classic peanut butter sandwich! This how-to guide will walk you through the simple steps to make a delicious peanut butter sandwich.

Things you'll need:

• 2 slices of bread
• Peanut butter
• A knife

Instructions

1. Choose your bread: Start by selecting your favorite type of bread. White, wheat, or sourdough are all great options.
2. Spread the peanut butter: Take one slice of bread and evenly spread a generous amount of peanut butter on it. You can use as much or as little as you like, depending on your preference.
3. Add the second slice of bread: Place the second slice of bread on top of the peanut butter, with the bread side facing down.
4. Press down gently: Press down gently on the sandwich to make sure the bread slices stick together.
5. Cut the sandwich (optional): If you prefer your sandwich cut in half, use the knife to carefully cut it down the middle.

And there you have it! A delicious peanut butter sandwich that's ready to enjoy. Whether you're packing it for lunch or enjoying it as a snack, this classic sandwich is sure to hit the spot.

@ 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.

@ 6e24af77:b3f1350b

test

@ 0b14a03f:3f0257c2

In 1925, someone said, "Let's stop making light bulbs that last 2,500 hours; let's make them last 1,000 instead so we can grow our profits."

Then the internet was created, and what happened? Everything on it was commercialized, even ourselves.

After that, Bitcoin appeared. What did we do? We treated it as a fiat currency and created the same old financial vehicles around it.

What today is Wall Street, in the past, it was located in Holland. After that, something similar was in France. They both disappeared, but humans replicated it in the US. We're now seeing how it will collapse.. once again.

Thus, repeating the same things and thinking that we will obtain different results is a bit childish.

It takes much more energy to create something -new.

A lot of energy from the brain to create new neurological patterns, as well as, a lot of energy from the reality to manifest it.

However, aren't we sick of the same old things already?

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

bitcoinstandard.rs

---

PREUZMITE ODLOMAK

KUPITE KNJIGU

Autor Bitkoin standarda, ekonomista Sajfedin Amus, vešto uvodi svakog čitaoca u svet digitalnog novca pokazujući da bitkoin može da postane dominantni čuvar vrednosti u budućnosti, a jedna od glavnih snaga knjige je njena sposobnost da objasni kompleksne ekonomske i tehničke aspekte bitkoina na razumljiv i jednostavan način.

Sajfedin Amus prvo prikazuje fascinantnu istoriju tehnologija novca i istražuje šta je tim tehnologijama dalo njihovu monetarnu ulogu, kako su je izgubile, šta nas to uči o poželjnim osobinama novca i kako je bitkoin osmišljen da unapredi te tehnologije. Amus zatim objašnjava ekonomske, društvene, kulturne i političke prednosti zdravog novca u odnosu na nezdrav novac kako bi omogućio relevantnu raspravu o ulozi koju bi bitkoin mogao imati u digitalnoj ekonomiji budućnosti. Umesto kao valuta za kriminalce ili jeftina masovna mreža za plaćanja, ova knjiga pokazuje kako bitkoin izrasta kao decentralizovana, politički neutralna, slobodnotržišna alternativa nacionalnim centralnim bankama, sa potencijalno ogromnim implikacijama za individualnu slobodu i prosperitet.

Sa ovim osnovama, knjiga prelazi na objašnjenje funkcionisanja bitkoina na lak i intuitivan način. Bitkoin je decentralizovani, distribuirani softver koji omogućava svojim korisnicima da koriste internet za obavljanje tradicionalnih funkcija novca bez oslanjanja na bilo kakve autoritete ili infrastrukturu u fizičkom svetu. Bitkoin se tako najbolje razume kao prvi uspešno implementirani oblik digitalne gotovine i digitalnog tvrdog novca – digitalni oblik zlata.

Amusovo čvrsto razumevanje tehnoloških mogućnosti kao i istorijskih realnosti evolucije novca omogućava istraživanje posledica dobrovoljnog slobodnog tržišta novca. Izazivajući najsvetije državne monopole, bitkoin pomera klatno suvereniteta od vlada ka pojedincima, nudeći nam primamljivu mogućnost sveta u kojem je novac potpuno odvojen od politike i nesputan granicama.

Završno poglavlje knjige istražuje neka od najčešćih pitanja u vezi sa bitkoinom: Da li je rudarenje bitkoina rasipanje energije? Da li je bitkoin za kriminalce? Ko kontroliše bitkoin i mogu li ga promeniti ako žele? Kako se bitkoin može uništiti? I šta misliti o svim hiljadama kopija bitkoina i mnogim navodnim primenama bitkoinove „blockchain tehnologije“?

@ 953c0602:01aba028

（21-06-28） 今天要来讲“主义主义”的（3-1-1-4），代表人物是the young Derrida，年轻的德里达，就是学生时代、巴黎高师、法国……嗯？他哪个学校的？没得文化嘞——巴黎高师的。他当时大学二年级的水准……这个老哥算比较天才，肯定比我聪明。 （这一主义的内容）是大学时期的德里达的毕业论文，文凭的论文，巴黎高师的。那个时候，他是一个调和的先验现象学家，甚至是一个想要挽救——但是也不叫挽救吧——想要去使得先验像学的计划能够辩证法化。他的目的是使先验现象学辩证法化，然后（先验现象学）就活了，从源头处拯救（先验现象学）。特别是从晚年胡塞尔的那个“时间手稿”叫什么呢？什么瑙，玛瑙的瑙，我他妈的没文化，是《贝尔瑙手稿》……但是，这本书里面，

[1]这里指的是德里达的《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》（即前文提到的“毕业论文”），而非前文提到的胡塞尔的《贝尔瑙手稿》。

我没看完，我跟你说……那个时候《贝尔瑙手稿》有没有出版？我不知道。因为我这本书没看完，我不知道他讨论这些东西的时候是怎么讨论的。

[2]未明子试图将德里达的《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》（1954定稿），与胡塞尔生前未发表的被称为“贝尔瑙手稿”的一部分手稿联系起来，然而，此时，未明子忽然意识到，他不清楚“贝尔瑙手稿”整理出版的时间，因此打住了表述。“贝尔瑙手稿”于1969年被E.芬克移交给鲁汶的胡塞尔档案馆，2001年才出版。因此，德里达不仅在撰写《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》时，没有见过“贝尔瑙手稿”；到了他出版《胡塞尔哲学的发生问题》的1990年，他仍然未见过“贝尔瑙手稿”。德里达所利用的胡塞尔著作，在《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》的第二章附录和参考书目均有列出。 我只看了它的一个导论，但是，他在导论里面说，他说胡塞尔晚年的时候，不停地想要通过在时间的现象学里面去引入一种辩证的结构。

[3]参考德里达《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》“前言”：“被视为综合的发生问题的趣味和困难恰在于此：发生的意义或发生之存在的绝对原初基础，何以能包含在发生之中，并且经历发生呢？既然整个综合真是都建立于验前综合之上，发生问题便是验前综合的意义问题；如果验前综合为全部可能判断和全部可能经验的源头与基础，那么，难道我们不被移向一种不确定的辩证法吗？基础的原初性如何能够是验前综合？所有的东西怎么能够都始于复杂？如果全部发生与综合都通过验前综合而指向其构成，那么验前综合本身明现于构成的、先验的、所谓最初的经验之中时，难道不总是“已经”获得意义了吗？难道不总是从定义上就“已经”被另一种综合无止境地构成吗？如果现象学的原初性之前有人们称之为历史的“原发性”，那么，它如何能够企求意义的原始构成呢？我们应当说这种原发性只有透过原初构成才如此“明现出来”。在这种辩证法的全部超越中，难道不存在骗局吗？难道人们不会重新陷人形式论吗？人们企图通过使这种辩证法的哲学主题化求助于其先验构成的原初性、意向性和知觉而超越的形式论？现象学的、先验的和原初的时间性，难道不是只是在表面上且从“自然的”时间出发“时间化”和构成的吗？而此时间与先验意识无关，，且先于和包含现象学的、先验的和原初的时间性。胡塞尔，尤其在晚年，也许没有绝对就这一时间性提出异议；也许他最后全部的努力是通过把这种新关系融入到现象学中来拯救现象学。” 有一种先验现象学，但是它又能够构造出一种辩论法，这种辩证法呢，就可以去支撑一种元逻各斯，然后可以支撑一种先验逻辑，就可以挽救整个先验现象学。 （3-1-1-4的）代表人物是德里达，但是，是在大学时期的德里达，从大二开始做的毕业论文。这个位置的参考文献，就是这本书，叫做《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》。 读这本书，其实，不需要啥前置内容。

[4]《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》分为四个部分，每个部分均围绕一些胡塞尔著作展开探讨，第一部分围绕《算术哲学——心理学研究与逻辑学研究》（现海牙版胡塞尔全集第12卷）和《逻辑研究》第一卷（现海牙版胡塞尔全集第18卷）；第二部分围绕《逻辑研究》第二卷（1现海牙版胡塞尔全集19-20卷）、《内时间意识现象学讲座》（现海牙版胡塞尔全集第10卷）和《观念I》（即《纯粹现象学和现象哲学的观念》第一卷，现海牙版胡塞尔全集第3卷）；第三部分围绕《经验与判断——逻辑谱系学研究》（尚不在海牙版43卷胡塞尔全集之列，约当于全集第17卷的《形式逻辑和先验逻辑》）和《笛卡尔式沉思》（现海牙版胡塞尔全集第1卷）；第四部分围绕《欧洲科学与先验现象学危机》以及《几何学的起源》等讲座（现海牙版胡塞尔全集第6卷和第29卷）。 稍微了解黑格尔辩证法，稍微了解一些康德的先验哲学，然后还有《观念I》和《观念II》，

[5]如前注4所言，德里达的《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》中没有探讨《观念II》，正如本书中译者于奇智在“参考书目”中所指出的，《观念II》的法文本是1982年出版的。 还稍微了解一些胡塞尔的本质心理学和他的先验逻辑……这些都是稍微了解一些（就可以）。你主要就是要知道胡塞尔的主要的（目的），他想要干啥，然后，德里达想要拯救什么。 那么，这个主义的话，我把它叫做……哎呀，我在想呀，其实我现在还在想，我要把它叫做什么genesis……我在想，哎，这个东西其实很烦，你知道吗？因为大部分人说在这种状态下，它是类先验的，但是，我觉得，其实这里的姿态就是先验性的姿态。就是说，我他妈要不要给前面加quasi-，quasi-transcendental？要不要说类先验？然后，后面加是“辩证法”呢，还是加“历史主义”？ 我觉得在这里，他主要用到的还是辩证法，所以我就叫Quasi-transcendental dialecticism，准先验的辩证主义。（为什么）把它叫辩证主义，而不叫历史主义呢？因为它要和那些区分开来，它要和比较矬的一些……就是，他这个准先验……就是如果我把quasi去掉的话，那么这个transcendental dialecticism，它就有点像谢林，你知道吗？就是，我不好这样说，所以，我要可以前面要加一个quasi，“准”先验。 那么，德里达破局用的一个概念，就是genesis，我们一般把它翻译成“起源”，但在哲学里面它有个很简单的就叫“发生”。发生，就是时间开始的起点。但是，德里达告诉你，发生问题，它有二重性，相互矛盾的。一个是作为originarity，

[6]德里达《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》使用的就是“originarity”，而非更常见的“originality”。参考《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》玛丽安·霍布森英译本“前言”中的脚注：“本英译本在两个术语上尤其贴近德里达参考了胡塞尔的德语所使用的法语，即‘起源性’（originarity）和‘生成’（becoming）。德里达接受了保罗·利科的法译本，这一法译本没有自然地把这两个词对译为‘originality’和‘development’。” 一个作为起源性，它是一个绝对开端；还有一个是，所有的发生都是anticipated，它都是被预料、被预期到的，也就是，所有的发生都是置于一个背景性框架的。

[7]（1/4）德里达所指出的胡塞尔哲学中的“发生”问题的二元对立的矛盾，是 “先验发生”（transcendental genesis）和“经验发生”（empirical genesis）的对立。而不是未明子所说的所谓的“originarity”和“anticipation”的对立。事实上，“绝对起源”和“预期”（anticipation）是统一于“先验发生”的。未明子说“发生问题，它有二重性……一个是绝对开端……还有一个是作为所有的发生都是被预期到的”，开口便错。

[7]（2/4）关于德里达所谈论的发生的“二元性”，参考德里达《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》“前言”：“ 一言以蔽之，如果先验发生主题在某个时刻明现，以便理解和建立经验发生主题，经验发生主题在自然时间上先于先验发生主题，那么，我们应该自问这种进化的意义。先验发生何以可能？”

[7]（3/4）关于德里达此处的“起源”概念关乎先验发生，参考前引书“前言”：“首先，受到如实检视且形式上最有可能的发生，在其概念层面，兼具两种矛盾的意义：起源意义和生成意义。……全部发生的存在的意义好像在于超验与内在之间的这种张力。”

[7]（4/4）关于德里达此处的“预期”概念关乎先验发生，参考前引书“前言”：“某种预期忠实于所有发生的意义：一切革新都是证实；一切创造都是实现；一切涌现都是传统。” 所有的发生都是被预料到的，都是在一个过去和未来之流当中的一个发生，

[8]（1/2）“（所有发生）都是在一个过去和未来之流当中的一个发生”谈论的是“经验发生”的情况，它不应该和前一个分句（“所有的发生都是被预料到的”）一起被“所以”引导。未明子此处的表述——在谈论“预期”问题时引入了关乎“经验发生”的表述，印证了我们在前注7所揭示的，未明子并未清晰地把握德里达所谈论的“经验发生”与“先验发生”的二元对立。

[8]（2/2）关于“时间之流中的发生”关乎“经验发生”，参考德里达《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》“前言”：首先，受到如实检视且形式上最有可能的发生，在其概念层面，兼具两种矛盾的意义：起源意义和生成意义。……然而，在同一时刻，发生只出现于存在学的和时间的全体之中，该全体包含着发生；一切发生品都是由异乎自身者产生出来的，由过去孕育，由将来选定和定向。 在一个相互关系当中的一个发生。然后，它发生到什么时候，本身是不确定的。所以说可能是萌发，但是我们anticipating it，我们在预料着它。专门有一门发生学，这个东西是可以看成是……发生学这个东西，哦呦，这国内讲的人太多了，但实际上它是一个现象学论。 也就是说，你只有通过现象学的先验直观，才能把握一个纯粹的发生学。就是说，你如果没有现象学先验直观、现象学先验还原作为基础的话，你去研究什么屌发生学，全在放屁。 因为发生学有一个前提，就是说，它对于发生的一个辩证结构的揭示，是为时间做奠基的。这种发生学，它是可以去建构时间性理论的——“为时间做奠基”。 但是在德里达这里，他可能是年比较年轻，他的志愿是希望通过一种辩证法来拯救先验现象学。因为在德里达看来，先验现象学是遭遇了一个不可避免的内在的、辩证性、二重性的一个僵局。这种僵局会使得先验直观本身，变成一种死亡的，death，僵死的，窒息断裂的，呃，里面nothing is living，没有活的东西。 那么我强烈的推荐大家去阅读，就是有能力的——我在说的（3-1-1），你走过前面三步骤之后，前面一、二、三这步骤，你都领会了——主要文本就读……哎呀，《纯粹现象学通论》，我觉得你只要读到第三编读完，就差不多了，还有把它后记读了。 《观念I》其是很短的，没有你想象中的长。而且，这个东西可以并行着来读，它们并不是冲突的。《观念II》的话就是我昨天讲的那一部分。然后，就可以读这本《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》，以及德里达另外一本（术），《声音与现象》，但是这一本显然是更幼稚，更天真的，我们甚至可以说，他认为可以通过某种方式去…… 哎呀，我觉得这本书（《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》）也不长，它里面有一半是附录和导言、前言。

[9]在录制本期视频的时候，未明子手中有一本《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》的纸质书入镜。此处画面中，未明子晃动手中书的动作。因此，知道这句话指的是这本书，而非承上文所说的《声音与现象》。 可能会在下个月，我会看（情况）把这本书讲完，讲它的英文版，因为中文版的话，中文还是有问题，在讨论这些东西的时候，它的语法结构太简单了，容易导致歧义啊，还是要看英文版。法文，我看不懂，这时候你不能怪我了，他用法语写的。 你要想，（英语和法语）它们是可以对译的呀，它们的词可以对译的。我用一个我会的语言，英语，我来讲，我觉得没有什么问题。你中文和它的很多大量术语是不对译的。你看这本书（《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》），是谁翻译的？于奇智翻译的这本书，他的术语，什么“物论”……我操，什么“理项” ……

[10]“物论”，即materialism，即通常所说的“唯物主义”“唯物论”。所谓“理项”，这里未明子可能是想说“相型论”，即idealism，即通常所说的“唯心主义”“观念论”。恰恰是这两个词，于奇智译本有别于传统的哲学著作的翻译。 是，它里面有一些术语翻译，他自己都加注了，但是，你读到后面会很磕绊。 然后，我在这一格（3-1-1-4）里面，就出乎很多同样研究现象学的人意料，我刻意不把那个什么《生活世界现象学》放在这里面。《生活世界现象学》本身蛇皮没用的，它还是（3-1-1-3），它没有本质区别，它还是一种反思性的主观主义。 然后，德里达的这个姿态，quasi- 准先验的辩证主义，可以看成是通用哲学思考模型。就是说，在现象学，而且是在先验现象学的这个问题域和这个术语体系下，然后，你怎么来进行突破呢？就是，引入辩证法来进行突破。辩证法就是一个概念具有二重性，相互对立的。这最简单的。这是通用哲学思考模型。 我觉得不是我来背书吧，德里达本人来背书吧。德里达自己在读大学的时候，就是这个通用模型。在先验现象学的问题域和术语体系之下引入辩证法，这是比较好的一个（模型）。 那么，我们回过头去看，发生问题，genesis。发生问题的二重性，一个就是他自己冒出来嘛，绝对原始性，就是，这个东西他自己冒出来，没有其他东西帮它冒出来。如果在现象学当中，可以用叫invention。

[11]（1/3）“Invention”是一个“现象学范畴”吗？这是个问题。我们发现，不仅于奇智所译的《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》一书后附的“术语表”中没有收录以“invent”为词根的词汇；李幼蒸等译的《观念I》一书后附的“德、法、英、中现象学用语对照表”中也没有收录以“invent”为词根的词汇。

[11]（2/3）德里达在《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》中确实使用过“invention”一词（英语、法语均作“invention”，于奇智译为“发明”，没有括注。）让我们来看看德里达是怎样使用这个“范畴”的，参考德里达《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》“前言”（英文括注是我们补入的）：“一种无证实的发明（An invention without verification）不可现解，它是纯粹适应，说到底，它甚至不能是‘对于某种意识的’。意识把一切意义都领会为‘自为’意义，这种‘自为’是先验而非心理的主体性自为。全部意义都为意识而在，且不能陌生于‘先验自我’和意向自我，它总是显露为‘已经’存在。说到底，一种未经证实的发明（an invention without verification）将否定意识的意向性；它不是虚无“的”发明或者‘经由’它自身的自身‘的’发明，它自身摧毁作为综合意义的一切发明的原意。先验意向性悖论与奇异性重现于一切发明即发生的象征（every invention， symbol of genesis）的中心：生成与时间行为正是依据‘综合’价值而为证实的和最终是分析的。但是，正如未经证实的发明只有在如下的幻想中才可以设想：无意向性的意识的幻想、脱离了世界和时间的幻想。同样，无发明的证实不是虚无对虚无的证实，不是纯粹同义反复、空洞而形式的同一、意识(的)否定、世界(的)否定、时间(的)否定，全部真理都在其中显现。……在某种意义上，在康德那里，经验与验前互不相容。所有发生的意义都是现象意义。发明不是绝对的证实。因而，它不是实在的发明（Invention is not absolute verification. Hence it is not real invention.）。”

[11]（3/3）原来，“发明”（invention）是一个康德哲学的概念。从前引文可以看出，德里达通过引入“证实”(英语：verification，法语：vérification；德语：Bewährung。)概念，康德哲学中的“发明”（invention）概念从胡塞尔现象学中排除了。 it's invention，他这种，就是说，你在现象学上，比如说，我们在日常话语中，我说一个idea is invention，

[12]胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题，不是关于“idea”在头脑中的发生问题，而是现象的“物界”（worldly）发生的问题。参考德里达《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》“前言”：“‘先验还原’(该运动的术语和原则)在此术语的通常或‘物界’意义上，就是还原，即历史发生。但是，在这种退回到相型论风格的哲学纯粹性之后，一幅回复与广阔的收复图显露出来:这就是先验发生概念。此概念在原则上抵拒全面还原，并且也许是被所有被恰当地理解的还原所揭示，它将主宰一种历史的哲学回复，并且有可能调和现象学与‘物界’科学。现象学将建立‘物界’科学。胡塞尔学术生涯一开始便提出了这种综合要求。” 它是个invention，就是，它是凭空冒出来的，它自己作为自己的起点。然后另外一方面，它又不仅仅是个invention，它还得是一个“vertification” ，

[13]此处，未明子将“verification”（“证实”）说成“vertification”，并在写字板上就写成“vertification”。值得注意的是，如前注11所言，invention是一个康德哲学的概念，而非胡塞尔现象学的概念，未明子却在此作了一大段含混的论述。而对于真正属于胡塞尔的概念——“证实”（verification）被收录于前注11所提到的两种术语表中，未明子却拼错了。 它又得被验证。也就是说，它一方面它具有绝对原始性；另外一方面，它又具有一个相对的……我们可以说是，一个在境遇当中的，它是在一个背景当中的，相对的一种，就是一种……我操，我怎么说呢？……结构性，可以说是一种结构性，这样说比较好吧，它就有相对的结构性。 德里达会告诉你，你比如说，一个idea或者说任何意向性，任何一个intention，任何意向，intentionality或者意向性，

[14]在未明子的表述中，“意识”和“意向性”被用作同义词，这不符合德里达所介绍的胡塞尔现象学，详见后注17。 它要么是凭空冒出来的……就是，这两个东西（invention和verification）同时都得有都得有。你不可能光有一个intention而没有一个“vetification”。他用的词是vetification吗？我看一下……我没有那么多时间给你们（核查词汇）……verification，我每次都（写错）……verification，我操……也可以不用那个词，搜不到。verification，这个t多出来的。

[15]未明子至此才修正了自己对于“verification”的拼读与拼写。未明子围绕本不存在于胡塞尔现象学的“invention”概念展开了一些含混的论述，而对于确实存在于胡塞尔现象学的“verification”概念的把我则出现了偏差。 Verify，这个词我写错很多遍，你不需要管我，你自己知道这个词就行了。Verification是“验证”。 就是说，你有一个意向性，或者，你有一个念头，或者一个意识，有一个consciousness，它产生出来，something，某个东西，浮现出来，你会有一个辩证性的结构，这就是一个起源的辩证性结构。

[16]（1/2）注意，此处未明子说的是“起源的辩证性结构”，但他意指的是“发生的辩证结构”，并在画布中画了一个从“Genesis”出发的箭头。然而，如前注7、注8所指出的，未明子错误地将“先验发生”与“经验发生”的二元对立误认为是“起源性”和“预期”的二元对立。进而，他又将“发明”和“意向性”对应于“起源性”和“预期”。正如前注11所指出的，“发明”不是胡塞尔现象学概念，因此，走到“发明”和“意向性”二元对立的结构，可以说已经偏离了由德里达所介绍的胡塞尔现象学，它至多只是表明一种关于“先验发生”的理解。

[16]（2/2）这里尤其应该注意的是，根据德里达所介绍的胡塞尔现象学，“意向性”在先验发生的结构中发挥作用。为了避免回到布伦塔诺，胡塞尔将“意向性”范畴维持在先验发生的结构中，于是，先验发生与经验发生的对立，在意向性方面就表现为“意向性”和“意识的时间性”的对立。关于这一点，参考德里达《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》第三部分第一章：“现象学明见的绝对基础，即全部语言、整个逻辑、整个哲学论说的最后诉求，就是意向性与意识的时间性合二为一。” 你就会发现always there，它总是在那边，it has been always there。 [17]这一段表述也是混淆了“意识”和“意象性”的表述，从前文“你有一个意向性，或者，你有一个念头，或者一个意识，有一个consciousness，它产生出来”可以看出。当我们产生一个“念头”，到底是什么“has been there”了呢？当我们区分了“意识”和“意向性”两个概念，这一表述就清楚了：当我们产生一个念头，我们就已经能够确认存在一种先验意向性已经在那里。 比如说，哎，我在想一件事情，我在想吃饭。当你开始想这件事情的时候，你同时就可以确认、验证它的存在。就是说，任何一个被布置出来的一个东西，特别是意向性—— [18]再次强调，被布置出来的只能是“念头”而非“意向性”。 这个辩证结构，对于那个先验主体性的自我把握，先验主体性的反思性的自我朝向是致命的，因为它使得这个结构发生了裂痕，你知道吗？ 我们昨天不是讲了吗？在先验主体性，或者说，在这种反思性的主观主义里面，先验主体、先验我思的自我把握。它在每一个意向性里面都可以看到他自己，都会看到朝向，或者重新找到一个东西在里面。但是，它找东西在里面的时候，你说它是创造了一个先验自我在里面呢，这是个同义的，还是说it has always been there，它总是在那边？这就是变成一个非常致命一击的（问题）。实际上如果我们用齐泽克，或者是用拉康，或者是用黑格尔的逻辑，这是回溯性建构。 德里达自己在“序言”里面，不是他当时写这篇论文的（时候），而是在他出版（时候）的一个“序言”里面，他说：胡塞尔的先验哲学计划，就好像一种condomination，就好像是一种感染一样，无处不在，污染……contamination，这个词，像一种污染，一种感染一样，传染一样。 [19]此处，未明子翻阅了这本书，找到他想要谈论的文本，纠正了“contamination”的拼写。注意此处的“污染、感染、传染”是在书中的原文和译注中出现的词语。参见德里达《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》“致读者”（1990年）：在此以扫描仪那样冷静而冒失的方式掠过胡塞尔全部著作的这种全景式的解读依赖于一种法律，而这种法律的稳定性在我现在看来更加令人惊讶，因为自从那时以来，甚至在其字面表达中，这种法律就一直地在支配着我曾试图证明的一切，就好像是一种特性已经以自身方式议定一种必然性，而这种必然性总是超越特性并且必须被不断地重新占有。这是什么样的必然性呢？这涉及的总是起源的原初的复杂、简单的初始的污染（contamination，一译“感染”、“传染”。——汉译者注）、发端的偏差。没有任何一种分析能够在其现象中呈现这种发端偏差，并使之出现，或者将它归于要素的瞬时且自身同一的时刻。实际控制整个旅程的问题已经是:“基础的原初性如何能够是验前综合？所有的东西怎么能够都始于复杂？”因而，现象学论说所构建于其上的一切边界，从“污染”的致命性必然性出发被检验。未觉察到的一些蕴含或者隐匿的污染·存在于如下两大对立性边缘之间:先验的/“物界的”本相的/经验的、意向的/非意向的、主动的/被动的、在场的/不在场的、局部的/非局部的、原初的/派生的、纯粹的/不纯粹的，等等。每一边缘震动在其他所有边缘蔓延。差别污染律将其逻辑加之于全书；我感到很奇怪的是:“污染”这个词本身为什么没有从此不断强加于我。 他在每一个辩证性二元对立的结构的缝隙上面都……这种先验计划，它其实总是想要抵抗辩证法，抵抗这个概念二重性的辩证法，dualism，二元对立的辩证法。在抵抗二元对立的辩证法的时候，他总有一种想要看清楚这个二元对立，比如说自然的和观念的，现实的和本质的，还有比如说形式的和real的…… [20]此处未明子所举出的三组二元对立没有一组和前注19所引用的德里达原文所列举的八组二元对立对得上——它们更像是所谓“2”字头的、形而上学的二元对立，而非现象学的二元对立。并且，我们注意到，未明子说“现实的和本质的”“形式的和real的”，“现实的”和“real的”哪怕在未明子的观念里是可区分的，这两者也应该在一律的位置上，然而，它们其中的一个在列举中作为前项，而另一个在列举中作为后项，说明，这三组列举在两项的先后排列上也是不一律的，体现出一种混乱。 这些它的那个板块的间隙上， [21]如前注20所言，未明子所列举的根本不是德里达所介绍的胡塞尔现象学的板块。 总会有一种先验直观的或者先验还原的一种contamination，一种感染，德里达本人用这个词。目光所及，他总会看到有这样的感染，总会有一种还原的欲望啊，reduction，有一种想要看出这种对抗性的架构，它的来源到底是在哪里？那么，这种意识本身，就是一种现象学还原的意向性本身。 所以，我们回过头来，可以这样说，在这个意义上现象学的直观和它的还原，它有一个点是同一件事情，就是在朝向纯粹自我的时候，你在看到这个纯粹自我的时候，你的直观和你的还原是一件事情，it's the same thing。你很难说清楚他到底是直观到的，还是还原到的，它是后撤出来的？创造出来的？是拉开这个距离呢，还是这个距离本身就存在？因为，当你拉开这个主体性后撤的距离的时候……你不拉开，你永远说你没有，你永远不能说你有这个距离；你一旦拉开这个距离，你就总是可以说这个距离本就在那边，本就有个更纯粹的自我在看着这个行动着的自我，并且支配着这个行动着的自我——这个意识行动的我，这个是意识的行动。 [22]此处未明子强调“是意识的行动”，就回到了我们在前注12中所指出的问题。 比如说，你正在回忆“我刚刚脚踩了一下地板”这件事情。然后，你可以在你的回忆里面看到，有一个纯粹自我在回忆，但是，这个时候，当你去这样去判断的时候，一个回忆着的我，和那个观看回忆者的那个纯粹自我之间，就是，我作为回忆者、进行回忆的这么一个行动着的我，还有我作为一个纯粹自我，这个时候，其实，这是个三元关系…… [23]（1/7）我们在此主要援引胡塞尔的《经验与判断》来说明这个问题。如前注4所指出的，《经验与判断》是德里达的《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》的第三部分所围绕的文本之一，并且，德里达指出，《经验与判断》是胡塞尔去世前夕所同意出版的文本。

[23]（2/7）如何理解“我回忆‘我刚刚脚踩了一下地板’”是一个“三元关系”？实际上很简单。“回忆着的我”是第一元，而回忆的内容（“我脚踩了一下地板”）的发生具有二重性，即回忆内容的先验发生是第二元，回忆内容的经验发生是第三元。

[23]（3/7）关于回忆内容的先验发生，参考德里达《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》第三部分第一章：“存在者，即认识目标，总是应当‘被预先给予’。但是，它不应以任何原来的方式被给予。它必须在‘自身被给予’的明见中，而不是在想象或回忆的简单‘再现’中被给予。”

[23]（4/7）我们只需要换一个例子，让回忆的内容不关涉所谓的“我”，问题就变成了现象学认识论中的“回忆”问题，回忆内容的先验发生与经验发生的二元对立问题。胡塞尔以“另一张桌子”为例，参考胡塞尔《经验与判断》第三章§37：紧接着的一个问题将首先涉及到知觉与作为设定性浮想之回忆的关系，涉及到这种回忆的直观统一性的种类，这种统一性也是当那些相互关联着被统一起来的对象并非在一个知觉中被同时给予，而是一部分在知觉中、一部分在回想中被给予出来以后，才能够存在的。举例来说：我根据知觉看见了我面前的一张桌子，并同时直观地回忆起了先前放在这同一个位置的另一张桌子……

[23]（5/7）……无疑，关于所知觉的东西与所回忆的东西被分离的说法是有一定的道理的。如果我生活在回忆中，那我就具有一种回忆的直观的统一性;所回忆的东西在其中是先于所有比较、区别、联系而存在着的一种“感性地”、在流逝着的各个部分中“直观地”统一起来的东西和自身封闭的东西——只要我恰好生活在一个未中断地保持着的回忆性直观中，只要我不在“一闪念”的混乱中从回忆到回忆地“跳跃”。任何统一的回忆都是自身连续地统一的，并且都在自身中建构起诸对象性的一个有意识的统一性，这是一种直观一感性的统一性：一种我们所说过的，在流逝着的诸部分中的直观性。这就是说，在回忆中对一个长时间绵延着的过程的浏览就像在原初知觉中对这过程的把握一样，也恰好具有相同的结构。正如在后者这里，直观地被意识到的总只是原初的一个阶段，而这个阶段随即又被下一个阶段所取代，并通过保持在手而与下一阶段综合统一起来、同样，在对某个过程的回忆中也是如此，虽然整个过程是统一的、直观的，也就是以其所有阶段而被意指着的，即使永远只有这个过程的一个流逝着的延伸是“真正直观的”……

[23]（7/7）……当然，回忆的封闭性原则是恰好如同刚才我们对知觉所强调的那样的原则，就是说，它是基于时间绵延的某种统一性之上的。这种统一性不仅仅关系到揪出一个被知觉到的单个物或过程并对之作主题性观察，而且已经关系到为这种主动性提供根据的统一现象即“印象”，在印象中，对象性(即使它也可能是多项式的)的某种统一性是感性地被预先给予我们的，是对我们来说被动地在此的。这个原则是一个原初地建构起来的、流而去的构成物。这个构成物，不管它是知觉（原初的感性被给予性）的构成物还是回忆的构成物，它从来都是独立的，并且只有那些视域意向才赋予它与超出其上的客观性、与它作为其中一部分的那个客观世界的关联。（引文止）

[23]（7/7）“一部分在知觉中、一部分在回想中”即“一部分在现象学直观中，一部分在现象学还原中”。“直观统一性”云云关乎回忆内容的经验发生，而“封闭性原则”则关乎回忆内容的先验发生。 好像说，我通过现象学先验直观先验往后撤一步，然后，看到这个之前在回忆着的我的那个里面，回忆的行动里面，有一个纯粹的我在回忆。这是个我，我把它同义成我。但是问题就是说，你在这样做的时候，这是可以无限后撤的，你知道吗？但是，如果现象学给的答案，这就是同一个我。This is the same one，and the only one。这是同一个我。那为什么说它是有三个我呢？因为，你看到那个回忆着的回忆者，他就是纯粹自我，但是，这个时候，你又有一个自我在看他，也就是说，一个纯粹自我在一个先前的看这么一个回忆者的……或者说，就是当下正在回忆着这么一个回忆者的自我的时候，他，看到他自己。这个东西的话，其实就是，你在这里面始终，你观看这个……在这种情况下，你就要说，我操，这个自我是我还原出来呢，还是我直观出来的呢？因为在这个意义上讲的话，我看到回忆者的那个中间的那个意向性的发起者是纯粹自我的话，那么这意味着它本来就在那边，对不对？It’s always there。他本来就是那边，但是，显然他不在那边呀。就是说，回忆者中的那个自我，它是结构性的，在一个和我回忆的内容和我这个回忆行动本身缘结起来的一个主体集，对不对？它是一个处在场景中的，处在行动中的，它是一个缘结起来的。然后，我作为纯粹自我去看这么一个回忆，回忆的意向活动，看到其中有纯粹自我在里面，又会发现，这个纯粹自我是一个绝对原始性的，他是这个回忆的绝对的发起者，他不是回忆当中的一个参与者，他是回忆的发起者，他是使得这个回忆出现的一个力量，明白吗？就是，在这里，有这个genesis的这么一个问题。就是说，这么一个纯粹自我，在一个意向活动当中，他发起意向性，他是个绝对的发起者呢，还是被现象学还原（才）会看到他是……你在现象学直观会看到他是一个……我操，我他妈醉了，你的现象学还原会发现它……就是，在这种情况下，直观性和还原性两个东西短路了。 因为在这个点上，你就会看到这个……畜生啊，一点五阶的那种感觉，你知道吗？我只能说，（这是）一点五阶的。因为，现象学的直观截然单纯的给到你一个实事的看，看到你刚刚正在回忆，你刚刚正在看；而现象学还原则意味着，把你刚刚那个看，包括你刚刚那个看本身的那个还原，也给它放到这个还原里面本身当中去，把它罗列开来。还原，意味着把还原本身和它所还原的对象（都还原出来）……还原本身是零阶的，它所还原的对象是一阶的，然后，它所还原对象内部，对于，比如说，他是一个回忆活动，对于其他东西的回忆是二阶的。然后，这一整个阶次，都会被按照阶次，提供给这个现象学还原。而现象学直观的时候呢，可能则没有这么明显的去获得里面的阶次，因为还原它触及了很多本质性的一些架构在里面。 呃，我要说的就是……我他妈又扯远了，我操，我醉了。我要说的就是说，这么一个genesis的一个问题呢，它使得现象学在它的起点，在纯粹的现象学直观和现象学还原，这两个起点上就出现了问题，在意向性的一个发起当中就出现了问题。那么，如果对于我们普通人要去思考这个问题的话，我觉得下面这个问题是值得被思考的。就是说，我昨天一直举的一个（例子）：纯粹我思，纯粹主体，纯粹先验主体，在胡塞尔看来，或者说其实对于我们所有人来说，如果我们是一个严格的唯我论主体的话，我们得到的只有纯粹的先验主体，然后这个纯粹的先验主体，可以自己发起他自己，自己产生他自己。除此之外，这个纯粹先验主体啊，甚至可以说他什么都没有。但是，我们说可以说（他）有一种微弱的内时间意识，内时间的意向性。这个东西的话，可能对于主体性是必要的，除此之外，基本上，主体性的架构是非常单薄的。 [24](1/2)其实，德里达已经指出，“先验意向性”是不必要的，参考德里达《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》第一部分第二章：存在的客观意义完全可以不需要这种心理意向性。但是，存在不是也不需要先验意向性吗？

[24](2/2)值得注意的是，未明子将德里达的这部《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》视为对胡塞尔现象学的“拯救”的努力，但其实德里达并未就此“努力”。这部作品作为德里达的毕业论文，它总的来说是一部综述作品。如前注4所指出的，德里达在本书按照时间线索探讨了数部胡塞尔著作，最终宣布了胡塞尔在先验现象学方面的努力的失败。而未明子则由于未读完此书，未能注意到德里达对胡塞尔现象学的宣判，详见后注45。 我举个例子，比如说颜色……我说颜色可能有点，太他妈的……哪一个（例子）会好一点？比如说，对于你的肢体的控制，比如说对你转动眼珠的这么一个控制力，就是眼的运动觉，我为什么要举眼的运动觉？因为普通人大家都可以直接体验到眼的运动觉。然后，下面现象学分析不是非常严格的，我也没有那个能力做到那种严格性，我也不想做到那种严格性。因为我要把这个东西讲的，让大家听得懂。

[25]结果是这些表述既不严格，又没令人听懂。 眼珠转动的这种运动觉，你会觉得它是无条件的吗？你的意识跟上你眼睛转，你会觉得……will you think it's……它不是无条件的呀，它是被给予的，对不对？当然，它可以看成是一种原初被给予性，对不对？它是一种原初被给与，但是，就是说，它是一个原始在那边，原始呈现，原始的给出，它是个“原现前”，它一直在那边，然后，我们能够感觉到我的眼动能力是一直在这边，哪怕我把我眼睛给它剪掉……就是说，眼动能力，它是要，它基本上是在意识当中是没什么痕迹的，对不对？你闭上眼睛，它会有晕眩感……其他身体的运动觉——有很多运动觉，听觉也是运动觉，也包括你的重力觉，如果我们有可能会倾倒……这些身体的运动觉，都会包括在里面。 眼动，你怎么来判断你的眼睛动呢？在很多情况下，我们是感受不到我们的眼睛在动的，这不会作为一个明显的感觉在里面。但是，我们非常自信，对不对？主体是非常自信的。哪怕我像霍金那样全身都瘫痪了，但是我眼珠子能动。什么时候眼珠不能动？你把我眼珠子挖掉，眼珠子不能动了。眼珠子动，会（被）看成和主体非常紧密，好像就仿佛是他天生的，固有的一种能力。但是，问题是，它是被给予的，它可以没有的。可能对一些盲人或者说摘取眼球那些（人），控制这个眼珠转动的那些肌肉，那些神经全部萎缩掉，或者全部摘除掉之后，你没有任何就是结构化的，其他的身体运动觉来验证你的眼动，你也没有其他结构化的视觉本身来验证你的（眼动）。因为我们的视觉的这种晃动，以及视定位的一些变化，可以用来去验证有眼睛的运动觉，眼珠在动，可以反过来……然后，当然我们也对眼珠本身也会有一个结构性的一个把握，但这些都是次要的，都是后面的，高阶的，派生出来的，不管。 我们要说的就是说，眼珠动，或者说，任何一个纯粹的肢体的动，这种东西都会被看成是一个天生固有的东西，都被看成是魔法，你懂吗？it's magic。其实这是魔法，你们没有意识到，就是可以控制身体动啊，特别是眼珠动或者可以控制你的肢体的某部分动，光凭意念就可以让它动。it's magic，it’s magical，它是魔法性的。它是有一种，有一些运动觉的一些意向性给你。然后，你把注意力集中到它，然后你在一个范围谱系里面去调整你的意向注意的这个方式和能力。 比如说你的眼睛要从左动到右边，但问题就是说，你没有控制台呀，你知道吗？

[26]（1/3）于未明子错误地将“绝对起源”与“预期”引为二元对立，并将它来替代“先验发生”和“经验发生”这组二元对立（见前注7、前注8），以及由于他未能区分意向性（intentionality）与意向、意图（intention）（见前注16），导致他把这个例子讲得很含混。

[26]（2/3）在德里达所介绍的胡塞尔现象学中，先验意向性预料着经验发生，即当人的眼珠从左到右转动的时候，是以预料着眼珠如此从左到右转动的先验意向性为内容的先验发生，与物界的（worldly）、经验发生的辩证统一。这就是前注7引文“一切创造都是实现”的一个例证。

[26]（3/3）“控制台”这一比喻就是先验现象学的实际情况——说它“不存在”，是从今天来看的，是从现象学之外来看的。先验意向性对眼球如此从左到右的转动，就好像在游戏手柄中如此操作，而经验发生的眼球从左到右转动就好像游戏的画面内容如此发生。人们如何对“控制台”取得认识？其方法就是“先验直观”与“先验还原”，然而先验直观和先验还原的具体机制是怎样的？这一问题就是未明子前文所说的“致命一击（的问题）”。 这是非常神奇的一件事情。那不说魔法性吧，它是个非常神奇的一件事情。 比如说，我们就说让你的眼珠从左动到右，但是问题是，为什么你脑子里面设想了一个左右的这么一个方向性——这么一个对于方向转动的一个意向性，肢体控制的一个意向性，他就自然而然从左到右了，你的眼珠真的就从左到右了，他反馈的这个视觉，还有他反馈的其他一系列的其他的这些，就验证了他是从左到右的，为什么会如此的神秘呢？为什么我的一个纯意识活动，我的一个纯粹的意向性的方向性的指向，然后，一个定位，这个意识本身它作为焦点定位，在他的整个身体的不同器官上的某一个接口，好像真的有这些接口存在。 所以，这个时候，我们要说真的是有这些定位性的，还有这些控制性的接口存在？只不过，这个控制——不能简简单单把握成控制，它的模式很复杂，它不是说，让我眼睛从左到右，不是这么简单的，还有你的眼睛的定位性，和它的偏转性，偏转的意向性，我们只能体验到他的…… [27]这里说的是，起初，我们在眼球转动后，对这一动作的发生的把握是简单的：“眼球从左到右转动”，然而，我们的认识是可以深化的，我们可以进一步认识到刚才的眼球转动，比如说，是在水平方向转动了10°（即未明子提到的“定位”和“偏转”云云），那么，先验意向性是如何预料着我们对眼球转动的经验发生的深入把握的？我们应该认为先验意向性在哪怕我们对经验发生的把握还没有深入的觉察的情况下就已经包含了一切的在我们所能把握的深度内的丰富信息（现象学直观），还是应该认为先验意向性是随着我们对经验发生的把握的深入，而恰到好处地揭示自身（现象学还原）？这是德里达所提出的问题，参考前注3引文：“所有的东西怎么能够都始于复杂？” 就是说，我们真的要做现象学直观的话，我们只能体验到我们发出的命令是非常简小的，非常简单的，一瞬间的前反（思）的，甚至是下意识、不反思的，就是，我们头脑当中只有一些符号性的东西浮现了：一个声音——“从左到右”，只有一个符号性的意向性，“眼睛从左到右”。当然，这个“眼珠子”这两个字可能没冒在你心里，但是肯定是冒在我跟你对话的时候，我说出这个符号，你的听觉听到了，然后它转化的一种内听觉。当然你可能在动眼珠的时候，你不需要想到这个内听觉，这些声音已经延宕到后面去了。 但是，一直有个意向性，随时准备控制你的眼睛，而且定位好你的眼睛，什么叫定位好你眼睛？是你的整个意识焦点已经定在你的眼珠的控制接口上，准备去控制它的时候。 那么，你要知道，就是说，这个时候的那种发起本身不是我们要讨论，不是我们要把握这个genesis的地方。Genesis（问题）不是要讨论一种纯我性的一种发起，我们要讨论的不是这个，这东西没啥好讨论的，这个东西很空。 我们要讨论的就是说，这些定位框架，就整个身体的定位框架，还有整个这个方向性。它和这个框架的适配，就是这些东西作为他们相互之间确实这样配置的，这些肌肉，这些眼球的那些运动模式，它确实是这样配置好了的。就是，他们之间这种配置关系，就是我脑子里面想，然后我脑子里面把眼珠从左定位到右一个意向性，把它定位一下，然后真的去实施这个定位性之后，它恰恰正好就真的是和他的运动的发起，完全是，你不需要去调这个软件，你不需要去写这个软件，这里面这些接口和它的这个框架之间的一个对应关系——这个意识接口是你想你朝它用力，它就能……就是——这种对应关系，是一直在的，你知道吗？一直在的。就是叫“原现前的”，一直在那边的。甚至，我们的意向性会觉得，它比我的纯粹我思的存在都要在先。好像他妈的在我尚未会控制我的眼球之前，眼球的控制就已经会了。眼球在我的主动的符号性的思维和我的这种注意力集中到让我的眼球动之前，这个意向性之前，还有这种有意识的去控制我的眼球的这种学习性的行为之前。 外面的，比如说，我想要吃东西的意向性，我想要去听到声响，我想要去注意的这些意向性，就已经会操纵我的眼球了，它就已经会定位我的身体，已经会协调我的这种定位的和这个事实上的和它的运动模式的左右关系方位关系的，它已经先协调好了，这东西早就在那边了，它早就在里面了。 所以我要讲的就是说，在这种情况下，当你说一种纯粹自我，他可以通过一系列复杂的机制，把这整个这个体系给它建构出来，其实是蛮没有说服力的，你知道吗？你说他是完全是genesis，一种发生学，纯粹自我发生，然后在这个意义上构造出的所有整个这些，控制性的结构，或者是支配性的结构，而且都是恰到好处的，天然的连接好的这结构，不像那么回事。而且很明显，这里面没有一些反思性的过程去建构这些东西。你说他是被动综合？就是说，在这里，会使得这个genesis向现象学提出一个非常重大的一个问题，它的问题其实还是来自于康德a priori synthesis，就是先天综合问题。

[28]（1/2）未明子说：“它的问题其实还是来自于康德‘a priori synthesis’，就是先天综合问题。”这一说法四平八稳地正确，也四平八稳地没有说出任何进一步的内容。对于德里达而言，重要的是发展或者改造这个“来自于康德”的“先天综合”概念（“验前综合”，a priori synethesis）。德里达指出：“在康德那里，经验与先天（验前）互不相容。”而在黑格尔和胡塞尔那里，“是先天综合（验前综合）使全部经验和全部经验意义成为可能。”

[28]（2/2）参考德里达《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》“前言”：“康德在驳斥休谟时曾经很好地指出，没有知性的验前形式的作用，整个判断就会失去其必然性特征。我们不由此进人某些历史分析，而简单指出康德只称数学范畴判断为‘验前综合判断’。这些判断确切地说是那些规避发生的判断。它们的综合不是‘实在的’，至少在康德心目中是这样。就它们不诞生于实际历史经验之中，它们不是被经验构成的而言，它们是验前的。在某种意义上，在康德那里，经验与验前互不相容。所有发生的意义都是现象意义。发明不是绝对的证实。因而，它不是实在的发明。所有经验发生判断的意义都是建构的对象，因此，从本质上说是不确定的。起码在这一点上，我们会对黑格尔的康德批判准确地预示着胡塞尔的观点感到吃惊：远不是被称为‘现象’的排除了验前综合的实在的经验，而是验前综合（例如且很一般地讲，思想的与实在的，意义的与感性的）使全部经验和全部经验意义成为可能。”（在《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》的于奇智译本中，“transcendental”被翻译为“先验的”、“先验性的”或“先验论的”；“a priori”被翻译为“验前的”，意为“在经验之先的”“不来自经验的”。） 虽然现象学看上去像一种经验主义，像一种实证主义。虽然现象学试图用一种纯粹我思，然后以一种反思性的方式去观察所有的结构，然后去验证这里面所有的这些它的建构性的一些环节。但是问题就是说，一种意向性，它必须在某种意义上它是一种先天综合，而这种先天综合，则被视为是没有起源的。

[29]关于先天综合的起源，参考胡塞尔《经验与判断》第一章§8：“世界对于我们总是已经有知识以各种各样的方式在其中起过作用的世界；因而毫无疑问，没有任何经验是在某种物的经验的最初素朴的意义上给出的，那种最初把握这个物、将它纳入知识中来的经验，关于这个物所已经‘知道’的仅止于它进入了知识而已。任何在本来意义上总是有所经验的经验，即当某物自身被观看时的经验，都不言而喻地、必然地具有正是对于此物的某种知识和共识，也就是对于此物的这样一种在经验尚未观看到它时即为它所固有的特性的某种知识和共识。这种前识在内容上是未规定的或未完全规完的 但决不是完会空洞的，如果不同时承认这一点，那么一般经验就不会是有关一物和有关此物的经验了。” 你在这些定位关系，你说我可以看到他们一直在那边。但是，你可以看到你，包括你可以看到你对他们的一直在那边的那种看里面，可以看到一个现象学主体这个身影。但是，这些东西本身它是没有起源的，这结果本身是没有起源的。 所以，我觉得你要把握何为起源，你不是说：“哎呀，比如说，我可以发起我的眼动，我可以发起我的内听觉，我可以发起我的身体的定位。”他妈的，这不算什么，我也可以，我也可以现在发起让我的右脚的这个小拇指动一动，我也可以发起这个定位，怎么怎么样，我一直会在里面看到一个我思，一个行动着、活动的一个主动，一个我思。但是，这并没有办法让你把握起源。 什么东西可以让你把握起源？就是没有起源，起源的缺失，起源的不在场。那先天综合的结构在身体心里面。其实这种先天综合是很容易被发现的。你的眼动和外部视觉的这种，注意力的这种意向性，它们之间的这种综合关系，我操，它可以说是先天综合，它没有一个你可以发现它的起源。You can't find its genesis，you're unable to find its genesis。你可以说，他们就是这样连接的，他们就是视觉和眼动之间，眼动觉和视注意觉之间，就是他妈的无脑就是连接起来，然后他就是这些里面的必然性啊，就都是先天的，就那边就有必然性。 那问题就来了，就是说，当然，这种在康德那边被看成是没有起源的结构……

[30]这里指的是在康德哲学中，发生没有康德意义上的“先天综合”的基础。见前注11所引文：“在康德那里，经验与验前互不相容。所有发生的意义都是现象意义。”另外参考德里达《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》：“我们简单指出，康德只称数学范畴判断为“验前综合判断”。这些判断确切地说是那些规避发生的判断。它们的综合不是“实在的”，至少在康德心目中是这样。” 这种没有起源的先天综合的这些意向性，如何能够被再重新整合到胡塞尔现象学的那个框架体系里面去的呢？ 也就是，说在这个意义上讲，这些东西的起源，就是说，他们起源了他们自己，你知道吗？ 就是，这些东西，他们起源了他们自己，他们同时也解释了他们自己，of itself by itself。就是set off of itself and by itself，或者用他自己的话说就是说， an invention ‘itself’ itself，它两个介词都框起来了。

[31]未明子原话如此。未明子将“itself”介词化了，“两个介词”指前文的“of and by”。两个介词框起来，就是说，itself介词化了，意义为“of and by”。 在这种情况下的话，你必须要去为先验象学置入一个辩证的起源的结构，否则你就没有办法为这个现象主体和这些我们说可以说意识结构，或者说它一直有的这些结构之间的一个关系，做出有真正的一个先验还原，或者说现象学还原，一个哲学性的界说。 在这种情况下的话，你必须要去为先验象学置入一个辩证的起源的结构，否则你就没有办法为这个现象主体和这些我们说可以说意识结构，或者说它一直有的这些结构之间的一个关系，做出有真正的一个先验还原，或者说现象学还原，一个哲学性的界说。 就是有定位力。你了解吗？而且，它是靠一个纯符号学机制哦，纯符号性的机制。你有意识的要控制某个身体，你一定要靠符号性的一个网络去获得定位呀，而这个符号学网络和身体本身的那个定位的那个因果域，它们又不是同一个网络，they are not the same one。也就是说，在这个意义上讲，符号学对于身体的阉割是得到可以被得到把握的。 那么，这个阉割的一个起点，或者缝合点，就是这个genesis。genesis最后被缝在主体性上面，genesis最后再被缝到主体上面，被缝到先验我思上面啊，以及实际上是被缝到主体的时间性体验上。他的自我时间的一个，我一直在这边，我在这边就一直在这边，你发现自我存在，其实就发现他一直存在。 但是，实际上它只是临时创造出它自己，但是，它临时创造出他自己和发现自己一直存在，这个东西就是个辩证性的。就是他的自我的genesis。他可以说是实时不停的生成自己，也可以说是他已经一直是在那边，他是在一个符号性背景性的一个时间性网络里面，是这个temporary order里面一直在那边。 所以，德里达就需要帮助胡塞尔说把一种辩证主义引入到他的整个结构里面。第一章是把它引入到意识对象“诺伊玛”的时间性，

[32]“诺伊玛”（英文、德文同：Noema），在《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》的于奇智译本后附的“术语表”中译为“意识对象”，在前注11所提及的《观念I》后附的“对照表”译为“意象对象”。在德里达本书中，“意识对象”的时间性是在第二部分被讨论的，第二部分第一章的标题就叫“意识对象的时间性与发生的时间性”。 然后又引入到“发生的时间性”。讨论什么“最初印象““验前综合”这些东西，其实就我刚刚讲的那些东西，只不过他讲的更他妈更精确，更精道吧，更抽象。然后还有一点，就是“悬置”和“发生”本身就不可被还原了，悬置本身不能被还原。然后，最后再尝试着去做一种先验逻辑学。那么，这本书我没有读。最后是“自我的发生构成与向新的先验的观念论形式过渡” ，

[33]（1/3）此处，未明子作低头看书状，“自我的发生构成与向新的先验的观念论形式过渡”是他所读出的《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》的第三部分第二章的标题（于奇智译本将“观念论”翻译为“相型论”，未明子将之还原为通常的说法）。

[33]（2/3）未明子说这一章是“最后”的，他在前文也说“最后，再尝试着做一种先验逻辑学”，指的也是第三部分的内容。如前注4所言，德里达其书有四部分，但未明子在打开了目录照着念章节标题的情况下，依然始终将第三部分的内容称为“最后”的，这一点令人在意而又费解。我们推测，这是因为第四部分的章节标题较少使用现象学概念（但并非不使用），并且出现了“哲学史”字样，显得不那么“高大上”，如果讲出来，反而难以取得虚张声势的效果。

[33]（3/3）本书第四部分的章节标题如下：第四部分 目的学——历史的意义与意义的历史；第一章 哲学的诞生与危机；第二章 哲学的首要任务：发生的再激活；第三章 哲学史与先验动机。 他最后又补充了一个新的先验观论形式，

[34]（1/2）德里达所阐述的“新的观念论形式”即“目的学观念论”。它在第三部分第二章被揭示出来，并在第四部分被深入表述。正是由于没有阅读全书，因此，未明子难以识别出第四部分的大标题“目的学”这一概念的重要性。然而，考虑到未明子将“目的论”作为“主义主义”四大维度的一个维度的理论取向，此处未明子对“目的学”一词的忽视仍然是令人震惊的。

[34]（2/2）关于德里达在其书第三部分第二章所提及的“新的观念论形式”，参考德里达《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》第三部分第二章：“我们对下面这一点不要感到惊讶，在《笛卡尔式沉思》中，当胡塞尔把现象学表达为绝对科学，表达为所有可能科学的基础、存在于历史上和在文化中被构成的所有的科学的基础时，他意指着新的“相型”即目的学相型。目的学相型将为他提供生成意义，而生成意义自身不为任何生成所构成。”

我他妈没看完，所以我不知道他到底在做什么。有机会可以把这本书读完。 好的，那么我要讲的就是，他试图通过这种方式来拯救胡塞尔的整个现象学的一个大厦。 我的学术，现象学能力是有限的，我必须在这里要承认。关键是我没时间，。其实，我也不后悔我没有投入很多时间在里面，我也不后悔我没有特别擅长这方面。然后，按照我的一个基本理解，就是说现象学，后面算是有人给他擦屁股，那就是德里达给他擦屁股，就是年轻时候德里达。 虽然他把没有了这个verification的那种纯粹的invention，或者innovation，纯粹的发起，纯粹的凭空出现，一个纯粹的后撤，或者说纯粹的悬置，他把这些通通通叫“死亡”，death。因为这些东西没有被置入一个符号系统里面，它不是活的，它没有置入一个背景框架里面，它没有和其他前后东西发生关联、连接。 然后，这本书里面，其实有很多讨论是非常有意思的……还有的人要笑了，我操，你竟然认为这个德里达早期不成熟的一个作品是非常有意思。我觉得，关键点在于就是说，这是个桥梁，它能够使得黑格尔和胡塞尔能够连起来，（借由）发生问题。

[35]参考前注22引文：“起码在这一点上，我们会对黑格尔的康德批判准确地预示着胡塞尔的观点感到吃惊：远不是被称为‘现象’的排除了验前综合的实在的经验，而是验前综合（例如且很一般地讲，思想的与实在的，意义的与感性的）使全部经验和全部经验意义成为可能。” 就是说，我觉得，对于一个就是智力高峰差不多在二十二岁左右，读这本书的话，我觉得是很“轻悄悄”的。

[36]未明子原话如此，应为“轻飘飘”的口误。“轻飘飘”的“飘飘”和“静悄悄”的“悄悄”具有同样的声调和韵母，而与“轻”搭配表达相关语义的词汇还有“轻巧”、“轻俏”等借由声母q表达的词语，两相结合从而产生这一口误。 但是我很抱歉，我蹉跎了几年岁月，然后去他妈研究什么……哎，我也不知道我自己去研究啥去了，可能学了很多杂学，这个东西学的不够精深。 但是，让我去读这本书的话，我也可以差不多花两个星期帮你们讲完。就是让我再上手，其实没什么技术含量。但是，我在想的一件事情是……好吧，他使得现象学被敞开了，但是这是最后一次，据我所知，严肃的努力，其他人都不是很严肃的。先验现象学的计划，我要说的就是，对于先验现象学的一个拯救。因为，他实际上是用这个辩证法。当然，辩证法在这里是作为一种形式逻辑，形式逻辑是个垃圾东西，形式逻辑在胡塞尔那边是个low逼东西，因为这个东西它意味着它是某种worldly，你是某种natural something natural but it's formal，但是它是形式性。it's formal。也就是说在这个意义上，你可以看称是it's structural啊，它是结构化的形式逻辑辩证法。它作为一个formal的这个形式逻辑，它其实是站在worldly和natural这一边的，它是站在生活世界，或者站在矬的，不行的，俗的那种，跳跃性的，偶然的，凡俗的那一边的。德里达想用这种辩证法去拯救先验辩证法。他想用这种辩证法去拯救先验逻辑，或者说想要通过这种方式取消先验逻辑，想要去把先验罗格斯，或者叫罗格斯，就是元罗格斯，罗格斯中心主义取消掉。然后保留胡塞尔的一些方法和胡塞尔的一些主体性本体论上的一些假设。就是，换一个核，用这个形式逻辑的辩证法。这种辩证法大体是一种历史主义的一种辩证法，然后，生成论的，genetic，生成论的，生成性的一种辩论法，然后呃就是辩证法本身。但这个辩证法只有形式是一个非常干枯的辩证法。但是，这种非常就是这里很有意思，这种非常干枯的辩证法，它是关于formal and real的辩证法。但是它本身是站在它是一种formal的辩证法。 你自己去看这本书吧，你不感兴趣，我跟你讲了也没有意义，对不对？你自己去看这个《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》。我说了，他就是要拯救胡塞尔，

[37]见后注45引文。

就是要使得胡塞尔的遗产可以换个内核，还能跑，跑起来之后，大家能去吸收里面的有用的东西。并且试图把胡塞尔晚年对于时间意识和对于这个，用时间性、时间意识，想要去调和先验逻辑的这种努力，由那我直接把你现象学逻辑删掉，然后换个形式逻辑去。就相当于是那个本来这个叫什么，本来他是钢铁侠之间转的一个什么很挫的一个东西，是一个核动力的。

[38]指的是钢铁侠胸前的“方舟反应堆”。 然后，就像德里达自己说，他在这个努力尝试当中，他看到的是一种青年学生的热忱，青年学生的一个哲学世界的一个抉择，一个志愿。

[39]见后注40引文。 他的抉择志愿就是，他不认为胡塞尔的先验主义，就是一种彻头彻尾脱离整个历史情境的先验主义。他认为胡塞尔先验主义本身是一种生活性的，历史性的，是一个事件，但是，是一个宣称和历史本身断裂的事件，这个事件是rooted in history，在是在历史当中的。但是，它是as rootless，它作为无根的东西，奠基在历史当中，它是历史自身的断裂。 就是，先验现象学，本身是历史自身的断裂，所以，德里达他在导论里面让我印象深刻的，就是说，我们要对于这个genesis，你要获得一个philosophy of genesis，你要就要反过来，要得到一个，你要得到这个，你必须要得到genesis of philosophy。对于我们刚刚所说的那个起源问题或者是发生问题的一个哲学，你必须自创一门哲学。但是这个philsop op genecial philosophy它本身是历史性的。但是这个历史本身它是会断裂的，不一致的。 但是这个计划是个幼稚的计划，德里达自己回过头去。过了几十年之后，看了，他发现这是个幼稚计划。it's a naive project，它是个注定失败的计划。但是它是个计划哦，但是他没有铺延得很深。我不知道后来他有没有写关于这些东西的文本。

[40]（1/2）关于后续的文本，德里达提到两部著作，即《胡塞尔<几何学的起源>引论》（1962）和《声音与现象》（1967）。参考德里达《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》“致读者”（1990）：“数年后，乃至在《胡塞尔<几何学的起源》引论》(1962)和《声音与现象》(1967)中，我追随着如此的解读；那么，‘辩证法’这个词要么以彻底消失，要么甚至以指示这样一种东西而结束，而延异、起源增补和踪迹就必须以没有或远离这种东西而得到思考，这也许正是一种信号：在哲学的与政治的版图上，在50年代的法国，一个哲学大学生力图选定其志业方向。”

[40]（2/2）值得一提的是，未明子是读到过这一1990年“序言”的，例如他关于“污染”的论述，见前注15处原文，以及关于“一个青年学生的选择”的论述，见前注32处原文。并且，后者就出自这段话。此外，他在本篇前文中也提及了《声音与现象》这部书。为什么此处却又不知道了呢？ 我对德里达的文本……但是我知道德里达后面所谓的解构主义，他里面他说了，他自己中了这个毒嘛，先验现象学是毒嘛，到处都会有这种辩证性的涌出。但这种辩证法是一种准现象学的辩证法。它可以说是一个年轻的灵魂，在一个干枯的身体上长出来的新生命。他的自己的哲学，德里达自己后期的哲学里面，他也追求超语言，他也希望一种准现象学的，准先验的那种方法，用辩证式的一些讨论，得到一种超语言，他自己俨然就获得一个超语言，俨然就好像可以用某种神妙的，奇异的辩证法去捕捉那个不可能的历史瞬间，或者说不叫瞬间了，就是瞬间的痕迹，或者残余，或者是，whatever他的延异啊，他的还有是那个什么起源的增补啊，他妈的，类似这些概念。

[41]见前注40引文。 这是一个不成熟的计划。然后，这本小书的一半，其实只有一半，你把它导言和他的那个和他的最后的那个后记去掉，可能只有一百多页，只有一百页出头，你就可以了解这个计划。

[42]（1/2）德里达这本《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》没有“后记”，“后记”大概指的是1990年前言，无论是中文版还是英文版，它都作为前言（Preface）出现。 关于本书篇幅，以中文版（2019年）而言，1953-54年前言“发生主题与主题发生”有40页。正文“引论”从41页开始，末章至291页止，约250页；以英文版而言，英文版将1953-54年前言另编页码，而其正文有214页。无论如何这都是一本二百多页的书，而不是“一百多页”的书。

[42]（2/2）另外，1953-54年前言“发生主题与主题发生”是相当关键的文本。事实上，我们可以看到，未明子主要依据了这40页的文本讲录了本期视频。未明子怎么能够劝别人读这本书的时候“去掉”它呢？ 但是，我建议你去读英文版，因为中文版翻的时候他的语序排列，还有各种词的那种，你看不出他的那个词性啊，就很烦，阅读起来体验非常差。我看了五页中文版之后……这本书我买了两本，我竟然买了两本——我看了五页之后，我还是去下pdf看英文版了，它是蛮值得学习的一本书。 有人会耻笑我说，讲胡塞尔讲这么多期。我要重复一遍，我知道他的先验计划是失败的，我立场本来不是这个。当然，我小时候是读这个东西启蒙的，或者说，适配这种思维习惯，思维方式。但是，后来我自己基本上完全抛弃这个处理体系。我也自己后边去转向某种实用主义姿态的，然后又转向，最后又转向辩证法和精神分析了。所以说，我并不是说特别就觉得先验哲学，它一定会成功啊，你看它的起点处都要用一种准先验的一个这个辩论法来取代的。 那么，最后我们来谈一下它的格，前面三个都基本上不变。在场域论上，稍微要变一下，就是形而上versus形而下。 （形而下这边的）词就比如说worldly， history ，

[43]（1/5）未明子将“历史”（history）列在“形而上VS形而下”场域论矛盾的“形而下”一端，这不符合德里达所介绍的胡塞尔现象学的情况。将“历史”列在“形而下”一端，意味着“反历史哲学”。然而，这不符合德里达所介绍的胡塞尔现象学的情况。

[43]（2/5）未明子自己已经说过“（《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》这本书）它能够使得黑格尔和胡塞尔能够连起来”，见前注35处原文。而历史哲学观念正是二者所得以联系的结点之一。我们已经引及德里达认为胡塞尔哲学与黑格尔哲学之间具有相似性的文本，参考前注22。此处，我们再引用德里达《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》的一些段落。比如“前言”：“发生哲学将在方法上和习惯上向我们显露哲学史与历史哲学这两个含义世界固有的不可分割性的根本蕴含。”

[43]（3/5）再比如第四部分第三章的第一句话：“历史的全部意义都从意向合理性得来，而意向合理性秘密推动着该意义。哲学相型,即对该合理性的模糊揭示,闯人欧洲人性之中。先验现象学在其规划中与此相型生活本身是为一体的。”

[43]（4/5）将“历史”划分在“形而下”的一端，反映出未明子对德里达这部书的观点的深刻误解。这一误解固然由于——如未明子自己所声称的那样，他没有读完德里达的这本书。然而，它恐怕也部分地由于，未明子对于自己所声称自己所“转向”的黑格尔的辩证法和历史哲学的把握，有着某种深层次的误解。

[43]（5/5）正如我们在前注33注意到的，未明子在翻到《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》这本书的目录时，对包含“目的学”“历史哲学”字样的第四部分视而不见这件事，它和未明子将“history”划分在“形而下”的一端这件事之间，有着一个未明子是如何看待“历史哲学”这一概念的共同基础。 这边右边形而上的呢，就是 transcendental，还有idea，观念这个维度。那么，这个时候，先验“我思”这个subject，主体，站到这边（形而上）来了。而life，生命站在这里（形而下），那么调和它的是dialectic，辩证法，甚至可以说是一种结构主义，其实是辩证法，其实更精确讲辩证法，但是这个辩证法有点结构主义化的倾向。因为这个辩证法会看成是纯形式的。当然，说他是纯形式的，就是说，如果我们对辩证法用现象学……这里就在于就是说，只有在先验现象学的视角下的辩证法会变成结构主义，在先验现象学的那个本质直观，本质还原之下，辩证法本身会变成一种空洞无物的一种本质，一种结构，结构主义。一种很挫的一种东西，一个，他妈的，只是变戏法，换词项的一种纯粹游戏，非常没有原初自所予的那种东西，一种把戏，一种垃圾玩意，没有本质的一个蛇皮东西。 嗯，你们的讨论辩证法的本质the essence of dialectics，是有点，Is ridiculous。妈的，如果胡塞尔而活着的话，因为它的本质addols这个东西你你不太有矛盾性，你知道吗？ 我们辩证法本身的本质是一个ridiculous，但是，德里达就用辩证法过来，来调和这两者，然后调和的方式就是建构一种发生学——“gensis”……”genesisology” 吧？

[44]板书如此（“发生”的正确拼写是“genesis”）。随后，由于拼不出带“-ology”词根的“发生学”一词，未明子在板书上划掉了这个词。按，德里达其书中没有借助“-ology”词根的“发生学”一词。被于奇智译为“发生学”字样的词，在英译本中，名词使用的是“genetics”，副词使用的是“genetically”。 我不知道怎么说，我不知道“发生学”怎么拼——建构一种发生学，它是通过辩证法。但这个辩证法实际上它除了是符号性的……就是，这个辩证法。他可以看成是一个历史，就是，这断裂的历史，一个断裂的，不断生成的一个历史。但实际上这个东西也也是主体性，它除了主体性之外，它又是什么呢？只不过它不再是个先验的主体性，它不再是个先验主体性。因为断裂的历史性，断裂的历史，这个东西可以在理论姿态里面不停的给予这种断裂性的是什么呢？还是“我思”啊，还是一个不停思考着的“我思”。只不过这个主体，我甚至可以说，它是一个主体化的一个机制，历史性的主体化机制。这个主体化机制意味着，使得空泛的，空洞的这个符号性的二元对立中，可以散逸出一种生命和死亡的一种……就是它可以这个生命和死亡，然后它可以牵出很多充足的问题域或者什么。 但是，它最后还是会是空洞的。这个计划是失败的。我不想去看完它。因为这个计划肯定是失败的，

[45]德里达的这部《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》，是一部“综述”式的著作。它并没有为胡塞尔建构什么。由于未明子未能读完这本书，因此他以为德里达在“拯救”胡塞尔现象学（未明子多次提到“拯救”，我们仅注出一处，见前注37处原文），并宣判德里达的失败。然而，德里达只是综述了胡塞尔现象学，并由德里达自己宣判了胡塞尔现象学的失败。参考德里达《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》第三部分第一章：“此哲学反思没有完成，不论胡塞尔说什么，朝向原初的行程好像注定要失败。” 最后肯定是空洞的。然后你只能用一些时间性的一些结构啊，或者是用一些什么……一些兜了一个网，再兜一个网，再报一个网，最后没东西给它扎起来，妈的手一松全散掉了，还是这屌样的。我的个人判断。因为我这本书没读完，所以，我给他最后目的论上就给一个“4”。其它两个不变，然后，在目的论上就是“4”。 就是，什么来摧毁的他们之间那个三元关系呢？就是原初运动。因为这个辩证法其实就是很空洞一个辩证法，然后它就是原初运动。那么，德里达自己在这本书里面就是一种就是那种客观的先验现象学姿态，他是不能够去承认，在纯粹，就先验的纯粹的这个直观现象学直观和现象学还原当中，他看到最后可以看到一种原初运动，他不会承认的。他不会承认他会断裂的，他不会承认这里面有一种原初运动在场。 这种原初运动，它是去主体化的，它会认识论化，但是它本身是本体性的，它是将会认识论化，它能够会让你体验到的，没错，但是，这个原初运动或者这种原初差异，它是先于符号学注册的，就这么简单，或者说，它是使得符号学注册的过程当中一定会出现二元对立的，没办法，这种原初运动会使得二元对立不可避免，然后才会使得你在先验现象学的根基上要制入一种辩证法。这个辩证法置入的话，胡塞尔说，我操天塌了，没了，一切都毁了，完了，大清完了啊，我大现象学完了，这种原初差异、原初运动是无条件的，它会在最底层是种绝对运动，而且这种自在的绝对运动。 那么，所以，从这一项从这个底色来看，它是一种唯物主义啊，它是种唯物主义改造，唯物主义尝试，

[45]德里达相信自己的这部著作是一种唯心主义的尝试。他提到他的同学、越南哲学家陈德草的著作《现象学与辩证唯物主义》（Phenomenology and Dialectical Materialism，1951）。德里达认为自己的这部作品中的“辩证法”概念是超越“唯物辩证法”的。参考德里达《胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题》“致读者”（1990）：“辩证法，一种‘原初辩证法’。该词一页又一页地再三重现。不断高涨的‘辩证法’企图超越辩证物论（例如常常被引用且未经充分判断的陈德草辩证法，仍是‘形而上学的囚徒’）。”

因为它承认一种原初差异，原初运动。他当然我们不会说他有任何载体，因为他自己就是他自己在他自在的，itself，这东西本身就是会被说成……如果他会被符号化的话，他如果参与符号化，在符号化当中，以符号性的差异产生的话，那就是延异，说试延异如果可以试的话啊，他当然不能够试延异了，他没办法试延异啊。 那么要进一步去探讨，这目的论就是四，因为他把他那个调和，那个不断的反思性的自我把握的获得绝对确定性的那个调和，而且绝对本质性的确定性的那个调和给他催败掉了。没办法，你的自我的统握，反思性的自我把握，他把不住的，你hold不住，水太深，你hold不住，你知道吗？这是虚假的。这是死亡。你这样去反思性的统握住你自己的这么一瞬间，其实你是不在生命的，you are dead。You are not alive从一种原初运动角度来说，你的主体性在此刻是死的。你这种纯粹，在这个意义上讲，就使得胡塞尔的先验哲学先验现象学变成一种恋尸癖。他所说的那种原初目光，自我直视，自我澄明的澄清的那种自我看自己，看自己，是死。it's dead，直到你要把它说的时候，你说，为什么你会说他是清澈的澄明的。其实因为他是恐怖的，他是可怕的，他是恶心的，他是令你逃避的，你的意识把真正看的东西全部清空压抑掉了，这种原初运动。（其失败）不可避免的。 好吧，那就讲到这边。我觉得就是说，现象学的话，在我的心路历程里面，就是德里达给他收尾的。所以说，这本书我买回来没看，但是我小时候看过他的前言部分的一半，我买两本嘛都没看。在我看来，而且，据我看了好多那个期刊论文，还包括我自己对哲学史了解，先验现象学是失败的计划，是failed，但是可以用来锻炼你的哲学思维能力啊，其实门槛不高，它的术语体系行话体系，你掌握了之后跟你讨论我装机器，装什么CPU，其实什么差不多的，什么总线啊，什么PCIE啊，妈的，差不多，这玩意。你只要愿意花个几十个小时去把这几本胡塞尔的书看一看。德里达拉这本书，其实也可以看一看。胡塞尔的思维是拒斥辩证法，当然，德里达说在胡塞尔（现象学的）底层是把握到一种辩证法的。好的，那就讲到这里。

---

笺注参考文献： [德]胡塞尔 著； 李幼蒸 译. 纯粹现象学通论[M]. 北京：商务印书馆，1992. [德]胡塞尔 著；[德]兰德格雷贝 编；邓晓芒 等译. 经验与判断——逻辑谱系学研究[M]. 北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，1999. [法]雅克·德里达 著；于奇智 译. 胡塞尔哲学中的发生问题[M]. 北京：商务印书馆，2019. Jacques Derrida； translated by Marian Hobson. The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 2003.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na net.hr

05.12.2024 / Autor: Katarina Plantak

---

Vrijednost Bitcoina po prvi put je premašila 100.000 dolara. Ova kriptovaluta svoj masovni rast može na neki način zahvaliti reizboru Donalda Trumpa za američkog predsjednika. On je najavio blaži regulatorni pristup kripto industriji.

Što je Bitcoin?

Bitcoin (BTC) je kriptovaluta (virtualna valuta) dizajnirana da djeluje kao novac i oblik plaćanja izvan kontrole bilo koje osobe, grupe ili entiteta. Time nema potrebe za sudjelovanjem pouzdane treće strane npr. kovnice novca ili banke u financijskim transakcijama. Osoba ili grupa pod pseudonimom Satoshi Nakamoto 31. listopada 2008. objavila je tehnički dokument pod nazivom "Bitcoin: Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". Taj je dokument distribuiran na kriptografsku mailing listu, samo mjesec dana nakon što je investicijska banka Lehman Brothers podnijela zahtjev za najveći bankrot u povijesti SAD-a, a vlada odobrila financijsku pomoć od 700 milijardi dolara.

Nekoliko mjeseci kasnije, 3. siječnja 2009., Bitcoin mreža pokrenula se, uvodeći novi sustav decentralizirane digitalne valute bez središnjeg posrednika.

Tko su osnivači Bitcoina?

Bitcoin je rezultat desetljeća razvoja kriptografije i ideja Cypherpunka iz 1970-ih, s projektima poput B-money, Bit Gold, eCash i HashCash.

Godine 2006., osoba ili grupa pod pseudonimom Satoshi Nakamoto započela je rad na Bitcoinu. Iako su kriptografi poput Hal Finneya, Nicka Szaba, Weija Daija i Adama Backa povezivani sa Satoshijem, svi su to negirali.

Satoshi je surađivao s programerima do 2010., kada je predao kontrolu nad izvornim kodom i 2011. nestao iz javnosti. Danas stotine programera razvijaju Bitcoin, koji ima zajednicu od milijun korisnika.

Kako funkcionira Bitcoin?

Bitcoin se može brzo i sigurno prenijeti na svakoga s Bitcoin adresom poput računa bilo gdje u svijetu, bez potrebe za dopuštenjem ili plaćanjem nepotrebnih naknada. BTC je jedinica valute u Bitcoin sustavu za koju postoji ograničena količina od 21 milijun. Svaki je Bitcoin djeljiv na 100 milijuna "satoshis" ili "sats" – najmanja jedinica Bitcoina, poput centa u dolaru. Bitcoini djeluju kao elektronički novac, omogućujući vam da izvršite plaćanje s univerzalnom valutom bilo gdje. Nalazi se u tzv. novčanicima u digitalnoj verziji. On funkcionira slično kao bankovni račun. Transakcije su moguće zahvaljujući peer-to-peer mreži. Osigurane su sustavom kriptografije javnog i privatnog ključa, objašnjava Kriptomat.

Bitcoin koristi kriptografiju javnog i privatnog ključa za sigurne transakcije. Javna adresa, izvedena iz "hasha" javnog ključa, koristi se za primanje sredstava. Privatni ključ služi kao digitalni potpis odnosno svojevrsna lozinka za autorizaciju transakcija i omogućava pristup sredstvima, pa ga treba čuvati u tajnosti.

Korisnik pokreće transakciju unosom javne adrese primatelja u svoj novčanik. Novčanik koristi privatni ključ za stvaranje digitalnog potpisa, čime se transakcija ovjerava i šalje na Bitcoin mrežu. Transakcija prvo ulazi u "mempool", gdje čeka potvrdu. Svakih desetak minuta, transakcije se grupiraju u blokove, koji se dodaju na blockchain, stvarajući neprekinuti lanac sigurnih zapisa.

Sigurnost sustava je toliko snažna da bi hakiranje jedne adrese trajalo milijardama godina.

Blockchain

Bitcoin je revolucionarno riješio problem dvostruke potrošnje, omogućujući prijenos sredstava izravno između korisnika bez posrednika. Zamislite mrežu stranaca, gdje svaki vodi vlastitu knjigu računa. Kada netko prenese 1 BTC, svi zapisuju transakciju i uspoređuju bilješke. Ako se sve podudaraju, transakcija se potvrđuje. Ako netko pokuša prevariti, njegova bilješka se odbacuje.

Ovaj sustav knjiga računa, distribuiran na globalnoj mreži, čini osnovu Bitcoin blockchaina. Svaki čvor ima identičnu kopiju koja javno i pseudonimno bilježi sve transakcije, osiguravajući točnost i sigurnost bez potrebe za skupim posrednicima.

Zašto je Bitcoin jedinstven i što mu daje vrijednost?

Bitcoin je revolucionirao digitalni novac stvaranjem decentraliziranog, sigurnog i otpornog sustava bez potrebe za posrednicima. Njegov kod omogućuje daljnje inovacije, a povremeno dolazi do "račvanja" koje stvara nove kriptovalute temeljene na Bitcoinu, iako one nikada ne mogu biti isti Bitcoin.

Njegova ključna snaga leži u decentralizaciji – nema središnje figure niti točke neuspjeha. Bitcoin se pokazao kao otporan na izazove, uključujući državne zabrane i snažna račvanja, što dodatno učvršćuje njegovu dugovječnost prema Lindyjevom efektu. Mrežni učinak potiče sve više korisnika da ga prihvate kao sredstvo za pohranu vrijednosti i razmjenu.

Njegova ograničena ponuda od 21 milijun BTC-a stvara oskudicu, čime se suprotstavlja inflacijskim valutama. Bitcoin je zamjenjiv, djeljiv na 100 milijuna dijelova, izdržljiv i prenosiv, što ga čini praktičnijim od zlata. S rastućim prihvaćanjem od strane tvrtki diljem svijeta, njegova vrijednost i korisnost nastavljaju rasti.

Blokovi, rudarenje i nagrade

Prvi Bitcoinblock izrudiran je 3. siječnja 2009. godine. Nazvan je Blok 0. Rudarenje Bitcoina je utrka između rudara za raspršivanje specifičnih vrijednosti i drugih informacija o bloku kako bi se pronašlo rješenje za problem raspršivanja i dodalo blok u blockchain. Pobjednički rudar nagrađen je Bitcoinima. Bitcoin nagrade se prepolovljuju svakih 210.000 blokova. Na primjer, nagrada za blok bila je 50 novih bitcoina u 2009. godini, a 11. svibnja 2020. kad se dogodilo treće prepolovljenje nagrada za svaki blok smanjena je na 6.25 bitcoina. Četvrto prepolovljenje dogodilo se u travnju 2024. i smanjilo je nagradu na 3.125 Bitcoina. Sljedeće prepolovljavanje trebalo bi se dogoditi sredinom 2028. i smanjiti nagradu na 1.5625 BTC.

Do 2140. godine, nakon 32. prepolovljenja, nagrada za rudarenje Bitcoina smanjit će se na nulu, dosegnuvši ukupnu ponudu od 21 milijun BTC-a. Tada će se rudari oslanjati isključivo na naknade za transakcije kako bi pokrili svoje troškove.

Svako prepolovljenje smanjuje količinu novih BTC-a, što povijesno dovodi do porasta cijene zbog smanjene ponude i povećane potražnje. Iako će se učinak budućih prepolovljenja možda smanjivati zbog sve manjih količina nove ponude, do sada su ta prepolovljenja bila ključni pokretači triju glavnih tržišnih ciklusa Bitcoina.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na antenam.net

31.10.2024 / Autor: Ana Nives Radović

---

Godišnjica objavljivanja revolucionarnog dokumenta nije samo podsjetnik na nastanak Bitcoina, već i na značajnu promjenu koju je donio u načinu na koji razmišljamo o novcu i ekonomskom suverenitetu. Njegov značaj premašuje ideju o zaradi na promjeni njegove vrijednosti, jer otvara vrata širem razumijevanju digitalne imovine i decentralizovanih finansija koje inspirišu moderno bankarstvo i platne sisteme da se razvijaju u drugačijem smjeru, povećavajući svijest o sigurnosti i dostupnosti.

Šesnaest je godina od objavljivanja dokumenta naslovljenog kao "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System", poznatog i kao „biijeli papir“ (white paper) u kojem su izloženi koncept i svrha novog sistema digitalne valute – sistema koji bi funkcionisao nezavisno od bilo koje vlade ili finansijske institucije. Bijeli papir, kojeg je 31. oktobra 2008. objavio pojedinac ili tim ljudi pod imenom Satoši Nakamoto ponudio je smjelo rješenje za sve veći problem – kontrolu valute centralnih banaka i sve veće poteškoće u prenošenju vrijednosti preko interneta bez posrednika. Ovaj trenutak označio je nastanak Bitcoina, revolucionarne digitalne valute i prve kriptovalute na svijetu koja je kasnije lansirana 3. januara 2009. godine.

Bitcoin je nastao u vrijeme finansijske krize 2008. godine, u periodu kada je povjerenje u tradicionalne finansijske sisteme bilo na izuzetno niskom nivou. Ljudi su počeli da se pitaju da li postoji način za upravljanje novcem koji ne zavisi od banaka, koje, kao što su tadašnji događaji pokazali, mogu propasti ili djelovati na načine koji nijesu u najboljem interesu javnosti. Nakamotova inovacija, Bitcoin, bila je zamišljena kao sistem u kojem korisnici mogu direktno slati i primati novac, zaobilazeći potrebu za bankama. U tom procesu, Nakamoto je svijetu predstavio novu tehnologiju kojoj je kasnije američki naučnik i programer Harold Fini dao naziv blockchain – decentralizovan i otporan na manipulacije način za evidentiranje transakcija.

Šta je Bitcoin?

Bitcoin je vrsta digitalne valute koja omogućava ljudima da direktno jedni drugima šalju i primaju vrijednost putem interneta. Za razliku od tradicionalnih valuta, kao što je euro ili dolar, koje kontrolišu vlade i banke, Bitcoin funkcioniše bez centralne vlasti. To znači da nema nikoga ko je zadužen za njega i nema banke koja odlučuje kako se može koristiti. Umjesto toga, Bitcoin se oslanja na veliku mrežu računara širom svijeta koja ga održava i bilježi njegove transakcije. Ova mreža je poznata kao „Bitcoin mreža“.

Kako Bitcoin funkcioniše?

U suštini, Bitcoin funkcioniše kao „decentralizovana digitalna valuta“. Kada kažemo decentralizovana, mislimo da nijedna osoba, kompanija ili vlada ne kontroliše Bitcoin. Umjesto toga, svaka transakcija se bilježi na zajedničkoj knjizi, nazvanoj blockchain, koju održava mreža računara širom svijeta. Svaki put kada neko pošalje ili primi Bitcoin, transakcija se grupiše sa drugima i dodaje u ovaj lanac blokova. Budući da je ovaj lanac kopiran i dijeljen među brojnim računarima, gotovo je neizvodljivo izmijeniti ili hakovati ga, čime se osigurava da Bitcoin transakcije budu bezbjedne i pouzdane.

Još jedan interesantan aspekt je da Bitcoin ima ograničenu ponudu. Kreiran je samo 21 milion bitcoina, što ga čini rijetkom imovinom i sprečava inflaciju na način na koji to može biti slučaj sa tradicionalnim valutama koje se „doštampavaju“. Bitcoin transakcije su omogućene kroz skup kriptografskih pravila, koja ljudima omogućavaju da potvrde svaku transakciju kao legitimnu bez potrebe da vjeruju trećoj strani. Ovaj skup pravila je poznat kao kriptografija, zbog čega se Bitcoin naziva kriptovalutom – prvom koja je ikada stvorena i jedinom koja u potpunosti ima sve karakteristike onoga što je istinska ideja i svrha postojanja kriptovaluta.

Razumijevanje finansijske revolucije Bitcoina

Bitcoin, predstavljen 2008. godine, privukao je globalnu pažnju kao decentralizovana digitalna valuta koja funkcioniše nezavisno od banaka i vlada, ali pored svoje peer-to-peer arhitekture i decentralizovane infrastrukture, on ima jedinstvenu finansijsku karakteristiku – inherentno je deflatoran. Za razliku od fiat valuta poput dolara ili eura, koje centralne banke mogu štampati kada procijene da je to potrebno, ponuda Bitcoina je ograničena, fiksirana i ne povećava se. Ova deflatorna osobina navela je mnoge da ga vide kao revolucionarni finansijski instrument, „digitalno zlato“ koje bi moglo da preoblikuje koncepte vrijednosti, očuvanja bogatstva i monetarne politike.

Fiksna ponuda – limit od 21 miliona

Najkarakterističnija odlika Bitcoina je njegova ograničena ponuda. Kada je Satoši Nakamoto kreirao Bitcoin, postavio je ograničenje na ukupan broj bitcoina koji će ikada postojati – 21 milion. Ovo ograničenje se oštro razlikuje od tradicionalnih fiat valuta, gdje centralne banke mogu povećavati ponudu novca štampanjem dodatne količine. Postavljanjem ovog ograničenja, Nakamoto je osigurao da Bitcoin postane sve rjeđi vremenom, karakteristika koja je dizajnirana za očuvanje vrijednosti kako potražnja raste.

U tradicionalnim finansijama, valute mogu izgubiti vrijednost kada se previše štampaju, što se može vidjeti u slučajevima inflacije. Bitcoinov dizajn, međutim, znači da, kada se posljednji Bitcoin izrudari (što se predviđa oko 2140. godine), novi novčići neće ulaziti u cirkulaciju, što ga efektivno čini prvom deflatornom valutom u velikom obimu.

Mehanizam smanjenje ponude tokom vremena

Oskudica Bitcoina dodatno se pojačava procesom nazvanim „halving“ (prepolovljenje), koji smanjuje stopu stvaranja novih bitcoina. Približno svake četiri godine nagrada koju „rudari“ dobijaju za dodavanje novih blokova u blockchain se prepolovi. Ovaj mehanizam smanjuje mogućnost inflacije Bitcoina tokom vremena, stvarajući predvidivo, postepeno smanjenje ponude.

U početku su rudari dobijali 50 bitcoina po bloku. Nakon prvog halvinga 2012. godine, nagrada je pala na 25, a do 2020. smanjila se na 6,25 bitcoina po bloku. Ovaj proces halvinga će se nastaviti sve do približno 2140. godine, kada će svih 21 milion bitcoina biti u cirkulaciji, a rudari će biti podstaknuti isključivo transakcionim naknadama, umjesto novim novčićima. Halving ima dva osnovna učinka – usporava rast ponude Bitcoina i stvara predvidivu oskudicu koja može podstaći tražnju, jer učesnici na tržištu znaju da će sa svakim ciklusom biti sve manje dostupnih bitcoina.

Zašto je Bitcoin važan?

Većina tradicionalnih valuta je inflaciona po dizajnu. Centralne banke teže kontrolisanoj stopi inflacije, često oko 2%, kako bi podstakle ekonomski rast, ohrabrile potrošnju i pružile fleksibilnost u odgovoru na ekonomske krize. Međutim, ova inflacija može potkopati kupovnu moć fiat valuta vremenom, što je zabrinjavajuće tokom perioda prekomjernog štampanja novca, kao što su mjere i programi kvantitativnog popuštanja viđene posljednjih godina.

Bitcoinov deflatorni dizajn je revolucionaran u ovom kontekstu jer nudi potencijalnu zaštitu od inflacije. Sa fiksnom ponudom, Bitcoin može da dobija na vrijednosti tokom vremena, posebno ako potražnja raste jer postaje rjeđi. Za mnoge, deflatorni model Bitcoina čini ga privlačnim sredstvom za očuvanje bogatstva na način koji tradicionalne valute i imovina ne mogu da ponude.

Pored toga, ovaj model izazvao je promjenu čitave filozofije u načinu na koji ljudi razmišljaju o novcu, investiranju i štednji. Dok tradicionalne finansije podstiču potrošnju i investicije kroz inflaciju, deflatorna priroda Bitcoina može podstaći štednju, jer bi njegova vrijednost mogla da raste u budućnosti. Ovaj kvalitet „čuvara vrijednosti“ naveo je mnoge da Bitcoinu daju naziv „digitalno zlato“.

Ekonomija oskudice – ono što Bitcoinu daje vrijednost

U ekonomiji, oskudica obično povećava vrijednost, jer tražnja za ograničenim resursom može povećati njegovu cijenu. Zlato je, na primjer, dugo bilo čuvar vrijednosti zbog svoje oskudice i poteškoća u vađenju. Bitcoin odražava ovaj koncept u digitalnom svijetu. Inherentno je rijedak zbog ograničenja od 21 milion, i, kao zlato, zahtijeva trud (kroz digitalno rudarenje) da bi ušao u cirkulaciju.

Pored toga, oskudica Bitcoina postaje sve izraženija kako raste interesovanje institucija i pojedinaca. Mnogi investitori privučeni su Bitcoinom kao dugoročnom imovinom upravo zbog ove fiksne ponude, oslanjajući se na to da će rastuća tražnja naspram ograničene ponude povećati njegovu vrijednost tokom vremena. Ova privlačnost je pojačana u regionima sa brzom inflacijom ili ekonomskom nestabilnošću, gdje rizik od devalvacije čini Bitcoin privlačnom alternativom za očuvanje bogatstva.

Bitcoin kao globalni čuvar vrijednosti

Osim što je sredstvo razmjene, deflatorna priroda Bitcoina pozicionira ga kao potencijalni globalni čuvar vrijednosti. Zlato je istorijski imalo ovu ulogu, jer su ga koristili pojedinci, institucije i vlade kao zaštitu od ekonomske nestabilnosti i inflacije. Bitcoin postaje moderni pandan tome, posebno privlačan mlađim generacijama i investitorima sklonim tehnologiji, koji ga vide kao superiornu alternativu.

Deflatorni dizajn takođe omogućava Bitcoinu da prelazi međunarodne granice i nadilazi lokalne ekonomske uslove. U zemljama koje prolaze kroz valutne krize, Bitcoin nudi alternativu koja je bez granica i nezavisna od politika centralne banke. Ova sposobnost da djeluje kao čuvar vrijednosti posebno je značajna na tržištima i ekonomijama u razvoju, gdje je valutna nestabilnost učestalija.

Može li oskudica Bitcoina predstavljati rizik?

Iako deflatorni model Bitcoina ima svoje prednosti, nije bez kritika. Jedna od zabrinutosti je da ekstremna deflacija može obeshrabriti potrošnju. U sistemu gdje vrijednost valute raste tokom vremena, ljudi mogu preferirati štednju umjesto potrošnje ili investiranja, što može dovesti do smanjenja ekonomske aktivnosti. Ekonomisti brinu da bi, ako Bitcoin postane široko prihvaćena valuta, njegova deflatorna priroda mogla ugroziti ekonomski rast podsticanjem „gomilanja“ umesto cirkulacije.

Još jedna kritika se odnosi na fiksnu ponudu Bitcoina u ekonomiji koja stalno raste. Tradicionalne valute su inflatorne kako bi pratile rast populacije, ekonomije i produktivnosti. Sa ograničenom ponudom, Bitcoin ne može da raste u skladu sa ekonomskim razvojem, što bi u teoriji moglo izazvati probleme sa likvidnošću u ekonomiji zasnovanoj na Bitcoinu. Ipak, kako ideja nije da Bitcoin bude jedino sredstvo plaćanja, strah od takvog scenarija je neutemeljen, budući da ekosistem u kojem funkcioniše koegzistira sa nizom drugih platnih sistemna koji su na raspolaganju širom svijeta.

Eliminiše problem dvostrukog trošenja

U svijetu novca postoji veliki problem koji se naziva „dvostruko trošenje“. Zamislite da možete potrošiti iste eure dvaput – platite jedan proizvod ili uslugu, a zatim, nekako, uspijete da ga ponovo potrošite na nešto drugo. U fizičkom svijetu ovo nije problem, ali u računovodstvenom jeste. Ako kao fizičku valutu u gotovini platite nešto, ta količina novca odlazi iz vašeg novčanika, ali u bankovnim transakcijama stvari funkcionišu drugačije.

Da bi se osiguralo da Bitcoin ne može biti kopiran ili potrošen dvaput, koristi se tehnologija zvana blockchain. Nakamotov Bijeli papir još nije pomenuo taj izraz, jer mu je naziv dat nekoliko dana kasnije, no umjesto toga, opisao je koncept „lanca blokova“, postavljajući sistem za evidentiranje transakcija u blokovima koji su međusobno povezani. Ovaj koncept je kasnije postao poznat kao blockchain, termin koji je nastao nakon izdavanja Bitcoina dok su ljudi pokušavali da imenuju osnovnu tehnologiju. Fokus Bijelog papira bio je na tome kako Bitcoin može bezbjedno pratiti i potvrđivati transakcije, koristeći ovaj povezani lanac blokova kao neku vrstu digitalne knjige.

Pristup iz Bijelog papira uveo je revolucionarnu ideju – zajedničku, otpornu na manipulacije evidenciju koja se nije oslanjala na centralnu vlast za ažuriranje ili verifikaciju. Ovaj sistem povezanih blokova (ono što sada nazivamo blockchain) postao je osnova Bitcoina i, kasnije, bezbroj drugih primjena u finansijama, tehnologiji i brojnim drugim oblastima.

Ova baza je poput ogromne digitalne knjige, ili evidencije, u kojoj je svaka Bitcoin transakcija (prenosa novca od jednog do drugog korisnika) zabilježena. Ono što ovu digitalnu evidenciju čini posebnom jeste to što nije smještena na jednom mjestu, niti je pod kontrolom jedne osobe ili institucije – ona je u potpunosti decentralizovana, što znači da se kopije ove knjige čuvaju na hiljadama računara širom svijeta, a svi oni moraju da se saglase oko toga koje transakcije su validne.

Svaki put kada neko pošalje Bitcoin drugoj osobi, ova transakcija se dodaje u blockchain. Da bi se dodala, grupa računara (nazvana „rudari“) mora da verifikuje da je ova transakcija stvarna, što znači da Bitcoin koji se troši već nije korišćen drugdje. Ovi rudari rade zajedno, koristeći složene matematičke operacije, kako bi potvrdili transakcije. Kada se verifikuje, transakcija se dodaje u blockchain, a cijela mreža se ažurira kako bi prepoznala ovu transakciju kao legitimnu. Ovaj proces osigurava da nijedan Bitcoin ne može biti potrošen dvaput, rješavajući problem dvostrukog trošenja.

Peer-to-Peer transakcije bez posrednika

Još jedan veliki razlog zašto je Bitcoin važan je taj što omogućava ljudima da šalju novac direktno jedni drugima bez potrebe za posrednikom. Recimo da želite da pošaljete novac prijatelju koji živi u drugoj zemlji. Obično biste otišli u svoju banku, koja bi se povezala s drugom bankom u toj zemlji, što može trajati danima i uključivati različite naknade.

Međutim, Bitcoin je omogućio da se direktno pošalju sredstva, bez obzira na to gdje se nalazite u svijetu. Pošto je u pitanju peer-to-peer (P2P) način razmjene, nema potrebe za posrednikom da upravlja transakcijom. To može učiniti transakcije bržim i ponekad jeftinijim, posebno kada se sredstva šalju međunarodno. Ova P2P struktura je jedan od glavnih razloga zbog kojih ljudi se na ovaj oblik imovine gleda kao na alternativu složenim transakcijama, posebno važnim za društva i sredine u kojima je dostupnost finansijskih usluga niska.

Transparentnost i sigurnost

U svijetu tradicionalnog bankarstva, ljudi se oslanjaju na banke koje drže novac sigurnim i omogućavaju da transakcije budu poštene i sigurne. Međutim, s Bitcoinom, povjerenje nije smešteno u centralnu banku ili kompaniju, već u samu Bitcoin mrežu, koju održavaju svi računari koji prate blockchain. Pošto je blockchain javan i može ga provjeriti bilo ko, on je veoma transparentan. Svaka transakcija koja je ikada obavljena Bitcoinom zabilježena je u ovoj javnoj knjizi, tako da ako neko pokuša da prevari sistem, to bi bilo očigledno svima.

Transparentnost Bitcoina takođe ga čini veoma sigurnim. Pošto svi u mreži imaju kopiju blockchaina, bilo bi gotovo nemoguće da jedna osoba ili čak grupa ljudi izmijeni ili preuzme kontrolu nad njim. Da biste promijenili blockchain, morali biste kontrolisati više od polovine svih računara širom svijeta u Bitcoin mreži, što je izuzetno teško. Ovaj nivo sigurnosti, u kombinaciji s transparentnošću, pomaže ljudima da se osjećaju sigurno koristeći Bitcoin.

Značaj za razvoj finansija

Tokom godina, Bitcoin je postao više od eksperimenta u digitalnom novcu. Inspirisao je hiljade drugih kreatora latnih rješenja i pokrenuo važne razgovore o budućnosti novca, povjerenja i tehnologije. Kako sve više ljudi počinje da preispituje kako tradicionalne banke funkcionišu i traži nove načine za upravljanje svojim finansijama, Bitcoin ostaje snažna opcija ne samo u smislu alternative, već mogućnosti povezivanja njegove funkcionalnosti sa onim što već postoji u finansijskoj tehnologiji. Njegov značaj je u tome što predstavlja potpuno novi način razmišljanja o novcu i njegovom korišćenju i što rješava neke od ključnih problema koji su karakteristični finansijske sisteme.

Ideja decentralizacije

U mnogim sistemima koje danas koristimo postoji centralna vlast – banka, vlada ili kompanija – koja ima kontrolu i koja donosi pravila, odlučuje ko ima pristup i odobrava aktivnosti, što je prilično spor i skup proces u cjelini. Koncept Bitcoina je drugačiji jer je decentralizovan, a to znači da ne postoji jedna osoba, banka ili organizacija koja donosi odluke, već je to prepušteno mreži koju čine milioni korisničkih uređaja na mreži koji održavaju sistem u funkciji.

Pored toga, decentralizacija onemogućava cenzurisanje, jer niko ne može da interveniše i blokira nečiji pristup ili transakcije. To čini sistem demokratskijim, omogućavajući ljudima širom svijeta da se pridruže bez traženja dozvole.

Kriptografski dokazi – vjerovanje u matematiku, a ne u ljude

Kada nešto kupite koristeći Bitcoin, ne morate se oslanjati na posrednika da verifikuje vašu transakciju. Umjesto toga, Bitcoin koristi nešto što se naziva „kriptografskim dokazom. Kriptografski dokazi su poput digitalnog ključa i brave koji čuvaju informacije sigurnima, jer se oslanjaju na složenu matematiku koja osigurava da se samo validne transakcije dodaju u blockchain, onemogućavajući falsifikovanje ili prevaru.

Kriptografski dokazi funkcionišu tako što kreiraju heš (hash) – dug i jedinstven broj, za svaki blok transakcija. Svaki heš je povezan s prethodnim, što pomaže u obezbjeđivanju cijelog lanca. Matematika iza ovog procesa je toliko složena da bi zahtijevala ogromnu računarsku moć kada bi i pokušala da je razbije. Koristeći kriptografske dokaze, Bitcoin ne zahtijeva povjerenje u ljude, već se umjesto toga, oslanja na neprobojne matematičke algoritme da osigura svaku transakciju.

Proof of Work – digitalna zagonetka koja štiti Bitcoin

Bitcoinova mreža je osigurana procesom koji se naziva Proof of Work (dokaz o radu), koji je najjednostavnije razumjeti ako ga zamislite kao izazovnu zagonetku koju računari, poznati kao „rudari“, moraju da riješe da bi dodali novi blok u blockchain. Prvi računar koji riješi zagonetku dobija priliku da doda blok i dobija nagradu u bitcoinima. Ova zagonetka je izuzetno složena i zahtijeva od rudara da koristi veliku količinu mnogo računarske snage, što je skupo u smislu vremena i energije.

U tom smislu Proof of Work čuva mrežu sigurnom, jer kad bi neko pokušao da prevari sistem ponovnim pisanjem blockchaina, morao ponovo da uradi svako izračunavanja dokaza o radu za svaki blok koji želi da izmijeni, što je praktično nemoguće. Na ovaj način Bitcoin kreira mrežni sistem u kojem je prevara previše skupa i previše složena da bi se bilo kome isplatila.

Šesnaest godina kasnije...

Bitcoin je za ovo vrijeme postao mnogo više od digitalne valute – on je simbol finansijske nezavisnosti i pokretačka snaga nove finansijske tehnologije i ekonomskih koncepata. Pokrenuo je diskusije o budućnosti novca, a inspirisao je brojne pružaoce platnih usluga, uključujući brojne banke širom svijeta i FinTech kompanije, da unapređuju poslovni model.

Zbog količine koja je u opticaju njegova upotreba kao valute ostaje ograničena u poređenju s tradicionalnim novcem, dok njegova cijena nastavlja da fluktuira u zavisnosti od tržišnih okolnosti. U tom smislu uticaj Bitcoina na finansije, tehnologiju i društvo u cjelini već je dubok, navodeći promišljenije i kreativnije istraživanje kako se vrednostima može upravljati i razmenjivati u savremenom svijetu, podstičući značaj decentralizacije i svijest o zaštiti podataka.

Iako često predstavljan kao sredstvo za „brzo bogaćenje“ ili sresdstvo za obavljanje anonimnih transakcija, motivi za njegovo kreiranje, kao i njegova uloga u finansijskom i tehnološkom svijetu potpuno se razlikuju od toga. Bitcoin je prva, najstarija, najvrednija i – u najširem smislu – po svim parametrima jedina prava, potpuno decenztralizovana kriptovaluta koja je transformisala način na koji razmišljamo o novcu, povjerenju i bezbednosti u digitalnoj eri.

@ 7f29628d:e160cccc

Der gut informierte Bürger denkt bei der Pandemie sofort an Intensivstationen, an die Bilder aus Bergamo und erinnert sich an die Berichterstattung damals – also muss es wohl ein Maximum gewesen sein. Manche Skeptiker behaupten jedoch das Gegenteil. Klarheit sollte ein Blick nach Wiesbaden, zum Statistischen Bundesamt, schaffen. Schließlich sitzen dort gut bezahlte Profis, die seit vielen Jahrzehnten die Sterbestatistik pflegen und veröffentlichen. Jeder Todesfall wird in Deutschland über die Standesämter exakt erfasst.

Doch die Überraschung: Das Statistische Bundesamt liefert uns auf diese einfache Frage zwei extrem unterschiedliche Antworten – ein Minimum und ein Maximum. Das Ergebnis hängt davon ab, wie tief man in die Veröffentlichungen des Bundesamtes eintaucht. Betrachtet man nur die Webseiten und Pressemitteilungen, erhält man den Eindruck eines Maximums. Schaut man jedoch etwas tiefer in die Tabellen und Rohdaten, zeigt sich plötzlich ein Minimum. Aber wie kann das sein? Beides gleichzeitig geht ja wohl kaum. Wer lügt hier – die Tabellen des Amtes oder die Pressemitteilungen? Gehen wir dieser Frage Schritt für Schritt auf den Grund.

2020: Ein historisches Maximum?

Schauen wir uns die vielen Hundert Veröffentlichungen des Statistischen Bundesamtes aus dieser Zeit an. Oder wir kürzen ab und fragen ChatGPT, da die KI auf diesen Daten trainiert wurde und das gesamte Material kennt. Die Frage an ChatGPT lautet also: Wie war das Sterbegeschehen im Jahr 2020 im Vergleich zu den Vorjahren?

ChatGPT antwortet: »Im Jahr 2020 war die Sterblichkeit in Deutschland höher als in den Jahren zuvor. Es gab eine Übersterblichkeit von etwa 982.000 Todesfällen, das sind rund 46.000 mehr als der Durchschnitt der Vorjahre (2016 bis 2019). Dieser Anstieg wurde überwiegend im Zusammenhang mit der COVID-19-Pandemie gesehen. Während die Sterbezahlen in den Vorjahren schwankten, war ein solch signifikanter Anstieg wie 2020 bisher nicht zu beobachten.«

Wir fragen konkreter: Ist es ein Fakt, dass wir eine so ernste Lage im Sterbegeschehen wie im Frühjahr 2020 noch nie erlebt haben?

ChatGPT bestätigt: »Ja, die COVID-19-Pandemie führte im Frühjahr 2020 zu einer außergewöhnlichen Situation im Sterbegeschehen in Deutschland. Die dramatische Übersterblichkeit, die ab der 13. Kalenderwoche auftrat, veranlasste das Statistische Bundesamt, besonders eindringliche Warnungen zu veröffentlichen. Der damalige Vizepräsident des Amtes und andere führende Stimmen wiesen öffentlich darauf hin, dass die Todesfallzahlen stark vom Durchschnitt abwichen. Diese klare Warnung richtete sich an die Öffentlichkeit und die Politik gleichermaßen. Die Medien berichteten intensiv über diese Warnungen, was das Bewusstsein für die Schwere der Pandemie erheblich schärfte. In den vergangenen Jahrzehnten hatte es keine vergleichbare Übersterblichkeit gegeben, die eine solch umfangreiche Kommunikation durch das Statistische Bundesamt erforderlich gemacht hätte.«

Ein gut informierter Zeitungsleser wird sich an dieser Stelle bestätigt fühlen: Ja, so war es damals. Ein Maximum im Sterbegeschehen – wegen der Pandemie. Oder etwa nicht?

2020: Ein historisches Minimum?

Tauchen wir in die Rohdaten des Statistischen Bundesamtes ein. Die Tabellen, die das Amt seit Jahrzehnten verlässlich veröffentlicht, nennen sich Sterbetafeln. Diese werden jährlich bereitgestellt und stehen auf der Website des Bundesamtes zum Download bereit. Ein erster Blick in die Sterbetafeln mag den Laien abschrecken, doch mit einer kurzen Erklärung wird alles verständlich. Wir gehen schrittweise vor.

Nehmen wir die Sterbetafel des Jahres 2017. Sie enthält zwei große Tabellen – eine für Männer und eine für Frauen. Jede Zeile der Tabelle steht für einen Jahrgang, zum Beispiel zeigt die Zeile 79 die Daten der 79-jährigen Männer. Besonders wichtig ist nun die zweite Spalte, in der der Wert 0,05 eingetragen ist. Das bedeutet, dass 5 Prozent der 79-jährigen Männer im Jahr 2017 verstorben sind. Das ist die wichtige Kennzahl. Wenn wir diesen exakten Wert, den man auch als Sterberate bezeichnet, nun in ein Säulendiagramm eintragen, erhalten wir eine leicht verständliche visuelle Darstellung (Grafik 1).

Es ist wichtig zu betonen, dass dieser Wert weder ein Schätzwert noch eine Modellrechnung oder Prognose ist, sondern ein exakter Messwert, basierend auf einer zuverlässigen Zählung. Sterberaten (für die Fachleute auch Sterbewahrscheinlichkeiten qx) sind seit Johann Peter Süßmilch (1707–1767) der Goldstandard der Sterbestatistik. Jeder Aktuar wird das bestätigen. Fügen wir nun die Sterberaten der 79-jährigen Männer aus den Jahren davor und danach hinzu, um das Gesamtbild zu sehen (Grafik 2). Und nun die entscheidende Frage: Zeigt das Jahr 2020 ein Maximum oder ein Minimum?

Ein kritischer Leser könnte vermuten, dass die 79-jährigen Männer eine Ausnahme darstellen und andere Jahrgänge im Jahr 2020 ein Maximum zeigen würden. Doch das trifft nicht zu. Kein einziger Jahrgang verzeichnete im Jahr 2020 ein Maximum. Im Gegenteil: Auch die 1-Jährigen, 2-Jährigen, 3-Jährigen, 9-Jährigen, 10-Jährigen, 15-Jährigen, 18-Jährigen und viele weitere männliche Jahrgänge hatten ihr Minimum im Jahr 2020. Dasselbe gilt bei den Frauen. Insgesamt hatten 31 Jahrgänge ihr Minimum im Jahr 2020. Wenn wir schließlich alle Jahrgänge in einer einzigen Grafik zusammenfassen, ergibt sich ein klares Bild: Das Minimum im Sterbegeschehen lag im Jahr 2020 (Grafik 3).

Ein kritischer Leser könnte nun wiederum vermuten, dass es innerhalb des Jahres 2020 möglicherweise starke Ausschläge nach oben bei einzelnen Jahrgängen gegeben haben könnte, die später durch Ausschläge nach unten ausgeglichen wurden – und dass diese Schwankungen in der jährlichen Übersicht nicht sichtbar sind. Doch auch das trifft nicht zu. Ein Blick auf die wöchentlichen Sterberaten zeigt, dass die ersten acht Monate der Pandemie keine nennenswerten Auffälligkeiten aufweisen. Es bleibt dabei: Die Rohdaten des Statistischen Bundesamtes bestätigen zweifelsfrei, dass die ersten acht Monate der Pandemie das historische Minimum im Sterbegeschehen darstellen. (Für die Fachleute sei angemerkt, dass im gleichen Zeitraum die Lebenserwartung die historischen Höchststände erreicht hatte – Grafik 4.)

So konstruierte das Amt aus einem Minimum ein Maximum:

Zur Erinnerung: Die Rohdaten des Statistischen Bundesamtes, die in den jährlichen Sterbetafeln zweifelsfrei dokumentiert sind, zeigen für das Jahr 2020 eindeutig ein Minimum im Sterbegeschehen. Aus diesen »in Stein gemeißelten« Zahlen ein Maximum zu »konstruieren«, ohne die Rohdaten selbst zu verändern, scheint auf den ersten Blick eine unlösbare Aufgabe. Jeder Student würde an einer solchen Herausforderung scheitern. Doch das Statistische Bundesamt hat einen kreativen Weg gefunden - ein Meisterstück gezielter Manipulation. In fünf Schritten zeigt sich, wie diese Täuschung der Öffentlichkeit umgesetzt wurde:

(1) Ignorieren der Sterberaten: Die präzisen, objektiven und leicht verständlichen Sterberaten aus den eigenen Sterbetafeln wurden konsequent ignoriert und verschwiegen. Diese Daten widersprachen dem gewünschten Narrativ und wurden daher gezielt ausgeklammert.

(2) Fokus auf absolute Todeszahlen: Die Aufmerksamkeit wurde stattdessen auf die absolute Zahl der Todesfälle gelenkt. Diese wirkt allein durch ihre schiere Größe dramatisch und emotionalisiert die Diskussion. Ein entscheidender Faktor wurde dabei ignoriert: Die absolute Zahl der Todesfälle steigt aufgrund der demografischen Entwicklung jedes Jahr an. Viele Menschen verstehen diesen Zusammenhang nicht und verbinden die steigenden Zahlen fälschlicherweise mit der vermeintlichen Pandemie.

(3) Einführung der Übersterblichkeit als neue Kennzahl: Erst ab Beginn der „Pandemie“ wurde die Kennzahl "Übersterblichkeit" eingeführt – und dies mit einer fragwürdigen Methode, die systematisch überhöhte Werte lieferte. Diese Kennzahl wurde regelmäßig, oft monatlich oder sogar wöchentlich, berechnet und diente als ständige Grundlage für alarmierende Schlagzeilen.

(4) Intensive Öffentlichkeitsarbeit: Durch eine breit angelegte Kampagne wurden die manipulativen Kennzahlen gezielt in den Fokus gerückt. Pressemitteilungen, Podcasts und öffentliche Auftritte konzentrierten sich fast ausschließlich auf die absoluten Todeszahlen und die Übersterblichkeit. Ziel war es, den Eindruck einer dramatischen Situation in der Öffentlichkeit zu verstärken.

(5) Bekämpfen kritischer Stimmen: Kritiker, die die Schwächen und manipulativen Aspekte dieser Methoden aufdeckten, wurden systematisch diskreditiert. Ihre Glaubwürdigkeit und Kompetenz wurden öffentlich infrage gestellt, um das sorgsam konstruierte Narrativ zu schützen.

Ohne diesen begleitenden Statistik-Betrug wäre das gesamte Pandemie-Theater meiner Meinung nach nicht möglich gewesen. Wer aus einem faktischen Minimum ein scheinbares Maximum "erschafft", handelt betrügerisch. Die Folgen dieses Betruges sind gravierend. Denken wir an die Angst, die in der Bevölkerung geschürt wurde – die Angst, bald sterben zu müssen. Denken wir an Masken, Abstandsregeln, isolierte ältere Menschen, Kinderimpfungen und all die Maßnahmen, die unter anderem auf diese falsche Statistik zurückgehen.

Wollen wir Bürger uns das gefallen lassen?

Wenn wir als Bürger zulassen, dass ein derart offensichtlicher und nachprüfbarer Täuschungsversuch ohne Konsequenzen bleibt, dann gefährdet das nicht nur die Integrität unserer Institutionen – es untergräbt das Fundament unserer Gesellschaft. In der DDR feierte man öffentlich Planerfüllung und Übererfüllung, während die Regale leer blieben. Damals wusste jeder: Statistik war ein Propagandainstrument. Niemand traute den Zahlen, die das Staatsfernsehen verkündete.

Während der Pandemie war es anders. Die Menschen vertrauten den Mitteilungen des Statistischen Bundesamtes und des RKI – blind. Die Enthüllungen durch den "RKI-Leak" haben gezeigt, dass auch das Robert-Koch-Institut nicht der Wissenschaft, sondern den Weisungen des Gesundheitsministers und militärischen Vorgaben folgte. Warum sollte es beim Statistischen Bundesamt anders gewesen sein? Diese Behörde ist dem Innenministerium unterstellt und somit ebenfalls weisungsgebunden.

Die Beweise für Täuschung liegen offen zutage. Es braucht keinen Whistleblower, keine geheimen Enthüllungen: Die Rohdaten des Statistischen Bundesamtes sprechen für sich. Sie sind öffentlich einsehbar – klar und unmissverständlich. Die Daten, die Tabellen, die Veröffentlichungen des Amtes selbst – sie sind die Anklageschrift. Sie zeigen, was wirklich war. Nicht mehr und nicht weniger.

Und wir? Was tun wir? Schweigen wir? Oder fordern wir endlich ein, was unser Recht ist? Wir Bürger dürfen das nicht hinnehmen. Es ist Zeit, unsere Behörden zur Rechenschaft zu ziehen. Diese Institutionen arbeiten nicht für sich – sie arbeiten für uns. Wir finanzieren sie, und wir haben das Recht, Transparenz und Verantwortung einzufordern. Manipulationen wie diese müssen aufgearbeitet werden und dürfen nie wieder geschehen. Die Strukturen, die solche Fehlentwicklungen in unseren Behörden ermöglicht haben, müssen offengelegt werden. Denn eine Demokratie lebt von Vertrauen – und Vertrauen muss verdient werden. Jeden Tag aufs Neue.

.

.

MARCEL BARZ, Jahrgang 1975, war Offizier der Bundeswehr und studierte Wirtschafts- und Organisationswissenschaften sowie Wirtschaftsinformatik. Er war Gründer und Geschäftsführer einer Softwarefirma, die sich auf Datenanalyse und Softwareentwicklung spezialisiert hatte. Im August 2021 veröffentlichte Barz den Videovortrag »Die Pandemie in den Rohdaten«, der über eine Million Aufrufe erzielte. Seitdem macht er als "Erbsenzähler" auf Widersprüche in amtlichen Statistiken aufmerksam.

@ bc8a4b4f:112ce9c4

El Mirador San Nicolás es el espacio correcto para iniciar la previa al tour por Granada, en España. Con un par de flamencos cantando con una buena guitarra acústica, se armoniza la experiencia de mi primer atardecer en la ciudad y para todos los turistas que estamos en pleno diciembre, frente a la cordillera de Sierra Nevada.

El Mirador San Nicolás es el espacio correcto para iniciar la previa al tour por Granada, en España. Con un par de flamencos cantando con una buena guitarra acústica, se armoniza la experiencia de mi primer atardecer en la ciudad y para todos los turistas que estamos en pleno diciembre, frente a la cordillera de Sierra Nevada.

\ Recordemos que Granada fue habitada en sus tiempos mozos por los árabes en el siglo VIII, durante la conquista musulmana de la Península Ibérica. Tras la fragmentación del Califato de Córdoba, en 1238, Muhammad I fundó la dinastía nazarí, dando inicio a uno de los períodos más destacados de la ciudad.

Durante la dominación nazarí, Granada floreció como un centro cultural, económico y artístico. Se construyó la majestuosa Alhambra, un espectáculo arquitectónico e ingenieril que simboliza la cumbre del arte islámico en España. Además, la ciudad destacó por ser un cosmo religioso, siendo hogar de comunidades musulmanas, cristianas y judías.

Fue así que en la reconquista, en 1492, los Reyes Católicos, Isabel y Fernando, pusieron fin a casi 800 años de dominio musulmán en la región, que incluyó la expulsión de judíos y musulmanes o su conversión al cristianismo. Aunque el dominio musulmán terminó, su legado perdura de manera viva en la ciudad con la arquitectura, la gastronomía y la cultura de Granada. La Alhambra, el Generalife y el Albaicín son testigos vivos de este pasado glorioso y constituyen un patrimonio invaluable que atrae a millones de visitantes de todo el mundo.

Ya cayendo la noche, bajando por el Albaicín, se aprecian las calles estrechas y de adoquines, con distintas puertas interesantes y entradas que hacen vivir la experiencia de un autóctono barrio árabe. Entre medio, el Balcón de San Nicolás, que te invita a ser parte del espectáculo que es ver la Alhambra de noche, que desde afuera son la invitación perfecta para disfrutar con café o un buen trago, esa postal que parece pintada por algún artista desconocido del 1.900.

Mezquita Mayor de Granada. Café en el Balcón San Nicolás. Luego del café y con un poco de calor en el cuerpo, continúa la caminata camino al centro hasta donde vas encontrando por el camino una serie de vestigios del mundo árabe que permiten reforzar que Granada seguirá siendo centro del reino nazarí. Su arquitectura es un recuerdo vivo y un encuentro con los particulares mercados que ofrecen menaje, lámparas, zapatillas y una serie de artículos que me transportan a oriente, incluyendo centros de estudios que me instan a querer volver.

Finalmente, logro llegar al centro de Granada y como bien escribió Federico García Lorca, orgulloso Granadino; «Granada está indefensa ante la gente, porque ante los halagos, nada ni nadie tiene modo de defenderse», y esta es tan solo la primera parte de un viaje en el tiempo y espacio en la grandiosa España.

Continuará…Recordemos que Granada fue habitada en sus tiempos mozos por los árabes en el siglo VIII, durante la conquista musulmana de la Península Ibérica. Tras la fragmentación del Califato de Córdoba, en 1238, Muhammad I fundó la dinastía nazarí, dando inicio a uno de los períodos más destacados de la ciudad.

Durante la dominación nazarí, Granada floreció como un centro cultural, económico y artístico. Se construyó la majestuosa Alhambra, un espectáculo arquitectónico e ingenieril que simboliza la cumbre del arte islámico en España. Además, la ciudad destacó por ser un cosmo religioso, siendo hogar de comunidades musulmanas, cristianas y judías.

Fue así que en la reconquista, en 1492, los Reyes Católicos, Isabel y Fernando, pusieron fin a casi 800 años de dominio musulmán en la región, que incluyó la expulsión de judíos y musulmanes o su conversión al cristianismo.

Aunque el dominio musulmán terminó, su legado perdura de manera viva en la ciudad con la arquitectura, la gastronomía y la cultura de Granada. La Alhambra, el Generalife y el Albaicín son testigos vivos de este pasado glorioso y constituyen un patrimonio invaluable que atrae a millones de visitantes de todo el mundo.

Ya cayendo la noche, bajando por el Albaicín, se aprecian las calles estrechas y de adoquines, con distintas puertas interesantes y entradas que hacen vivir la experiencia de un autóctono barrio árabe. Entre medio, el Balcón de San Nicolás, que te invita a ser parte del espectáculo que es ver la Alhambra de noche, que desde afuera son la invitación perfecta para disfrutar con café o un buen trago, esa postal que parece pintada por algún artista desconocido del 1.900.

Luego del café y con un poco de calor en el cuerpo, continúa la caminata camino al centro hasta donde vas encontrando por el camino una serie de vestigios del mundo árabe que permiten reforzar que Granada seguirá siendo centro del reino nazarí. Su arquitectura es un recuerdo vivo y un encuentro con los particulares mercados que ofrecen menaje, lámparas, zapatillas y una serie de artículos que me transportan a oriente, incluyendo centros de estudios que me instan a querer volver.

Finalmente, logro llegar al centro de Granada y como bien escribió Federico García Lorca, orgulloso Granadino; «Granada está indefensa ante la gente, porque ante los halagos, nada ni nadie tiene modo de defenderse», y esta es tan solo la primera parte de un viaje en el tiempo y espacio en la grandiosa España.

Continuará…

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na antenam.net

18.12.2024 / Autor: Ana Nives Radović

---

Ako ste makar djelić vremena proveli u svijetu digitalnog novca, vjerovatno ste naišli na termin HODL – uvijek napisan velikim slovima tako da na prvi pogled djeluje kao riječ sa slovnom greškom. Zapravo i jeste riječ o slovnoj grešci i to onoj koja je nastala na današnji dan prije 11 godina, a koja je uspjela ne samo da obezbijedi mjesto u istoriji svijeta novca, već i da postane naziv za jedan potpuno drugačiji pristup sredstvima koja posjedujemo.

Nespretno napisana riječ „hold“ (eng. držati, zadržati) u poruci na jednom forumu evoluirala je u akronim HODL – akronim za Hold On for Dear Life (doslovno – drži se za život, tj. drži se kao da ti život zavisi od toga), predstavlja poziv na akciju – ili, tačnije, „neakciju“ za vlasnike kriptovaluta da odole iskušenju prodaje tokom tržišnih padova. Riječ je o shvatanju da je ovaj oblik digitalne imovine bolje vremenski što duže imati u vlasništvu, kako bi se sačekao mnogo povoljniji trenutak za prodaju nego prodati ih u vremenu kada je situacija na tržištu loša.

Greška koja je postala pokret

Priča počinje 18. decembra 2013. godine, kada je cijena bitcoina tada počela da pada, a samo tokom toga dana se sa 682 na 522 dolara. Korisnik foruma pod imenom GameKyuubi objavio je sada već legendarni post pod naslovom „I AM HODLING“. Bila je to greška u kucanju, jer se na osnovu sadržaja poruke vidi da je krenuo da napiše „holding“ (držim), ali umjesto da se ispravi sebe, prigrlio je grešku, šaljivo govoreći o svom nedostatku vještina za trgovanje i zašto „bez obzira na sve“.

Bitcoin zajednica brzo je prihvatila ovaj izraz kao dio slenga. Pogrešno napisana riječ odjeknula je internet prostranstvima, a vremenom je prerasla u simbol šire filozofije – ne paniči, ne prodaj i ne dozvoli da kratkoročna nestabilnost poljulja tvoje uvjerenje. Od kasnonoćnog posta na forumu, HODL je postao poklič za vlasnike bitcoina (i drugih, u to vrijeme malobrojnih digitalnih valuta zanemarive vrijednosti) širom svijeta.

HODL-ovanje i HODL-eri

U suštini, HODL-ovanje je strategija zadržavanja kriptovaluta tokom tržišnih uspona i padova, zasnovana na uvjerenju da će cijene vremenom rasti. Umjesto impulsivnog reagovanja na tržišne fluktuacije, HODL-eri se posvećuju svojim investicijama na duže staze.

Ovaj pristup posebno je koristan za početnike, koji možda nemaju dovoljno stručnosti ili hrabrosti da se nose sa svakodnevnim trgovanjem (u čemu su često neuspješni i dugogodišnji vlasnici digitalnih novčića). Sam GameKyuubi u svom originalnom postu priznao je da samo najvještiji trgovci treba da pokušaju da „igraju igru“ tokom tržišnih padova. Za ostale, HODL-ovanje nije samo sigurnije, već je često i pametnije.

Filozofija HODL-ovanja zasnovana je na povjerenju – u budućnost kriptovaluta, u eventualni oporavak tržišta i u korist koju donosi strpljenje. To je odbijanje da se prodaje kada cijene naglo padnu – nepokolebljivo uvjerenje da su padovi privremeni i da nakon njih slijedi rast.

Zakon tržišta pokazuje da što drže HODL-ujete to se ova strategija više isplati, a cijena bitcoina u njegovoj šesnaestogodišnjoj istoriji je nesumnjivo najbolji dokaz za to. Trgovanje zahtijeva mnogo učenja, truda, vremena provedenog u praćenju svakog mogućeg signala, dok je kod HODL-ovanja važno samo da se „ne predate“.

Ako ste prethodnih godina nešto platili bitcoinom (a trgovci širom svijeta su to omogućili upravo da bi vas naveli da ih umjerite ka njima) vjerovatno ste zažalili, jer danas dok je njegova vrijednost i u dolarima i u eurima šestocifrena, ono na što ste ih potrošili ipak izgleda kao nešto što je trebalo platiti fizičkim novcem (kojeg je svakako „pojela inflacija“).

Pouzdane kriptovalute, a tu se prije svega misli na bitcoin, iako veoma volatilne bilježe trend rasta na duge staze, pa HODL-ovanje znači strpljenje u vremenu neizvjesnosti s idejom o koristi na duži rok, čak i kada su godine loše, kao što su bile 2014, 2017. i 2022. Na primjer, u periodu od 20. maja do 20. juna cijena bitcoina kliznula je sa 29.000 na 18.000 dolara, a upravo u tom trenutku mnogi su odlučili da količinu koju posjeduju prodaju ili je potroše plaćajući ovom digitalnom valutom (i pokajali se zbog toga).

HODL naspram drugih strategija

HODL-ovanje se razlikuje od aktivnijih strategija, poput kupovine po niskoj cijeni i prodaje po visokoj, jer dok trgovci pokušavaju da tempiraju tržište radi brze zarade, HODL-eri ostaju dosljedni svojoj odluci da se ne oslobađaju svoje imovine ni u najnoepovoljnijim trenucima. HODL-eri ne pokušavaju da predvide kretanje cijena – jednostavno čuvaju svoja sredstva, svjesni toga da će strpljenje na kraju donijeti rezultat.

Naravno, HODL-ovanje ima i svoje nedostatke. Za razliku od trgovaca koji mogu da povećaju svoj kapital kroz stratešku kupovinu i prodaju, HODL-eri zavise od vremena provedenog u čekanju na dugoročne rezultate. Pored toga, masovno HODL-ovanje može usporiti cirkulaciju kriptovaluta na tržištu, smanjujući ukupnu ekonomsku aktivnost – drugim riječima, kada bismo svi bili HODL-eri odnos ponude i tražnje bi bio veoma destimulišući i to bi oborilo cijenu.

Na sreću, trgovaca ima mnogo – dovoljno da tržište stalno bude aktivno i dinamično, no za one koji nemaju vremena, vještine ili sklonost ka riziku koji nosi trgovanje, HODL-ovanje ostaje jednostavan, ali veoma efikasan pristup.

Filozofija HODL-ovanja

HODL-ovanje je više od investicione strategije – to je način razmišljanja koji obuhvata otpornost, strpljenje i vjerovanje da su kratkotrajno suzdržavanje i nepokolebljivost u odluci da se sredstva sačuvaju vrijedna dugoročnog dobitka. Bilo da cijena bitcoina raste ili pada je, filozofija HODL-ovanja ostaje ista – ostanimo dosljedni, vjerujmo procesu i gledajmo u budućnost.

Jedan od ključnih razloga zašto većini ljudi ovakav pristup dugo nije bio razumljiv je zbog toga što su čitav sistem novca prihvatili u uvjerenju da on vremenom devalvira. Vjerovatno ste makar jednom razmatrali ponudu oročene štednje i procijenili da vam količina novca koju želite da položite neće donijeti onaj prinos koji će očuvati njegovu kupovnu moć nakon određenog broja godina, jer je kontinuirano doštampavanje novca podupiralo tu tvrdnju.

Dakle, ne treba da vas zavara sve ono što znate o novcu kao takvom, budući da bitcoin (na kojem je u ovom serijalu poseban fokus, jer mnoge druge kriptovalute ipak češće razočaraju nego što oduševe) nije novac, već samo ima neka svojstva novca. Posmatrajte ga radije kao imovinu – npr. kao nekretninu za koju sigurno želite da prodate onda kada je situacija stabilnija i kada su mnogo veće šanse da pronađete kupca kojem ćete je prodati po višoj cijeni.

U svakom slučaju, ako se u vašem digitalnom novčaniku već nalazi poneki satoshi (stomilioniti djelić bitcoina), kada tržište ponovo uđe u nepovoljnu fazu i zavlada prolazna panika, sjetite se onoga što je napisao GameKyuubi. HODL nije samo izraz – to je način da se prebrode oluje i izazovi koje nestabilno tržište nosi.

@ d5c3d063:4d1159b3

โพสที่อาจารย์พิริยะ บอกว่า “If you are angry at something... maybe it's just you.”

เป็นคำกล่าวที่เตือนให้เรามองกลับเข้ามาในตัวเองว่า "ความโกรธ" มีต้นกำเนิดจากจิตใจของเราเอง การใช้สติและการตระหนักถึงความคาดหวังที่เรามีต่อผู้อื่นจะช่วยให้เราสามารถจัดการกับความโกรธได้อย่างสร้างสรรค์และมีเหตุผล แนวคิดของอริยสัจ ๔ ช่วยให้เราเข้าใจถึงต้นเหตุและวิธีการดับทุกข์ และผมนำแนวคิดอิสรนิยมมาช่วยเสริมให้เราได้ตระหนักถึงความรับผิดชอบในชีวิตของตนเองและการเคารพเสรีภาพของผู้อื่นในการนำไปใช้ทางโลกได้จริง

เมื่อเราฝึกเดินด้วยเมตตา ปล่อยวางโทสะ และไม่หลงด้วยโมหะ เราจะสามารถสร้างความสงบสุขในจิตใจและในความสัมพันธ์กับผู้อื่นได้อย่างแท้จริง ทั้งหมดนี้นำไปสู่ชีวิตที่มีความสุขและเสรีภาพอย่างสมดุลในทุกมิติของการดำรงอยู่

เริ่มจาก...อริยสัจ ๔ คือการค้นหาต้นเหตุแห่งทุกข์ในจิตใจ

พระพุทธศาสนาสอนว่าความโกรธไม่ได้เกิดจากสิ่งภายนอกโดยตรง แต่มีรากฐานมาจาก สมุทัยหรือ "เหตุแห่งทุกข์" ที่เกิดจากภายในจิตใจของเราเอง เช่น - ตัณหา (ความยึดมั่นถือมั่น) ที่ทำให้เราคาดหวังว่าสิ่งต่าง ๆ จะต้องเป็นไปตามใจเรา - อวิชชา (ความไม่รู้) ทำให้เรามองไม่เห็นว่าความโกรธไม่ได้ทำให้ปัญหาแก้ไขได้ แต่กลับเผาผลาญจิตใจเราเอง การดับความโกรธ (นิโรธ) จึงเริ่มต้นจากการมีสติรู้ตัวและปล่อยวางความยึดมั่น โดยการฝึกสมาธิและการเจริญเมตตาเป็นเครื่องมือสำคัญที่ช่วยให้เรามองเห็นความเป็นจริงและลดทอนพลังทำลายของความโกรธ

...ต่อมาคือแนวคิดอิสรนิยม ที่เน้นถึงการรับผิดชอบต่อตนเองและเสรีภาพในการเลือก ปัจเจกบุคคลต้องรับผิดชอบต่อชีวิตของตนเองและไม่พึ่งพิงปัจจัยภายนอกเกินไป ความโกรธในมุมมองนี้สามารถมองได้ว่าเป็นผลลัพธ์ของการละเลยความรับผิดชอบต่ออารมณ์ของตัวเองและการพึ่งพิงสิ่งภายนอกเกินไป เช่น การโกรธที่ผู้อื่นไม่ทำตามที่เราต้องการ สะท้อนถึงการพยายามควบคุมสิ่งที่อยู่นอกเหนืออำนาจของเรา ซึ่งขัดกับหลักการเสรีภาพส่วนบุคคลของอิสรนิยม หลักการสำคัญของอิสรนิยมคือ Non-Aggression Principle (หลักการไม่รุกราน) ที่สอนว่าความรุนแรงและการบีบบังคับผู้อื่นเป็นสิ่งที่ควรหลีกเลี่ยง ความโกรธจึงถือเป็นการรุกรานจิตใจของเราเองก่อน เพราะเป็นการสร้างภาระให้กับจิตใจโดยไม่จำเป็น

แนวทางการปฏิบัติที่อาจารย์ได้ใส่ # ไว้ 1. #เดินด้วยเมตตา - มุมมองจากอริยสัจ ๔ #เมตตา คือการยอมรับและปรารถนาดีต่อทั้งตัวเองและผู้อื่น การให้ความรักและความปรารถนาดีจะช่วยลดพลังของโทสะในจิตใจ ทำให้เรามีมุมมองที่เปิดกว้างและมีความสุขที่แท้จริง - การเชื่อมโยงในอิสรนิยม เสรีภาพของแต่ละบุคคลรวมถึงการเคารพเสรีภาพของผู้อื่น เมตตาได้ช่วยส่งเสริมการอยู่ร่วมกันในสังคมโดยไม่ก้าวก่ายสิทธิและเสรีภาพของกันและกัน เมตตาในแง่นี้จึงเป็นการสร้างสมดุลระหว่างเสรีภาพของเราและของผู้อื่น เช่น การเคารพในความคิดหรือการกระทำของผู้อื่น แม้จะเขาจะเห็นต่างจากเรา 2. #อย่าเดินด้วยโทสะ - มุมมองจากอริยสัจ ๔ #โทสะ เป็นเหมือนยาพิษที่เราดื่มเองและทำให้เราเป็นทุกข์ ความโกรธไม่ได้ทำร้ายผู้อื่นเท่าที่มันทำลายจิตใจและร่างกายของเราเอง การฝึกเจริญสติช่วยให้เราเห็นถึงอารมณ์โกรธตั้งแต่เริ่มต้น และตัดวงจรของความคิดและการกระทำที่เป็นพิษ - การเชื่อมโยงในอิสรนิยม ความโกรธหรือการใช้อารมณ์ ไม่ควรเป็นเหตุผลในการละเมิดสิทธิหรือเสรีภาพของผู้อื่น หลักการ Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) ของอิสรนิยมเตือนเราว่าการใช้อารมณ์รุนแรงหรือโทสะมักนำไปสู่การบีบบังคับหรือทำร้ายผู้อื่น ซึ่งเป็นสิ่งที่ขัดแย้งกับความเคารพในเสรีภาพของทุกคน การไม่เดินด้วยโทสะจึงเป็นการเคารพในเสรีภาพของทั้งตัวเราและผู้อื่น 3. #อย่าหลงด้วยโมหะ - มุมมองจากอริยสัจ ๔ #โมหะ หรือความหลง ทำให้เรามองสิ่งต่าง ๆ อย่างผิดเพี้ยนและติดอยู่ในภาพลวงตา เช่น การโทษผู้อื่นว่าเป็นต้นเหตุของความทุกข์ทั้งหมด ทั้งที่แท้จริงแล้วความทุกข์มักเกิดจากจิตใจและความคาดหวังของเราเอง - การเชื่อมโยงกับอิสรนิยม สอนว่าความสุขและความสงบในชีวิต ไม่ได้ขึ้นอยู่กับสิ่งภายนอก แต่ขึ้นอยู่กับเสรีภาพในการเลือกและการรับผิดชอบชีวิตของตนเอง การหลุดพ้นจากโมหะเป็นการยอมรับว่าเราไม่สามารถควบคุมผู้อื่นหรือโลกภายนอกได้ แต่สามารถควบคุมปฏิกิริยาและการตอบสนองของเราได้ การไม่หลงด้วยโมหะจึงช่วยให้เราเป็นอิสระจากความยึดมั่นในสิ่งที่อยู่นอกเหนือการควบคุม

ทีนี้มาลองดูตัวอย่างในชีวิตประจำวันกันดูบ้าง

1. เดินด้วยเมตตา หากเราพยายามอธิบายเรื่องบิตคอยน์ให้คนอื่นเข้าใจ แต่เขายังเชื่อมั่นในระบบการเงินของรัฐ การใช้เมตตาจะช่วยให้เราเข้าใจว่าการเปลี่ยนแปลงความคิดต้องใช้เวลาและกระบวนการขั้นตอน ไม่ใช่ทุกคนจะพร้อมเปิดรับแนวคิดใหม่ในทันที การพูดคุยด้วยความรักและปรารถนาดีแทนการตำหนิ จะช่วยสร้างบทสนทนาที่สร้างสรรค์

2. อย่าเดินด้วยโทสะ หากเรารู้สึกโกรธเมื่อคนอื่นยังคงเชื่อในระบบเศรษฐกิจแบบเคนส์หรือสังคมนิยม อาจใช้โอกาสนี้แหละ ในการฝึกเจริญสติและตระหนักว่าเราควบคุมความเชื่อของผู้อื่นไม่ได้ แต่สามารถเลือกอธิบายด้วยเหตุผลและความเคารพ หรือเลือกที่จะปล่อยวางเมื่อสถานการณ์ไม่เอื้ออำนวย

3. อย่าหลงด้วยโมหะ หากเราหงุดหงิดที่ผู้อื่นไม่ยอมรับแนวคิดของบิตคอยน์ การตระหนักว่าความคาดหวังของเราที่ต้องการให้ผู้อื่นเข้าใจในทันทีนั้นเป็นภาพลวงตา มันก็จะช่วยให้เรามองเห็นความจริงที่ว่า การเปลี่ยนแปลงทางความคิด เป็นกระบวนการที่ต้องใช้เวลาและเกิดจากเสรีภาพในการตัดสินใจของแต่ละบุคคล

……..……..……..

ความโกรธ เป็นหนึ่งในอารมณ์พื้นฐานที่มนุษย์ทุกคนต้องเผชิญในชีวิต แต่การจัดการความโกรธนั้นไม่ใช่เพียงเรื่องของการควบคุมอารมณ์ หากยังสะท้อนถึงการทำความเข้าใจตัวตนและธรรมชาติของสิ่งต่าง ๆ รอบตัวเรา ประโยคที่อาจารย์พิริยะบอกว่า “If you are angry at something... maybe it's just you.” ไม่ได้เป็นเพียงคำกล่าวเตือนใจ แต่ยังเป็นการเชื้อเชิญให้เราไตร่ตรองถึงรากฐานของความโกรธ ซึ่งซุปขอเชื่อมโยงเข้ากับหลักอริยสัจ ๔ ในพระพุทธศาสนาและแนวคิดอิสรนิยม (#Libertarianism) ที่เน้นความรับผิดชอบส่วนบุคคลและเสรีภาพในชีวิต

Siamstr

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na linkedin.com

07.12.2016 / Autor: Aleksandar Matanović

---

Kažu da su svi generali pametni posle bitke. Međutim, pošto sam se i pre „bitke“ pokazao kao dobar general (moj intervju u članku objavljenom 2 meseca pre „bitke“), daću sebi za pravo da pokušam da objasnim šta se desilo i zašto se desilo. Koga mrzi da čita članak, evo ukratko o čemu se radilo: Početkom maja sam bio zamoljen da prokomentarišem kako će prepolovljavanje nagrade za rudare u julu uticati na cenu bitkoina. Rekao sam tada da mislim da će cena do prepolovljavanja (između tačke „A“ i tačke „B“ na grafikonu) rasti, da će posle prepolovljavanja (od tačke „B“ pa na dalje) kratkoročno cena pasti, pa da će nakon toga dugoročno rasti. Upravo tako nešto se i desilo. Ipak, moram da naglasim da cena bitkoina zavisi od mnogih faktora i zaista je teško izolovati uticaj nekog pojedinačnog faktora na cenu, tako da se svaka ovakva analiza mora uzeti sa dosta rezerve.

Ovog jula desilo se nešto što se dešava jednom u 4 godine... a nisu Olimpijske igre ili 29-ti februar. Nagrada za bitkoin rudare se prepolovila i sada iznosi 12.5 bitkoina po bloku (uz to naravno ide i zbir provizija svih transakcija u bloku, ali taj iznos je i dalje bitno manji od 12.5 btc). Mnogi su mislili da će taj događaj vinuti cenu bitkoina u nebesa, verovatno i zbog toga što je nakon prethodnog prepolovljavanja nagrade krenuo rast koji je za manje od godinu dana rezultirao u povećanju cene od preko 10.000%. Ipak, prepolovljanje nagrade nije, barem kratkoročno, donelo očekivani skok cene. Objašnjenje za to se može tražiti u Hipotezi Efikasnog Tržišta.

Hipoteza Efikasnog Tržišta (HET), u svom jačem obliku, tvrdi da se sve javno dostupne informacije o nečemu (u ovom slučaju – o bitkoinu) već ogledaju u ceni tog nečega. Zbog toga, analizom tih javno dostupnih informacija nije moguće „pobediti“ tržište. Možemo diskutovati o tome koliko je tržište bitkoina efikasno i u kojoj meri je ova hipoteza na njega primenjiva, kao i tome koliko je i sama HET valjana, ali meni je početkom maja baš ta hipoteza pomogla da predvidim kretanje cene pre i posle prepolovljavanja.

Da bi cena nečega rasla, mora da postoji povećan broj onih koji to žele da kupe u odnosu na broj onih koji to žele da prodaju. Hajde da na trenutak zamislimo da se prepolovljavanje nagrade dogodilo potpuno neočekivano, to jest da niko nije znao da će se dogoditi. Špekulanti bi brzo shvatili da će se zbog smanjenog tempa generisanja novih bitkoina verovatno poremetiti odnos ponude i potražnje (u korist potražnje) i krenuli bi da kupuju nadajući se da će kasnije prodati po većoj ceni. Nesumljivo, to bi dovelo do rasta cene bitkoina, verovatno naglog.

Međutim, pošto se za prepolovljavanje unapred znalo da će se dogoditi i kada će se dogoditi, po HET ta, javno dostupna, informacija se već reflektovala na cenu pre prepolovljavanja. Prostim jezikom rečeno, pošto su ljudi očekivali rast cene posle prepolovljavanja, oni su mesecima unapred kupovali bitkoine, nadajući se da će da profitiraju posle rasta. Sva ta silna kupovina pred prepolovljavanje je povećela potražnju pa samim tim i cenu bitkoina. Ali, baš zato što su svi pokupovali bitkoine pred prepolovljavanje, kad se prepolovljavanje dogodilo – više nije imao ko da kupuje. A cena ne može da raste dalje ako nema dovoljno potražnje da tu cenu gura na gore. Baš zbog te smanjene potražnje, cena bitkoina je mesecima posle prepolovljavanja stagnirala, čak je imala i jedan ozbiljan pad, zbog BitFinex-a.

Dugoročno, naravno da je logično da prepolovljavanje nagrade ipak donese rast cene. Najpre, tempo generisanja novih bitkoina se smanjuje, a ako potražnja nastavi da raste sličnom brzinom kao i ranije, cena mora da raste. Takođe, prepolovljavanje nagrade je prepolovilo profit rudarima, koji će sada želeti da prodaju bitkoine po višoj ceni da bi zadržali sličan nivo prihoda kao ranije. Videćemo da li je jesenji rast cene upravo početak tog dugoročnog trenda rasta koji sam u članku prognozirao ili samo privremena stvar. Ipak, tu je još dosta drugih faktora, pre svih pitanje kako će bitkoin zajednica odgovoriti na problem skaliranja - što će biti jedna od narednih tema.

Napomena: Ova analiza predstavlja moje lično viđenje situacije. Nisam ekspert za analizu kretanja cene, tako da ovde navedene informacije ne treba uzimati kao relevantne pri eventualnim odlukama o kupovini ili prodaji kriptovaluta.

@ b2caa9b3:9eab0fb5

The year had barely begun when we, a group of four from the hostel, decided to explore Moshi's Uhuru Park. Located conveniently in the city center, it was just a short walk away, making it an easy and inviting destination.

A Stroll Through Uhuru Park

We entered through the main gate and began to wander around the park. The first area we encountered was small buildings with stores, restaurants, and a cozy beer garden. After some browsing, we ventured further into the heart of the park and stumbled upon a playground. It was a bit run-down — a place I wouldn’t let my kids play, especially not on the slide — but that didn’t stop us. As adults, we unleashed our inner children, playing on the equipment and snapping countless photos.

In the middle of our playground adventure, we spotted a tree with a ladder and a sign requesting payment to use the playground. Surprisingly, they accepted Mastercard and Visa! Yet, given the state of the equipment, I couldn’t imagine parents willingly paying for such a risky setup.

Unexpected Sights and Big Discoveries

As we moved on, the park began to reveal its quirky charm. We admired creatively maintained corners and came across a unique “Christmas tree”. Unlike traditional evergreens, this local tree earned its festive name because it only blooms during the holiday season. Nearby, we marveled at massive termite hills — some taller than me — that left me feeling small. While I was curious, I didn’t dig around to confirm if any termites were home.

A Smoothie Haven: The Wishing Tree

We eventually reached a cluster of houses within the park. One spot stood out to me — The Wishing Tree. I’d discovered it one evening during a failed attempt to attend a BBQ festival when the police turned me away. The Wishing Tree seemed like an oasis, but it was closed at night, so I promised myself I’d return.

That day, I kept my promise. The Wishing Tree lived up to its name, offering a serene, green space with soft music perfect for meditation. The smoothies were freshly made, organic, and worth the wait. With my first sip, I was blown away — absolutely delicious, even if a bit pricey. We lingered there, savoring every moment and every drop.

Chipsiei and Colonial Echoes

After leaving the oasis, we wandered back to the beer garden. One of my companions, a man from Switzerland, ordered Chipsiei. It’s a local dish of fries and eggs, with “Ei” (the German word for egg) being a linguistic remnant of Tanzania’s time as German East Africa. Traces of this colonial past still linger in buildings, language, and even some food traditions.

I opted for a beer with lemon, similar to a Radler, while others chose soda or beer. After finishing our drinks, we continued our walk, eventually passing the bus station. Here, the Swiss traveler bought a ticket for his next destination, though not without encountering the infamous “mzungu price” — a common overcharge for foreigners. Despite having the correct price from the internet, he couldn’t negotiate it down.

A Market Adventure

Back at the hostel, I decided to visit the market, and the Swiss man joined me. I needed bananas, while he sought natural baobab fruit. Unlike the colored and sugary versions sold on the street, market baobab is organic and white. It was the perfect place to find fresh, unaltered produce.

Wrapping Up the Day

After the market, we returned to the hostel to relax at the bar, reflecting on our day. While writing this, I realized I captured so many interesting photos. I’ll share a few here and save the rest for my upcoming online gallery — stay tuned for updates!

Moving On

Tomorrow, I’ll check out and continue my journey through Africa. After nearly two months in Moshi, my foot has healed, and it’s time to move forward. Along the way, I’ll need to replace my GoPro battery (the old one blew up) and get a power bank after my Google Pixel met its end with a faulty one. I also need to pick up a hat to protect myself from the increasingly harsh sun and maybe a sheet to use as a multi sheet (Towel, Beach Towel and other things).

The road ahead promises new adventures, stories, and photos. Stay tuned to follow my travels as I explore more of this beautiful continent!

@ b9af65f8:443fbde5

AE789 là một trong những nền tảng giải trí trực tuyến được ưa chuộng, mang đến cho người tham gia một không gian giải trí đầy hấp dẫn và thú vị. Với giao diện dễ sử dụng, dễ tiếp cận, AE789 nhanh chóng chiếm được lòng tin của người tham gia nhờ vào sự đa dạng trong các trò chơi cũng như cam kết bảo mật tuyệt đối. Nền tảng này không chỉ cung cấp các trò chơi phong phú mà còn tạo ra một môi trường an toàn và bảo mật cho người dùng.

Một trong những điểm mạnh lớn nhất của AE789 chính là sự đa dạng trong các trò chơi mà nền tảng này cung cấp. Người tham gia có thể dễ dàng tìm thấy một loạt các trò chơi từ đơn giản đến phức tạp, đáp ứng nhu cầu giải trí của nhiều đối tượng khác nhau. Các trò chơi trên AE789 không chỉ về mặt thể loại mà còn có sự đầu tư mạnh mẽ vào đồ họa và âm thanh. Những trò chơi được thiết kế đẹp mắt và có gameplay mượt mà, mang lại cảm giác chân thực, như thể người chơi đang tham gia vào một thế giới thực tế. Điều này tạo nên một trải nghiệm thú vị và không thể thiếu đối với những ai tìm kiếm một nền tảng giải trí chất lượng.

Bên cạnh các trò chơi phong phú, ae666 còn thu hút người tham gia với các chương trình khuyến mãi và sự kiện đặc biệt. Các sự kiện này mang đến cơ hội cho người tham gia nhận được những phần thưởng hấp dẫn và khám phá thêm nhiều tính năng mới của nền tảng. Đặc biệt, những chương trình khuyến mãi của AE789 không chỉ dành cho người tham gia mới mà còn áp dụng cho người chơi lâu dài, giúp duy trì sự hào hứng và thúc đẩy người chơi quay lại với nền tảng này. Các sự kiện này không chỉ tạo ra những cơ hội mới mẻ mà còn giúp người tham gia kết nối và giao lưu với cộng đồng giải trí sôi động trên AE789.

Bảo mật là yếu tố quan trọng được AE789 đặt lên hàng đầu. Nền tảng này sử dụng các công nghệ bảo mật tiên tiến nhất để bảo vệ thông tin cá nhân và giao dịch của người tham gia. Mọi dữ liệu đều được mã hóa và lưu trữ an toàn, giúp người tham gia hoàn toàn yên tâm khi sử dụng dịch vụ. AE789 cam kết cung cấp một môi trường bảo mật tuyệt đối, giúp người dùng không phải lo lắng về các rủi ro về thông tin cá nhân. Điều này tạo ra niềm tin vững chắc cho người tham gia, từ đó tăng cường sự trung thành và mức độ hài lòng với nền tảng.

Cuối cùng, AE789 cũng nổi bật với dịch vụ chăm sóc khách hàng tận tâm và chuyên nghiệp. Đội ngũ hỗ trợ khách hàng của nền tảng luôn sẵn sàng giải đáp mọi thắc mắc và hỗ trợ người tham gia trong suốt quá trình sử dụng dịch vụ. Với sự nhiệt tình và chuyên nghiệp, đội ngũ chăm sóc khách hàng của AE789 giúp người tham gia giải quyết nhanh chóng các vấn đề phát sinh, từ đó nâng cao trải nghiệm sử dụng nền tảng. Sự hỗ trợ chu đáo này cũng là một trong những yếu tố quan trọng giúp AE789 trở thành một nền tảng giải trí trực tuyến được yêu thích và tin tưởng.

Với tất cả những yếu tố trên, AE789 xứng đáng là lựa chọn hàng đầu cho những ai tìm kiếm một không gian giải trí trực tuyến chất lượng và an toàn. Với sự đa dạng trong các trò chơi, chương trình khuyến mãi hấp dẫn, bảo mật tuyệt đối và dịch vụ hỗ trợ khách hàng tận tâm, AE789 cam kết mang đến cho người tham gia một trải nghiệm giải trí trọn vẹn và tuyệt vời.

@ b9af65f8:443fbde5

88Club là một nền tảng giải trí trực tuyến đang ngày càng thu hút sự chú ý của người dùng nhờ vào những dịch vụ đa dạng, chất lượng cao và tính bảo mật tuyệt đối. Với giao diện thân thiện, dễ sử dụng và các trò chơi phong phú, 88Club mang đến một không gian giải trí lý tưởng cho tất cả mọi người. Nền tảng này cam kết mang lại trải nghiệm tuyệt vời, từ các trò chơi giải trí đơn giản đến những trò chơi đòi hỏi kỹ năng cao, luôn đáp ứng nhu cầu đa dạng của người tham gia.

Điều làm nên sự khác biệt của 88Club chính là sự đa dạng trong các trò chơi và dịch vụ mà nó cung cấp. Người tham gia có thể dễ dàng tìm thấy một loạt các trò chơi hấp dẫn, từ những trò chơi giải trí nhẹ nhàng đến những trò chơi yêu cầu sự tính toán và chiến lược. Các trò chơi trên 88Club đều được thiết kế với đồ họa đẹp mắt, âm thanh sống động và gameplay mượt mà, mang đến cho người chơi những trải nghiệm chân thực và đầy hấp dẫn. Đặc biệt, 88Club không ngừng cập nhật các trò chơi mới, tạo ra một không gian giải trí không bao giờ bị nhàm chán.

Bên cạnh các trò chơi thú vị, 88club còn tổ chức các sự kiện và chương trình khuyến mãi hấp dẫn, mang đến cho người tham gia cơ hội nhận được những phần thưởng giá trị. Những sự kiện này không chỉ tạo cơ hội để người tham gia thể hiện tài năng mà còn giúp họ giao lưu và kết nối với cộng đồng. Với những chương trình khuyến mãi đặc biệt, người tham gia sẽ có cơ hội trải nghiệm những trò chơi mới mẻ và nhận những phần thưởng hấp dẫn, tạo nên một môi trường giải trí sôi động và phong phú.

Bảo mật là yếu tố mà 88Club đặc biệt chú trọng. Nền tảng này sử dụng các công nghệ bảo mật tiên tiến để bảo vệ thông tin cá nhân và các giao dịch của người tham gia. Mọi thông tin người dùng được mã hóa và bảo vệ an toàn tuyệt đối. Với hệ thống bảo mật mạnh mẽ, người tham gia có thể yên tâm khi tham gia vào các trò chơi và sự kiện mà không lo ngại về các vấn đề bảo mật. Điều này giúp 88Club xây dựng được lòng tin vững chắc trong cộng đồng người tham gia.

Một yếu tố quan trọng khác giúp 88Club trở thành lựa chọn hàng đầu chính là dịch vụ hỗ trợ khách hàng tận tình và chuyên nghiệp. Nền tảng này có đội ngũ hỗ trợ khách hàng luôn sẵn sàng giải đáp mọi thắc mắc và hỗ trợ người tham gia trong quá trình sử dụng dịch vụ. Với thái độ thân thiện, nhiệt tình và chuyên môn cao, đội ngũ hỗ trợ khách hàng của 88Club cam kết mang lại dịch vụ hỗ trợ tốt nhất, giúp người tham gia có thể tận hưởng những trải nghiệm giải trí tuyệt vời nhất mà không gặp phải bất kỳ rào cản nào.

Với tất cả những yếu tố trên, 88Club xứng đáng là một trong những nền tảng giải trí trực tuyến hàng đầu hiện nay. Không chỉ cung cấp các trò chơi hấp dẫn và đa dạng, 88Club còn tạo ra một không gian giải trí an toàn và bảo mật cho người tham gia. Với sự phát triển không ngừng và cam kết mang lại trải nghiệm giải trí chất lượng, 88Club chắc chắn sẽ tiếp tục là lựa chọn lý tưởng cho những ai yêu thích không gian giải trí trực tuyến đầy thú vị và sáng tạo.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na ecd.rs

29.04.2020. / Autor: Aleksandar Matanović

---

U poslednjih par meseci smo naučili da mnoge stvari koje deluju sigurno i nepromenljivo zapravo ne moraju da budu takve. Ove godine nećemo gledati tenis na Vimbldonu, a olimpijske igre su odložene za sledeću godinu. Ipak, i u ovim ludim vremenima postoje stvari za koje možemo biti sigurni da će se dogoditi tačno kada su bile i planirane. Jedna od njih je prepolovljavanje nagrade za rudare bitkoina, poznatije kao „bitcoin halving“ u ovom slučaju u doba korone.

Za one kojima je ova tematika nova, samo par rečenica o halving-u. „Rudari“ su ljudi koji svoj hardver koriste za održavanje bitkoin mreže. Za svaki novi blok transakcija koji se doda u blokčejn, neko od rudara dobije 12.5 BTC, a to se deševa otprilike na svakih 10 minuta. Nakon prepolovljavanja nagrade, rudari će dobijati 6.25 BTC po bloku.

„Bitcoin halving“ je planiran za 11.05., možda bude dan-dva pre ili kasnije, ali neće odstupiti više od toga. To je inače nešto što je predviđeno da se dešava na svake 4 godine, ali se zbog skoro neprekidnog rasta procesorske snage rudara do sada dešavalo u intervalima koji su nešto kraći od 4 godine (prethodno prepolovljavanje nagrade se desilo u julu 2016.).

Pre 4 godine sam pisao na ovu temu kada sam od strane Cointelegraph-a bio zamoljen da prognoziram uticaj halvinga na cenu. Par meseci kasnije sam napisao i članak u kojem sam objasnio kako sam uspeo da pogodim kretanje cene.

Da nema korone, moja prognoza se u principu ne bi razlikovala od prognoze koju sam dao pre 4 godine. Sa koronom, pokazalo se da je teško bilo šta prognozirati. Često sam govorio da bi bitkoin eksplodirao (u pozitivnom smislu) da je postojao 2008. godine tokom ekonomske krize. I dalje to mislim. Međutim, kriza sa kojom se sad suočavamo nije ista kao ona od pre 12 godina. Tada smo imali krah finansijskog sistema koji je ozbiljno uzdrmao čak i najveće svetske banke, samim tim i poverenje u bankarski sistem. Alternativa u vidu kriptovaluta bi u tim okolnostima mnogima bila vrlo zanimljiva. Ipak, sada nemamo krizu finansijskog sistema, barem ne još uvek. Iako mnogi prognoziraju da nas čeka kriza koja će biti ozbiljnija od one iz 2008. godine, mislim da malo ko razmišlja o dugoročnim posledicama u ovom trenutku i o tome koje investicije će dugoročno biti najisplativije.

Dugoročno planiranje je u ovim okolnostima luksuz koji retko ko može sebi da priušti. U situciji kad su ljudi zabrinuti za svoj život i život svojih bližnjih, kad su ostali bez posla ili se plaše da mogu ostati (ili se plaše da li će im biznis preživeti, ako su vlasnici biznisa), verovatno da retko ko razmišlja o tome da li je pametnije investirati u zlato ili digitalno zlato (kako mnogi nazivaju bitkoin) i šta će za 5 ili 10 godina doneti veći profit.

Zbog činjenice da je ceo svet zaokupljen virusom, mislim da će prepolovljavanje nagrade za rudare proći relativno neopaženo, pogotovo u mejnstrim medijima. Od početka krize, cena kriptovaluta se kretala slično kao i indeksi na svetskim berzama, što je čudno, barem gledajući istoriju… mada, u svojoj relativno kratkoj istoriji bitkoin se još nije susreo sa koronom, niti bilo čime sličnim. Kratkoročno, mislim da će na cenu bitkoina mnogo više uticati talasi osećaja panike i optimizma koji će se na globalnom nivou smenjivati kao posledica daljih dešavanja vezano za koronu, nego prepolovljavanje nagrade za rudare ili bilo šta drugo što se dešava unutar same kripto industrije. Zbog toga, ne bih se usudio da dam bilo kakvu procenu kad je u pitanju kratkoročno kretanje cene bitkoina.

Dugoročno gledano, ja sam već oko 8 godina optimista (uz par kratkotrajnih kriza) kad je bitkoin u pitanju i to korona neće promeniti. Kao što sve pandemije prolaze, proći će i korona, pa će svet morati da se suoči sa dugoročnim posledicama svojih kratkoročnih odluka koje su donete i koje će biti donete tokom narednih meseci. Ovde ni na koji način ne želim da te odluke dovodim u pitanje, jer u ovakvim situacijama ne postoje dobra rešenja, samo manje ili više loša. I samo vreme može da pokaže koja su bila kakva. Ipak, koliko god neke odluke bile opravdane ili iznuđene, one će imati posledice.

Ekonomija je stala i mnoge države su već najavile ozbiljno doštampavanje novca kako bi ponovo pokrenule privredu. Imajući u vidu da su i pre tog doštampavanja, države mahom bile ozbiljno zadužene, postavlja se pitanje koliko dodatnog zaduživanja može da se podnese. Ovo će biti ozbiljan izazov čak i za najjače svetske ekomije, a posebno za one slabije. Iznenadilo bi me da ova kriza ne prouzrokuje ozbiljne nivoe inflacije i devalvacije valuta, pa čak i potpuni bankrot u nekim od zemalja u razvoju. Nikako ne isključujem mogućnost da se tako nešto desi i u nekoj od razvijenih zemalja. Valuta koja se ne može nekontrolisano doštampavati i time obezvređivati može biti vrlo simpatična alternativa u tim okolnostima.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Časopis studenata Ekonomskog fakulteta - "Monopolist", oktobar 2013. / Autor: Nikola Nikitović

Da li ćemo, uz pomoć interneta, uspeti da zaobiđemo banke u procesu novčanih transakcija i tako učinimo sebe bogatijim?

Slobodno tržište tera svakog učesnika da popravi performanse svog proizvoda ili usluge, smanji troškove, eliminiše nepotrebne aktivnosti i sve to u cilju profi ta. Zato ne čudi što zbog pojave savremenih tehnologija mnoga zanimanja nestaju. Tako danas skoro da više i nemamo daktilografe, limare, časovničare i slično. Međutim, delatnost koja je izložena konkurenciji, ali vekovima opstaje i tradicionalno pravi velike profi te je bankarstvo. Iste godine kad je svet zahvatila svetska ekonomska kriza, te čuvene 2008, osoba ili grupa ljudi pod pseudonimom „Satoši Nakamoto” izbacuje „bitkoin protokol”. Idejni tvorac bitkoina izabrao je da ostane anoniman, što je otvorilo prostor za istražitelje koji su pokušali da otkriju identitet Satoši Nakamota. Izneti su i dokazi koji povezuju troje ljudi sa identitetom Nakamota, ali ništa više od onoga što obični demanti ne mogu osporiti.

ŠTA JE, U STVARI, „BITKOIN”?

Jedna od ideja tvoraca bitkoina je da se dizajnira nova ekonomija u kojoj digitalni domen ima primarnu ulogu. Bitkoin je prva decentralizovana digitalna valuta. Za razliku od evra, dolara, dinara ili bilo koje druge valute, bitkoinom ne upravlja nijedna institucija - ni centralna banka, ni vlada, niti bilo ko drugi. To su digitalni novčići koji se mogu slati putem interneta. Šaljemo ih neposredno, dakle, bez učešća banaka, što znači da su troškovi slanja, ako ne nulti, onda svakako manji nego do sada. Geografski faktori ne predstavljaju ograničenje, pa, na kojoj god lokaciji da se nalazimo, moći ćemo da primamo ili šaljemo ovaj digitalni novac. Takođe, jedna od važnih osobina bitkoina je ta da nam račun ni u jednom trenutku ne može biti zamrznut.

Urednik „Bitkoin magazina” kaže da je bitkoin upravo ono što bi novac trebalo da bude. Ove transakcije ne liče na klasične novčane transakcije. Kako njima ne upravlja centralna banka, infl acija nije moguća, što u slučaju Srbije, zemlje s tradicionalno visokom infl acijom i drugom najvećom hiperinfl acijom, dosta znači. Bitkoini se generišu u procesu zvanom „mining”. Kompjuter nam zadaje kompleksan matematički problem, a cilj je šezdesetčetvorocifreni broj. Ukoliko kompjuter uspešno reši ovaj algoritam, postajemo vlasnici pedeset bitkoina. Mreža je programirana tako da povećava ponudu novca prema predodređenom rasporedu sve dok ukupan broj bitkoina ne dostigne 21 milion. Trenutno se u proseku izbacuje oko dvadeset pet novčića na svakih deset minuta. Ovaj broj biće prepolovljen do 2017, i tako svake četiri godine dok ne dostigne limit. Novembra 2012. kreirana je polovina ukupne ponude bitkoina od 21 milion, a oko 2140. bi trebalo i cela ponuda.

Vrednost bitkoina u odnosu na dolar rapidno se uvećava - od svega trideset centi januara 2011. do 125 dolara marta 2013. Iz tog razloga ljudi koriste bitkoin radije kao investiciju, nego kao sredstvo plaćanja.

Mt.Gox je najveća svetska bitkoin berza (eng. exchange) gde ljudi mogu da trguju bitkoinima bilo s kim u svetu, mogu da ih kupuju lokalnom valutom, a mogu čak i da ih skladište. Ipak, ni ovo nije bez rizika: hakeri mogu da upadnu u sistem i da ga ozbiljno ugroze. Bitkoin je, takođe, poznat po tome što je moguće, uz određeni softver, kupovati nelegalne proizvode poput droge, što skeptici vide kao negativnu stranu ove valute. Ali, ako znamo da nož može da ubije čoveka, ali i da iseče hleb, da li to onda znači da treba da zabranimo proizvodnju noževa?

Najveći interes za novu digitalnu valutu pokazuju zemlje koje nemaju tako jak bankarski sektor kao Kina, Rusija, zemlje Latinske Amerike i Afrika. Postoje dva aspekta bitkoina koja izazivaju sumnju u naše razumevanje novca: on je istovremeno i valuta i način plaćanja (nešto kao „pejpal” sa svojom valutom). Svakako da se vladama i ostalim regulatornim telima ovaj koncept ne sviđa. Oni vole kad akademci razmišljaju o monetarnoj politici, pišu radove i predaju svoje ideje nadležnima, koji ih prihvate ili odbace. Satoši Nakamoto, tvorac bitkoina, nije tako razmišljao: on je napravio valutu i pustio je u upotrebu, pa ko hoće, može da je koristi. Ovo je prvi put u istoriji da jedan čovek može da šalje i prima novac bez učešća ijedne druge osobe, bilo gde na planeti. Nije bitno da li ima bankovni račun, nije bitno da li ima kreditne kartice, ako ima kompjuter i pristup internetu, može da šalje novac odakle god želi i niko ga ne može sprečiti u tome. Neki idu i toliko daleko da kažu da je ovo i najveći izum posle interneta. Ako je tako, to znači da će tražnja rasti, a kako je ponuda predvidiva i ograničena, znači da će i cena da raste. Ako je zaista tako, hajdemo onda svi po bitkoine.

@ 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

@ 68ce44e4:ecd5f574

Another Depin project... In early stage.. Backed by Solana and Hostinger.. ✅🔥

https://app.mygate.network/login?code=BMT47j

Join now in early stage n earn good rewards.. 🔥💯

mygate #cryptoairdrops #cryptocurrency #bitcoin #earnfreecrypto

@ 68ce44e4:ecd5f574

Best and Easiest Crypto airdrop ever.. Connect Twitter and Login once in every 24hrs .. ✅

https://sayecho.xyz/?r=MakarandJamdade

sayecho #CryptoAirdrop #Cryptocurrency #cryptonews #bitcoin #EarnFreeCrypto

@ 6bae33c8:607272e8

It was a so-so year for me. I won one Beat Chris Liss league, didn’t cash in the other two or the Primetime. I got bounced in the first round of the Steak League playoffs and finished as a self buyer. I didn’t make the Dynasty League playoffs (even though I had the fourth most points and would have won the league based on my scores in the playoffs), and I didn’t do anything in Survivor or Circa Millions. It certainly could have been better.

Had I known in August what I know now, here’s what I would have done:

1.12 Saquon Barkley — This is chalk here, but I love older running backs this year, and Saquon should go off on the Eagles. No, I’m not worried that Jalen Hurts might score 14 rushing TDs in 15 games.

2.1 Jahmyr Gibbs — Also chalk, but I want to build a RB-heavy foundation with all these zero-RB midwits. You love your Tyreek Hill-Jaylen Waddle build? Sidebet?

3.1 Derrick Henry — Whew, glad he fell to me. I love starting out with three straight RBs, so nutless monkeys can criticize my poor draft structure!

4.12 Josh Allen — I like to get a stud QB early, you guys can wait on Kirk Cousins and Caleb Williams if you want.

5.1 Lamar Jackson — I know it’s early to double up, but I don’t want anyone snagging this value from me. Always punish the room even if it costs you! Sidebets anyone?

6.12 Brian Thomas — Receiver is definitely a position you can piece together if you know what you’re doing, and with Thomas I have an every week starter no matter how bad the quarterback play in Jacksonville.

7.1 Courtland Sutton — I want to buy into the Sean Payton Denver passing game. Russell Wilson, not Payton, was the problem, and Bo Nix is a stud.

8.12 Jordan Addison — I expect Sam Darnold to unlock Addison this year.

9.1 Brock Bowers — He’s no Kyle Pitts (who you took in Round 6), that’s for sure.

10.12 Rashid Shaheed — He’s liable to get hurt, but I need some early-season WR production from someone, and he’s better than Chris Olave.

11.1 Bucky Irving — I’m too thin at RB, needed some depth.

12.12 Jalen McMillan — In case I need some WR depth for the stretch run.

13.1 Adam Thielen — If a white receiver is still in the league at 34, he must be doing something right!

14.12 Cowboys Kicker — Always be the first to take the obvious stud kicker.

15.1 Broncos Defense — beasts.

16.12 Vikings Defense — beasts.

17.1 Steelers Kicker — Always draft a second stud kicker to back up your first one.

18.12 Zach Ertz — Need some TE depth, and Ertz could be useful in my Week 17 title game.

19.1 Jonnu Smith — You can never have too much TE depth. Controversial take: Smith will outproduce Waddle and Hill this year.

20.12 Sam Darnold — Who knows? He could be useful in the playoffs.

This obviously isn’t the ideal team, but it would win every league and generate plenty of action in side bets too.

And here’s some September 3-5 ADP to show this build was possible:

@ d830ee7b:4e61cd62

จุดเริ่มต้นของสงครามบล็อกไซส์

ลองนึกภาพร้านอาหารเล็ก ๆ ที่มีแค่สิบโต๊ะ แต่ลูกค้ากลับล้นหลามจนพนักงานวิ่งวุ่นตลอดวัน เราอาจเห็นภาพชัดว่าปัญหาต้องตามมาแน่ ๆ ถ้าจำนวนโต๊ะไม่พอกับลูกค้าที่ต่อแถวกันยาวเหยียด

บางคนหัวเสียจนยอมจ่ายเงินเพิ่มเพื่อรีบได้โต๊ะนั่ง ในขณะที่อีกหลายคนก็ยืนรอจนหมดอารมณ์กิน สุดท้ายก็ต้องถามกันว่า

“จะทำยังไงดี ถึงจะไม่เสียเอกลักษณ์ร้าน และไม่ปล่อยให้ลูกค้าต้องหงุดหงิดมากมายขนาดนี้?”

บรรยากาศตรงนี้เปรียบได้กับสภาพของบิตคอยน์ช่วงราวปี 2015 ซึ่งเดิมทีเคยรองรับธุรกรรมได้สบาย ๆ แต่จู่ ๆ ก็ต้องแบกรับภาระธุรกรรมมหาศาลจน “คิวยาวเป็นหางว่าว”

ทั้งหมดนี้มาจากข้อกำหนดตั้งต้นว่า แต่ละบล็อกมีขนาดเพียง 1 เมกะไบต์ และบล็อกจะถูกสร้างทุก ๆ ประมาณ 10 นาที ทีนี้พอผู้ใช้หลั่งไหลเข้ามาไม่หยุด พื้นที่เล็ก ๆ ที่ว่าเลยเอาไม่อยู่ ใครอยากให้ธุรกรรมติดบล็อกก่อนก็ควักกระเป๋าจ่ายค่าธรรมเนียมเพิ่ม ถ้าไม่จ่าย ธุรกรรมอาจรอข้ามวันข้ามคืน แถมยังเสี่ยงค้างเติ่งไปเลย

ความไม่พอใจจึงปะทุขึ้นเป็นเสียงดังลั่นว่า

“แก้ปัญหานี้ยังไงดี จะขยายบล็อกกันเลยไหม หรือปรับซอฟต์แวร์ให้ฉลาดขึ้นโดยไม่เพิ่มขนาดจริง ๆ?”

เมื่อสองแนวคิดนี้ตั้งฉากกัน คนในแวดวงบิตคอยน์จึงแตกเป็นสองฝั่งหลัก ๆ

ฝั่งแรกเสนอ “เพิ่ม Blocksize” โดยบอกว่าต้องแก้ให้จบตรงจุด เหมือนเพิ่มโต๊ะเข้าไปในร้าน จะได้รองรับลูกค้าได้มากขึ้น เพราะเชื่อว่า Bitcoin ต้องพร้อมสำหรับการใช้งานทั่วโลก การขยายจาก 1 MB เป็น 2 MB หรือ 4 MB หรือมากกว่านั้น จึงตอบโจทย์ผู้ใช้หลากหลายตั้งแต่รายเล็กไปจนถึงธุรกิจใหญ่

แกนนำฝ่ายนี้คือ Roger Ver หรือ “Bitcoin Jesus” ที่ผลักดันแนวคิดนี้สุดตัวร่วมกับทีมขุดอย่าง Bitmain ซึ่งไม่อยากเห็นใครต้องยืนรอนานหรือจ่ายแพงเวอร์

อีกฝ่ายคือทีมพัฒนา “Bitcoin Core” ที่มี Greg Maxwell และ Peter Wuille เป็นหัวขบวน พวกเขายืนยันว่าถ้ายิ่งเพิ่มขนาดบล็อกให้ใหญ่โต ก็จะยิ่งเก็บข้อมูลมากจนโหนดรายเล็ก ๆ ต้องใช้ทรัพยากรสูงขึ้น สุดท้ายอาจเหลือแค่รายใหญ่ที่รันโหนดไหว แล้ว Decentralization ก็จะถูกบั่นทอน

ฝ่ายบิตคอยน์คอร์จึงเสนอทางแก้แบบ Segregated Witness (SegWit) ซึ่งเปรียบได้กับการจัดโต๊ะใหม่ให้แยบยล—ย้ายข้อมูลลายเซ็นธุรกรรมไปไว้นอกบล็อกหลัก ทำให้ในบล็อกมีพื้นที่ใส่ธุรกรรมได้อีกเยอะขึ้นโดยไม่ต้องทุบผนังขยายร้าน

ความขัดแย้งไม่ได้จำกัดอยู่ในเว็บบอร์ดหรือฟอรัม แต่ลุกลามไปจนถึงเวทีระดับโลกอย่าง Consensus Conference ปี 2016 และ 2017 ฝ่ายหนุนเพิ่มขนาดบล็อกก็โหวกเหวกว่า “นี่แหละถูกจุดที่สุด”

ส่วนทีมบิตคอยน์คอร์ก็โต้กลับว่า “ขืนบล็อกใหญ่ไป ระบบก็เสี่ยงรวมศูนย์ เพราะใครจะมีทุนซื้ออุปกรณ์แพง ๆ และเน็ตแรง ๆ ตลอด” จึงไม่ใช่แค่ถกเถียงทางเทคนิค แต่สะท้อนมุมมองปรัชญาด้วยว่าบิตคอยน์ควรเป็นระบบ “กระจาย” หรือ “รวมศูนย์” กันแน่

ยิ่งถกก็ยิ่งมองไม่เห็นทางออก.. บ้างก็เสนอให้ Fork แยกเครือข่ายไปเลย เหมือนเปิดสาขาร้านใหม่ ใครไม่โอเคแนวไหนก็ไปอีกสาขาหนึ่ง

Roger Ver กับสายขุดยักษ์ใหญ่ก็บอกว่าถ้าไม่เพิ่ม Blocksize ต่อไปค่าธรรมเนียมสูง และคนจะเข้าถึงยากขึ้น เหมือนร้านที่โต๊ะแน่นจนคนล้น

ฝั่งบิตคอยน์คอร์ย้ำว่าจะพัฒนา SegWit กับ Lightning Network เพื่อขนธุรกรรมส่วนใหญ่ไปทำงานนอกบล็อกหลัก แม้อาจต้องรอให้เทคโนโลยีสุกงอม แต่คงไม่กระทบโหนดรายเล็กมากนัก

ในโลกออนไลน์ สงครามโซเชียลก็เริ่มเดือด ตั้งกระทู้กันทุกวัน บางคนต่อว่านักขุดว่าเอากำไรเป็นหลัก บ้างบอกทีมบิตคอยน์คอร์ไม่เข้าใจปัญหาฝั่งธุรกิจจนชาวเน็ตแบ่งเป็นหลายค่าย คำถามใหญ่จึงดังขึ้น

“ตกลงบิตคอยน์จะเป็น ‘อาวุธทางการเงิน’ ของคนหมู่มากได้จริงเหรอ ถ้าไม่มีพื้นที่ในบล็อกมากพอ?”

หรือ..

“ถ้าผลุนผลันขยายบล็อกไปเรื่อย ๆ จนเหลือแต่รายใหญ่ที่รันโหนดได้ แบบนั้นยังถือว่าเป็น บิตคอยน์ในอุดมการณ์ของ Satoshi Nakamoto ไหม?”

พอหลายฝ่ายพยายามประนีประนอมกันหลายเวที สุดท้ายก็ไม่ประสบผล Roger Ver มั่นใจว่าต้องเพิ่ม Blocksize เท่านั้นจึงพาบิตคอยน์รอด

ส่วนทีม Core ไม่ยอมเปิดทางง่าย ๆ เพราะกลัวระบบเสียหลักการกระจายอำนาจไป

ด้วยเหตุผลทั้งคู่จึงทำให้สงครามนี้ยืดเยื้อ กลุ่มขุดและพัฒนาในแวดวงเริ่มจับตากันเครียด บ้างเสนอทางผสม เช่น เพิ่ม Blocksize นิดหน่อย แล้วเปิด SegWit ควบคู่ บ้างเสนอว่าให้เลื่อนตัดสินใจออกไปก่อนก็ยังดี

ไม่มีใครรู้ว่าจะลงเอยอย่างไร.. และหากเรื่องนี้พลั้งพลาดบิตคอยน์อาจแตกเป็นสองสายจนผู้ใช้หรือนักลงทุนสับสน

สถานการณ์ช่วงแรกเหมือน “ไฟที่กำลังคุ” เพราะยังไม่ปะทุเต็มที่แต่ก็แรงพอจะยกครัวไปตลอดทั้งวงการ คนพัฒนาก็ทำ SegWit และ Lightning Network ไป ฝ่ายหนุน Blocksize ก็เดินสายผลักดันให้เต็มที่ ถึงขั้นยอมเสี่ยง Fork ถ้าจำเป็นจริง ๆ

นี่แหละคือจุดเริ่มต้นของความตึงเครียดที่ไม่ใช่แค่ “ขนาดบล็อก” แต่หมายถึงอนาคตของบิตคอยน์ที่อาจพลิกโฉมไปตลอดกาล..

คิดง่าย ๆ ก็เหมือนร้านอาหารเล็ก ๆ ที่กำลังจะก้าวสู่ภัตตาคารใหญ่ระดับท็อป เมื่อแขกเหรื่อมาไม่หยุดหย่อน แน่นอนว่าเสียงเรียกร้องให้ทุบกำแพงขยายร้านย่อมมีบ้าง แต่บางคนอาจบอก “เปลี่ยนวิธีจัดโต๊ะแทนได้ไหม?” ทุกแนวทางต่างมีทั้งโอกาสและความเสี่ยง

ที่สำคัญคือ บิตคอยน์เป็นสินทรัพย์อันดับหนึ่งของโลกคริปโตฯ หากก้าวพลาดเพียงเล็กน้อย อาจสะเทือนไปทั่วโลกด้วย

เนื้อหาถัดไปผมจะชวนมาดูว่า ใครกันแน่ที่อยู่เบื้องหลังการขับเคลื่อนสงคราม Blocksize ครั้งนี้?

พวกเขามีแรงจูงใจอะไรกันบ้าง? และจะนำพาบิตคอยน์ไปในทิศทางใด?

ขอทิ้งท้ายส่วนนี้ให้คิดเล่น ๆ

“ถ้าเพิ่ม Blocksize สุด ๆ แต่โหนดรายเล็กหายหมด สุดท้ายยังเรียกว่ากระจายอำนาจอยู่ไหม?”

“หรือจะรักษาบล็อกขนาดเล็กไว้อย่างเดิม แล้วปรับเทคโนโลยีเสริมให้ฉลาดขึ้นดีกว่า?”

ทั้งหมดที่เล่ามายังเป็นแค่บทโหมโรงนะครับ สงครามนี้เพิ่งปะทุเท่านั้น ยังมีอะไรเข้มข้นอีกมาก ติดตามต่อว่าฝั่งไหนจะงัดไม้เด็ดอะไรออกมาเพื่อรักษา “ร้านอาหาร” แห่งนี้ให้เดินหน้าต่อไปได้โดยไม่เสียตัวตน..

ใครคือผู้ขับเคลื่อนสงคราม Blocksize?

พาร์ทที่แล้ว เราได้เห็นภาพรวมของปัญหาที่ดูเหมือนจะเล็กนิดเดียวอย่าง “บล็อกใหญ่หรือเล็ก?” แต่กลับแผ่ขยายจนกลายเป็นมหากาพย์ความขัดแย้งในชุมชนบิตคอยน์ เสมือนเดิมพันอนาคตของสกุลเงินดิจิทัลอันดับหนึ่งบนโลกใบนี้

พอตอนนี้ถึงเวลาแล้วที่เราจะก้าวลึกลงไปในเบื้องหลังของสงครามอันร้อนแรงนี้ ใครอยู่ในเงามืด? ใครลากสายอยู่หลังเวที? และใครโดดขึ้นมาเดินลุยบนสนามเปิดเพื่อต่อสู้แย่งชิงฉันทามติของเครือข่าย?

มีคนชอบเปรียบเทียบว่าศึก Blocksize ครั้งนี้คือ “สนามรบดิจิทัล” ซึ่งไม่ได้ยิงกระสุนห้ำหั่นแต่ใช้โค้ดแทน ขับเคลื่อนด้วย “Hashrate” ที่เปรียบเสมือนอาวุธหนัก ฝ่ายไหนถือกำลังขุดสูงกว่าก็เหมือนมีกองทัพเบิ้ม ๆ อยู่ในมือ

ด้านนักพัฒนาและผู้ใช้ทั่วไปก็คล้ายประชากรพลเรือนที่บางทีก็ต้องยอมรับชะตา แต่บางทีก็รวมตัวประท้วงสร้างพลังของตัวเองให้โลกได้เห็น ทุกฝีก้าวมีคนจ้องดูว่าจะเกิด “Hard Fork” หรือ “Soft Fork” เมื่อไหร่ และกฎใดจะถูกประกาศเป็น “กฎใหม่” ให้ทุกคนต้องปฏิบัติตาม

ในมุมของคนอยาก “เพิ่ม Blocksize” เห็นชื่อของ Roger Ver โผล่โดดเด่นสุด ๆ เขาคือ “Bitcoin Jesus” แห่งยุคบุกเบิก ที่ครั้งหนึ่งทุ่มทุนโปรโมตบิตคอยน์แบบไม่กลัวเจ๊ง ด้วยความเชื่อว่าบิตคอยน์ควรเป็น “เงินสดดิจิทัล” ลื่นไหลจ่ายคล่อง สลัดค่าธรรมเนียมแพง ๆ ทิ้งไปให้หมด

ในสายตาเขา การคงบล็อกเล็กแค่ 1 MB ยิ่งทำให้คนใช้แล้วปวดหัว ค่าธรรมเนียมสูงปรี๊ด ธุรกรรมอืดอาดเกินจะทน เลยต้องขยายขนาดบล็อกแบบจัดเต็ม เหมือนขยายถนนให้รถวิ่งง่าย ไม่งั้นก็ต้องมุดเข้าอุโมงค์แคบ ๆ จอดติดกันยาว

และ “Bitmain” บริษัทเครื่องขุดเบอร์ใหญ่สุดในโลกก็เข้ามาเสริมพลังแบบเต็มขั้น ขับเคลื่อนโดย Jihan Wu ที่เล็งเห็นว่าพอยิ่งขยายบล็อก ธุรกรรมก็จะยิ่งทะลัก ค่าธรรมเนียมก็จะเพิ่มขึ้น นักขุดจะได้เงินดี สร้างแรงดึงดูดให้คนหันมาหาบิตคอยน์มากขึ้นไปอีก

Bitmain ถือ Hashrate มหาศาล จึงไม่ต่างจากมีทัพใหญ่พร้อมยกพลบุก เพื่อดันแนวคิด “Fork” ได้ตลอดเวลา ถ้าฝั่งเพิ่ม Blocksize อยากจะเล่นเกมสายไหนก็เดินได้เลย

อีกฟากสนาม คือทีม “Bitcoin Core” ถือเป็นแกนกลางที่คุมซอฟต์แวร์หลัก

นำโดย *Greg Maxwell, Peter Wuille และ Wladimir van der Laan***

พวกเขาห่วงว่าถ้าบล็อกใหญ่ขึ้นมาก คงจะมีแค่นายทุนใหญ่เท่านั้นที่รันโหนดไหว ประชาชนตัวเล็ก ๆ หรือคนไม่มีทรัพยากรเยอะก็ยิ่งถูกกันออกจากเครือข่าย กลายเป็นระบบกึ่งรวมศูนย์ ซึ่งสวนกับหลักการเดิมที่ Satoshi Nakamoto เคยวางไว้

พวกเขาจึงเสนอ Segregated Witness (SegWit) เพื่อตัดข้อมูลลายเซ็น (Witness Data) ทิ้งไปนอกบล็อก ทำให้มีพื้นที่รองรับธุรกรรมได้เยอะขึ้นแบบไม่ต้องขยาย “เลนหลัก” และจะต่อยอดด้วย Lightning Network เพื่อยกธุรกรรมส่วนใหญ่ไปอยู่นอกบล็อกอีกชั้น

ฝั่งนักพัฒนาเหล่านี้ไม่ได้สู้อย่างโดดเดี่ยว แต่มีผู้ใช้รวมพลังกันในนาม UASF (User-Activated Soft Fork) มองว่า

“ใครว่าขุดเยอะแล้วสั่งการได้หมด? ผู้ใช้ทั่ว ๆ ไปก็ออกแบบกติกาได้เหมือนกัน?”

พวกเขาบอกเลยว่า “ถ้าไม่หนุน SegWit พวกฉันไม่เอาด้วยนะ”

การเคลื่อนไหวแบบนี้สร้างแรงกดดันให้นักขุดต้องรีบตามน้ำ ไม่งั้นเสี่ยงโดนผู้ใช้ปฏิเสธบล็อกกันถ้วนหน้า

ปี 2016-2017 กลายเป็นช่วงร้อนระอุสุด ๆ Roger Ver ลุกขึ้นพูดเมื่อไหร่ มักกล่าวหาทีม Core ว่าปิดประตูโอกาสทองของบิตคอยน์

ส่วนทีม Core ก็ตีโต้กลับว่า “ถ้าเพิ่มบล็อกเร็วไป มีแต่จะทำให้บิ๊กทุนไม่กี่เจ้าเข้ามาผูกขาด!”

พอยิ่งเถียงกันในงานใหญ่ เช่น Consensus Conference 2017 ประเด็นก็ยิ่งเดือด บางฝ่ายอยาก “Fork” แตกสายไปเลย บางฝ่ายยังคอยประนีประนอม แต่ก็ไม่มีใครลงรอยกันได้

Roger Ver และ Bitmain เร่งเครื่องดัน Hard Fork

ทีม Core ไม่ยอมถอย ยืนกราน SegWit ก่อน แล้วใช้ Lightning Network ปิดเกม

ผลคือ...

ทุกคนเริ่มกลัวว่า “Bitcoin จะแตกเป็นสองสายจริง ๆ หรือ?”

จะเป็นบล็อกใหญ่ หรือจะอยู่ 1 MB พร้อม SegWit?

กลางปี 2017 สงครามนี้จึงคลอด “Bitcoin Cash” เครือข่ายใหม่ที่กลุ่ม Roger Ver ผลักดัน บอกว่านี่คือ “Bitcoin ตัวจริง” ที่ค่าธรรมเนียมถูกกว่า ธุรกรรมไวกว่า รองรับคนจำนวนมากได้

ในขณะเดียวกัน เครือข่ายหลัก BTC ก็เปิดใช้ SegWit ไป พร้อมมุ่งหน้าเปิดทาง Lightning Network ทำให้ครึ่งหนึ่งของชุมชนยังเชื่อมั่นว่าการรักษาบล็อกเล็ก คือหัวใจสำคัญของกระจายอำนาจ

Blocksize War ครั้งนี้ เกินกว่าจะเรียกว่า “ดีเบตเชิงเทคนิค”

มันคล้ายการปะทะอุดมการณ์ของ “กระจายอำนาจอย่างเคร่งครัด” ปะทะ “ขยายบล็อกให้ใช้งานจริงในชีวิตประจำวัน”

ทั้งสองฝ่ายต่างยิงวาทะกันเดือดในโซเชียลมีเดีย คนฝ่ายหนึ่งบอกอีกฝ่าย “ล้าหลังไม่รู้จักปรับตัว” อีกฝ่ายก็ยันกลับว่า “คิดแค่กำไรระยะสั้น ไม่รักษาอัตลักษณ์บิตคอยน์” บน Reddit, Twitter, ฟอรัมต่าง ๆ เหล่าผู้เคยเป็นเพื่อนร่วมทางต้องแยกค่ายกันเพราะมองต่างว่าควรเพิ่มบล็อกหรือเปล่า

ที่สุดแล้ว...

เมื่อสองอุดมการณ์สวนทางกันระดับราก แทบไม่มีพื้นที่ประนีประนอม บ้างเชื่อว่าถ้าไม่เพิ่มบล็อกบิตคอยน์จะใช้งานลำบากเกิน บ้างยึดมั่นว่าถ้าบล็อกใหญ่มากโหนดเล็ก ๆ ก็จะหายไปหมด ระบบจะตกในมือไม่กี่คน.. ซึ่งขัดเจตนารมณ์ตั้งต้นของ Satoshi แบบสุด ๆ

ผลลัพธ์จึงลงเอยด้วยการเกิด “Bitcoin Cash” (BCH) แยกเครือข่าย และเปิดศึกโฆษณาว่า “ตนต่างหากที่เป็นผู้สืบทอดแนวคิด Satoshi ของจริง”

เมื่อ Bitcoin Cash ถือกำเนิดพร้อมขนาดบล็อกใหญ่ “มหาศึก” ครั้งนี้ก็ไม่ได้จบลง แต่เปลี่ยนหน้าฉากไปสู่การตลาดและความชอบธรรม

ใคร ๆ ก็ตั้งคำถามว่า “Bitcoin Cash ต่างจาก Bitcoin ยังไง?” หรือ “ใครสืบทอดเจตนารมณ์ Satoshi อย่างแท้จริงกันแน่?”

นักพัฒนา ฝั่ง BTC ยังเหนียวแน่นว่ารักษาเครือข่ายให้เบา ๆ แล้วใช้ทริคอย่าง SegWit, Lightning Network เสริม คือทางออกป้องกันการรวมศูนย์

ฝ่าย BCH ก็บอกว่าบล็อกใหญ่เลยดีกว่า ทุกคนจะได้เทรดกันเพลินโดยไม่ต้องแย่งพื้นที่

ในภาพใหญ่.. สงครามครั้งนี้ส่งคลื่นกระเพื่อมไปทั่วโลกคริปโตฯ หลายคนกลัวว่าถ้ายังแยกแตกกันแบบนี้ต่อ ราคาจะผันผวนจนคนขยาด แต่ก็มีอีกฝ่ายที่มองว่า

“ดีสิ มีการแข่งขันแล้วเกิดนวัตกรรมใหม่ ๆ”

เพราะในโลกโอเพนซอร์ส ไม่มีใครหยุดการแยกตัวได้ถ้าคนบางกลุ่มอยากลองแนวทางใหม่

คำถามสำคัญคือ..

“ใครขับเคลื่อนสงคราม Blocksize?”

คำตอบก็หนีไม่พ้น Roger Ver, Bitmain และทีม Bitcoin Core รวมถึงกลุ่ม UASF

พวกเขาต่างมีพลังในมิติต่าง ๆ

Roger Ver มีแรงสนับสนุนจากนักขุดสายทุนจัด Bitmain มีกองทัพ Hashrate มหาศาล ทีม Bitcoin Core คุมซอฟต์แวร์ และ UASF ก็มีอำนาจ ‘No Node, No Vote’ ที่ปัดบล็อกไม่พอใจทิ้งได้หมด

นี่ไม่ใช่การรบระหว่าง “อำนาจกับผู้อ่อนแอ” แต่เป็นสมรภูมิที่ทุกขั้วมี “พลัง” อยู่คนละแบบ ทำให้การประนีประนอมเป็นเพียงอุดมคติ

จนที่สุดจึงแตกเป็นสองสาย เหมือนเป็นสปิริตของโอเพนซอร์สที่แค่ Fork ก็พาเดินไปคนละทิศ ใครอยากกดเครื่องขุดก็ขุด ใครอยากตามซอฟต์แวร์ Core ก็จัดไป

นึกภาพอนาคตสิครับ.. ถ้ามีเทคโนโลยีใหม่เข้ามาอีก จะมีสงคราม “Blocksize 2.0” หรือเปล่า? ถ้าเจอเงื่อนไขใหญ่ ๆ ในการเปลี่ยนระบบ ย่อมต้องเข้าสู่วงจรดีเบตเดือดปุดเหมือนเคย

เพราะบิตคอยน์เป็นระบบไร้ผู้นำสูงสุด ทุกฝ่ายจึงมีสิทธิชูมือคัดค้านหรือสนับสนุนอย่างอิสระ

ฉากในเนื้อหาส่วนนี้คือด้านหน้าฉากของสงคราม Blocksize และเหล่าคนขับเคลื่อนที่ทำให้เกิดการแตกแยกครั้งประวัติศาสตร์ในโลกบิตคอยน์ ส่วนต่อไปเราจะได้เห็นเทคนิคล้ำ ๆ และจุดชนวนสุดเฉพาะหน้าที่ทำให้สองฝ่ายยิ่งปะทะกันอีก

แต่ก่อนจะไปรอนั้น..

ขอสรุปให้คิดกันแบบง่าย ๆ ว่า… ในโลกอันไร้ศูนย์กลางที่ต่างคนต่างตะโกนว่า

“ฉันคือเจ้าของบิตคอยน์!”

สุดท้าย “ใครกันแน่เป็นผู้ตัดสินทิศทาง?” หรือแท้จริง “ชัยชนะ–ความพ่ายแพ้” ก็ไม่มีอยู่จริงในสงครามแบบนี้...

เอาจริง ๆ การตัดสินใจของไม่กี่คน หรือการร่วมตัวของยูสเซอร์กระจัดกระจาย ก็ล้วนมีสิทธิเปลี่ยนอนาคตของเงินดิจิทัลได้ทั้งสิ้น จึงเป็นเสน่ห์และความโกลาหลของ “decentralization” ที่น่าหลงใหล

ไม่มีใครสั่งใครได้เต็มร้อย แต่ก็ไม่มีใครจะหยุดคนอื่นได้หมดเช่นกัน

เมื่อมองย้อนกลับไป.. นี่แหละเป็นบทเรียนสำคัญว่าบิตคอยน์ไม่ได้เป็นของใครคนเดียว และถ้าวันหนึ่งไฟสงครามลุกลามขึ้นอีกรอบ เราทุกคนจะรับมือกันยังไง?

ตอนนี้สงครามอาจดูเงียบ ๆ แต่ก็ไม่ได้ปิดฉากสนิท เพราะคลื่นใต้น้ำยังพร้อมระอุขึ้นได้ตลอด

เวลาเท่านั้นที่จะบอกว่า SegWit จะพิสูจน์ตัวเองได้ไหม หรือฝ่าย Hard Fork จะกลับมาโดดเด่นอีกครั้ง

จึงมีแต่คำถามค้างคาว่า.. อีกหน่อยบิตคอยน์จะยังเป็นบิตคอยน์ในแบบที่เรารู้จัก? หรือจะเปลี่ยนโฉมตามรอยแผลที่สงคราม Blocksize ทิ้งไว้?

คอยติดตามกันต่อไปในบทความตอนที่ 2

เพราะนี่อาจเป็นวัฏจักรที่ยังไม่รู้วันสิ้นสุดจริง ๆ ก็ได้ครับ...

@ 9c35fe6b:5977e45b

Discover Ancient Marvels with Egypt Pyramid Tour Packages Egypt is a land steeped in history and home to some of the most iconic landmarks in the world. With ETB Tours Egypt’s Egypt vacation packages, you can embark on an unforgettable journey through the ages. From the majestic Pyramids of Giza to the enigmatic Sphinx, our Egypt pyramid tour packages are designed to immerse you in the grandeur of ancient civilizations. Whether you’re taking part in Egypt private tours or joining a group, the rich cultural heritage will captivate you at every turn.

Experience the Beauty of the Nile with Luxurious Nile Cruise Holidays A trip to Egypt would be incomplete without a cruise on the legendary Nile River. ETB Tours Egypt offers Nile cruise Luxor Aswan packages that provide a seamless blend of relaxation and exploration. Whether you opt for Nile cruises from Cairo or a shorter Nile cruise holidays, you'll visit the temples of Karnak and Edfu, and marvel at the beauty of the Valley of the Kings. These Egypt classic tours are perfect for those seeking a blend of adventure and comfort.

Family Adventures with Egypt Family Tours For travelers seeking a fun and educational experience for the whole family, ETB Tours Egypt provides tailored Egypt family tours. These itineraries include a mix of cultural and leisure activities, such as exploring the bustling streets of Cairo and enjoying Red Sea tour packages. Families can also enjoy Cairo day tours, Luxor day tours, Aswan day tours, and even a visit to the coastal charm of Alexandria day tours.

Unwind with All-Inclusive Egypt Vacations If you’re looking for a hassle-free getaway, our all-inclusive Egypt vacations are the ideal choice. These packages cover everything from accommodation and meals to guided tours, ensuring you can focus entirely on soaking up the incredible sights. Options like 8 day trips to Cairo, Luxor, Aswan, and Alexandria or 12 days Cairo, Nile Cruise, and Sharm El Sheikh provide diverse experiences across Egypt’s most breathtaking destinations.

Adventure Awaits with Egypt Safari Tours and More For thrill-seekers, ETB Tours Egypt offers Egypt safari tours that take you deep into the desert for a unique glimpse of Egypt’s natural wonders. If you prefer a more laid-back experience, explore 5 days package Cairo and Fayoum or join one of our specialized Egypt women tours tailored for female travelers.

Seaside Serenity with Red Sea and Sharm El Sheikh Packages Experience Egypt’s coastal beauty with Red Sea tour packages or spend time in the vibrant resort city with 9 days in Cairo, Luxor, and Sharm El Sheikh. Dive into crystal-clear waters, explore colorful coral reefs, or simply relax on sandy beaches.

With ETB Tours Egypt carefully curated Egypt travel packages, your dream of exploring Egypt’s wonders will become a reality. Book your Egypt vacation package today and let the adventure begin!

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

@ 953c0602:01aba028

[Ismism] (3-1-1-4) Quasi-Transcendental Dialecticism: Early Derrida

(2021-06-28)

Today, we’re discussing the Ismism (3-1-1-4), represented by the young Derrida, that is, Derrida during his student years at the École Normale Supérieure in Paris. Wait……which school was it again? Oh, right——the École Normale Supérieure. Back then, he was at the level of a second-year university student…… This guy was quite a genius, definitely smarter than me.

(The content of this "Ismism") refers to Derrida’s undergraduate thesis, his diploma dissertation at the École Normale Supérieure. At that time, he was a reconciliatory transcendental phenomenologist——perhaps even someone who sought to rescue (though "rescue" might not be the right word) or rather to make the transcendental phenomenological project dialectical. His goal was to dialecticize transcendental phenomenology so that it could be revitalized and saved from its very origins. Specifically, he drew inspiration from Husserl’s late work, particularly the “Time Manuscripts”. What were they called again? Something like “Nau“——dame it, how uncultured I am—— oh, Bernau! That’s it——The Bernau Manuscripts. But honestly, I haven’t finished reading that book1. Let me tell you……was The Bernau Manuscripts even published at that time? I don’t know2. Because I haven’t finished reading it, I’m not sure how Derrida discussed these things.

I’ve only read its introduction, but in that introduction, Derrida mentions that in Husserl’s later years, he constantly tried to introduce a dialectical structure into the phenomenology of time3. This involved a kind of transcendental phenomenology that could construct a form of dialectics. This dialectics could then support a meta-logos, which in turn could uphold a transcendental logic capable of saving the entire project of transcendental phenomenology.

The representative figure for (3-1-1-4) is Jacques Derrida, specifically the Derrida of his university years, starting with his second year, when he began working on his graduation thesis. The key reference for this position is Derrida's work titled The Problem of Genesis in Husserl's Philosophy.

To engage with this text, one does not need extensive prior knowledge4. A basic understanding of Hegelian dialectics, Kant’s transcendental philosophy, and Husserl’s works like Ideas I and Ideas II5 is sufficient. Additionally, a rudimentary grasp of Husserl’s eidetic psychology and transcendental logic will help…… The essential requirement is to comprehend Husserl’s main objectives and what Derrida aimed to "rescue" within transcendental phenomenology.

So, this “Ism” ——let's call it…… ah, I’m still thinking about it, actually. I’m still wondering what I should call it. Genesis…… I’m thinking, ah, this thing is actually quite annoying, you know? Because most people would say that in this state, it’s quasi-transcendental. But I think, actually, the stance here is purely transcendental. That is to say——damn it——should I add a “quasi-” in front? Quasi-transcendental? Should I call it quasi-transcendental? And then at the end, should I add “dialecticism” or “historicism”?

I think here, what’s primarily being used is still dialecticism. So I’ll call it Quasi-transcendental dialecticism. Why call it dialecticism instead of historicism? Because it has to be distinguished from those others——it has to be separated from some of the more mediocre ones…… You see, this quasi-transcendental……If I remove the “quasi,” then this transcendental dialecticism starts to resemble Schelling’s ideas, you know? And I can’t quite put it that way. So I have to add a “quasi” in front——a “quasi-transcendental.”

Now, Derrida uses a concept to break through this framework: genesis. We usually translate it as “origin,” but in philosophy, there’s a simpler term for it: “emergence.” Emergence refers to the starting point of time itself. But Derrida tells us that the problem of emergence has a duality——it’s inherently contradictory. On one hand, as originarity6, as an absolute beginning; on the other hand, all emergence is anticipated——it’s always foreseen or prefigured. That is to say, all emergence exists within a contextual framework7. Every instance of emergence is anticipated; it happens within the flow of past and future——it’s relational8. And when exactly it emerges is itself uncertain. So you might say it’s germinating, but we’re anticipating it—we’re expecting it. There’s even an entire field called genesis. This thing——oh man——there are so many people talking about it in China these days. But in reality, it’s just a phenomenological theory.

In other words, only through phenomenological transcendental intuition can you grasp a pure genetic phenomenology. That is to say, if you don’t have phenomenological transcendental intuition or transcendental reduction as your foundation, then whatever so-called genetic phenomenology you’re studying—it’s all nonsense.

Because genesis has a premise, which is to say, its revelation of the dialectical structure of genesis lays the foundation for time. This genesis is capable of constructing a theory of temporality——“laying the foundation for time”.

However, in Derrida’s case, perhaps because he was relatively young at the time, his aspiration was to rescue transcendental phenomenology through a form of dialectics. For Derrida, transcendental phenomenology faced an inevitable internal impasse——one that was dialectical and dualistic in nature. This impasse rendered transcendental intuition itself into something dead—— stagnant, suffocating, fractured, where nothing is living, nothing alive exists within it.

So I strongly recommend that everyone read——those who are capable of doing so (I’m referring to the "3-1-1" ). After you’ve gone through the first three steps——the first(3-1-1-1), second(3-1-1-2), and third(3-1-1-3) steps——and grasped them, you can move on to reading the main texts. Ah, Logical Investigations——I think as long as you finish the third part and its postscript, that should suffice. Ideas I is actually very short, not as long as you might imagine. Moreover, this text can be read in parallel with others; they are not in conflict. As for Ideas II, that’s what I discussed yesterday. Afterward, you can move on to The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy and another work by Derrida, Speech and Phenomena. However, the latter is clearly more immature and naïve. We could even say that Derrida believed it was possible to…… ah, I think this book9 isn’t very long either. Half of it consists of appendices, introductions, and prefaces.

Perhaps next month, depending on the situation, I will discuss about this book——its English version. As for the Chinese translation, there are still issues with it; when discussing these topics, its grammatical structure is too simple and prone to ambiguity. It’s better to read the English version. As for French——I don’t understand French. You can’t blame me for that; he wrote it in French.

You need to think about this: (English and French) they can be directly translated into each other, their terms can correspond. Using a language I know——English——to explain, I don’t think there’s any issue. But between Chinese and these languages, many of the terms are not directly translatable. Look at this book (The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy), who translated it? It was translated by Yu Qizhi. His terminology——things like “物论” (materialism)…… oh my, and “理项”10 (idealism)……Some of the terms he translated even come with his own annotations, but when you read further, it becomes jarring and disruptive.

Then, in this position (3-1-1-4), I deliberately left out Phenomenology of the Life-World, which surprised many who also study phenomenology. Phenomenology of the Life-World itself is practically useless——it still belongs to (3-1-1-3). There’s no essential difference; it remains a form of reflective subjectivism.

As for Derrida’s stance——this quasi-transcendental dialecticism——it can be seen as a general philosophical model of thought. That is to say, within phenomenology——and specifically within the domain and terminological system of transcendental phenomenology——how do you achieve a breakthrough? The answer lies in introducing dialectics as a way forward. Dialectics is simply the idea that a concept possesses duality, mutual opposition. This is the simplest explanation——it’s a general philosophical model of thought.

I think it’s not for me to endorse this; let Derrida himself vouch for it. When Derrida was in university, this was his general model: introducing dialectics into the domain and terminological system of transcendental phenomenology. This was quite an effective model.

Let's look back at the problem of genesis. The duality of the genesis problem has two aspects: first, it emerges by itself, with absolute originality——something that emerges entirely on its own, without any other thing helping it emerge. In phenomenology, this can be called "invention"11. It's an invention, such that in phenomenological terms, in everyday language, when I say an idea12 is an invention, it means it emerges out of nowhere, establishing itself as its own starting point. On the other hand, it's not just an invention; it must also undergo "vertification"13 and be verified. In other words, on one side it possesses absolute originality; on the other side, it has a relative…… we can say, a situational, a background-based relative... fuck, how do I say this?…… structural quality. It can be said to have a relative structural quality.

Derrida would tell you that an idea, or any intention, or intentionality14, either emerges out of nowhere…… that is, these two things (invention and verification) must simultaneously exist. You can't just have an intention without a "vetification". Was the word he used vetification? Let me check……I don't have time to verify vocabulary……verification, I always (misspell it) …… verification, fuck……I can also not use that word, can't find it. Verification, that 't' is extra15. Verify, I've misspelled this word many times, you don't need to care about me, just know the word yourself.

That is to say, you have an intentionality, or a thought, or a consciousness, something emerges, something surfaces, you'll have a dialectical structure16, this is a dialectical structure of origin. You'll discover it's always there, it's always been there17. For example, when I'm thinking about something, I'm thinking about eating. When you start thinking about this thing, you can simultaneously confirm and verify its existence. That is to say, any arranged thing, especially intentionality18——this dialectical structure is fatal to the self-grasp of transcendental subjectivity, to the reflective self-orientation of transcendental subjectivity, because it causes a crack in this structure, you know?

Didn't we discuss this yesterday? In transcendental subjectivity, or in this reflective subjectivism, the self-grasp of transcendental subject, transcendental cogito. In every intentionality, it can see itself, can see orientation, or find something again inside. But when it finds something inside, do you say it created a transcendental self inside, is this synonymous, or do you say it has always been there? This becomes a fatal blow. Actually, if we use Žižek, or Lacan, or Hegel's logic, this is a retrospective construction.

Derrida himself, in the "preface"——not when he wrote this paper, but when he published it——said: Husserl's transcendental philosophical project is like a kind of condomination, like an infection, everywhere, contamination, like a pollution, like an infection, like a transmission19.

He traverses every gap in the dialectical binary oppositional structure……This transcendental project always wants to resist dialectics, resist the concept's duality, dualism, the dialectics of binary opposition. While resisting the dialectics of binary opposition, he always wants to see clearly these binary oppositions, such as natural and ideal, real and essential, formal and real20 …… across the gaps of these sections21, there will always be a transcendental intuition or transcendental reduction's contamination, an infection, as Derrida himself uses this term. Wherever his gaze reaches, he will always see such an infection, always have a reduction desire, reduction, always wanting to see the origin of this confrontational structure. This consciousness itself is a phenomenological reduction's intentionality itself.

So, we can say in this sense that phenomenological intuition and its reduction are the same thing——when facing the pure self, when you see this pure self, your intuition and your reduction are the same thing, it's the same thing. You can hardly distinguish whether it's intuitively perceived or reduced, whether it's retreated or created, whether this distance is pulled apart or the distance itself already exists. Because when you pull apart this subjective retreat distance…… if you don't pull it apart, you'll never say you have it; once you pull apart this distance, you can always say this distance was already there, with a purer self watching this acting self, and moreover dominating this acting self——this consciousness action's self, this is consciousness's action22.

For instance, you're remembering "I just stepped on the floor". Then in your memory, you can see a pure self remembering. But at this moment, when you judge like this, between the remembering me and that pure self watching the memory——I as the rememberer, the acting me performing remembrance, and I as a pure self——actually, this is a tripartite relationship23……It seems I've phenomenologically transcendentally intuitively retreated a step back, then seen within the previously remembering me, within the remembrance action, a pure self remembering. This is a me, I synonymize it with me. But the problem is, when you do this, this can infinitely retreat, you know? But the answer phenomenology gives is: this is the same me. This is the same one, and the only one. So, why say there are three selves? Because you see the remembering rememberer, he is the pure self. But at this moment, you also have a self watching him——that is, a pure self watching a previous rememberer…… or say, a self currently remembering a rememberer, seeing himself. In this case, you're always watching this…… In this situation, you'll say, fuck, is this self reduced or intuitively perceived? Because in this sense, if the intentionality's initiator in the middle of the rememberer is a pure self, then it means it was originally there, right? It's always there. He was originally there, but obviously he's not there. The self within the rememberer is structural, a subject set connected with my remembrance content and my remembrance action itself, right? It's situated in the scene, in the action, it's connected. Then, as a pure self, I watch such a memory, the intentional memory activity, and see a pure self within it, and discover that this pure self is of absolute originality——he's the absolute initiator of this memory, not a participant in the memory, but the memory's initiator, the force that makes this memory appear, understand? Here's the genesis problem. Is this pure self an absolute initiator in an intentional activity, or is he only seen through phenomenological reduction…… you'll see in phenomenological intuition that he is…… fuck, your phenomenological reduction will discover it…… At this point, intuition and reduction short-circuit.

Because at this point, you'll see…… damn, that 1.5-order feeling, you know? I can only say it's 1.5-order. Because phenomenological intuition purely gives you a factual view, seeing you just remembering, just watching; while phenomenological reduction means putting that watching, including the reduction of that watching itself, into the reduction itself, listing it out. Reduction means reducing the reduction itself and its reduced object…… Reduction itself is zero-order, its reduced object is first-order, and within its reduced object, for instance, a memory activity towards other memories is second-order. This entire order will be provided according to its order through phenomenological reduction. While phenomenological intuition might not so obviously obtain its internal orders, because reduction touches many essential structures within.

Uh, what I want to say…… I've rambled far again, fuck, I'm so drunk. What I want to say is, this genesis problem makes phenomenology problematic at its starting point, in pure phenomenological intuition and phenomenological reduction, problematic in the initiation of intentionality. So, for us ordinary people thinking about this problem, I think the following is worth considering: Yesterday I kept giving an example——pure cogito, pure subject, pure transcendental subject. In Husserl's view, or actually for all of us, if we're a strictly solipsistic subject, we only get the pure transcendental subject, and this pure transcendental subject can initiate itself, produce itself. Beyond this, this pure transcendental subject can even be said to have nothing. But we can say it has a weak internal time-consciousness, internal temporal intentionality. This might be necessary for subjectivity24; beyond this, the subjectivity structure is extremely thin.

I'll give an example, such as color…… I say color might be a bit too…… which example would be better? For instance, your bodily control, like controlling the rotation of your eyeballs, the eye's motor sense—— why do I use eye motor sense? Because ordinary people can directly experience eye motor sense. Then, the following phenomenological analysis isn't very strict, and I don't have the ability to achieve that strictness, nor do I want to. Because I want to explain this so everyone can understand25.

Will the eye movement's motor sense feel unconditional to you? Your conscious keeps up your eye rolling, will you think it's…… it's not unconditional, it's given, right? Of course, it can be seen as an original givenness, right? It's an original giving, but it's primitive there, primitive presentation, primitive giving, it's "original pre-presence", always there, and we can feel our eye movement ability is always here, even if I cut my eyes off…… that is, eye movement ability is basically traceless in consciousness, right? You close your eyes, and there's a dizzy feeling……Other bodily motor senses——many motor senses, hearing is also a motor sense, including gravity sense, if we might topple…… these bodily motor senses are all included.

How do you judge your eyes moving? In many cases, we can't feel our eyes moving; it won't be an obvious sensation. But we're very confident, right? The subject is very confident. Even if I'm completely paralyzed like Hawking, my eyeballs can still move. When can eyeballs not move? When you gouge out my eyeballs, they can't move. Eye movement seems very closely connected to the subject, as if it's a naturally inherent ability. But the problem is, it's given, it can (exist, or) not exist. For some blind people or those who've had eyeballs removed, the muscles controlling eye rotation, those nerves might all atrophy or be completely removed. You have no structured bodily motor sense to verify your eye movement, no structured vision itself to verify it. Because our visual shaking and visual positioning changes can be used to verify eye motor sense, eye rotation can conversely…… then, of course, we'll have a structural grasp of the eyeball itself, but these are secondary, later, high-order, derivative——never mind.

What we want to say is that eye movement, or any pure bodily movement, will be seen as an innate thing, seen as magic, you understand? It's magic. You're unaware that you can control body movement, especially eye movement or controlling part of your limbs, just by mental intention. It's magic, it's magical, it has a magical quality. It gives you some intentionality of motor sense. Then you concentrate your attention on it, adjusting your intentional attention's method and ability within a spectrum.

For example, your eyes move from left to right, but the problem is, you have no control panel, you know?26 It's an incredibly mysterious thing. Let's not call it magical, but it's an incredibly mysterious thing.

Say you want your eyeball to move from left to right——but why, when you conceive a directional movement in your brain, this intentionality of directional rotation, this bodily control intentionality, it naturally goes from left to right, your eyeball truly moves from left to right, its visual feedback and other series of feedbacks verify it moved from left to right——why is this so mysterious? Why does my pure consciousness activity, my pure intentionality's directional orientation, then a positioning, this consciousness itself as a focal positioning on some interface of different bodily organs, seem to truly have these interfaces?

So, at this moment, do we say these positioning and control interfaces truly exist? Except, this control——can't be simply grasped as control, its mode is complex. It's not just "move my eye from left to right", it also involves eye positioning and its deflection27, deflection's intentionality. We can only experience…… that is, if we truly do phenomenological intuition, we can only experience that our issued commands are extremely tiny, simple, an instant pre-reflective, even unconscious, subconscious. Only some symbolic things emerge in our brain: a voice——"from left to right", only a symbolic intentionality, "eyes from left to right". Of course, the words "eyeball" might not emerge in your mind, but they definitely emerge when I'm talking to you, I say the symbol, your auditory hearing catches it, then transforms into an inner hearing. Of course, when moving your eyeball, you might not need to think about this inner hearing; these sounds have already been delayed.

But there's always an intentionality, always ready to control your eyes, and position your eyes. What does positioning your eyes mean? Your entire consciousness focus is already positioned on your eyeball's control interface, prepared to control it.

So, you should know that the initiation itself is not what we want to discuss, not where we want to grasp this genesis. Genesis isn't discussing a pure-self initiation; there's nothing to discuss about that, it's pretty empty.

What we want to discuss is these positioning frameworks, the entire body's positioning framework, and this directionality. Its adaptation to this framework, how these things are indeed configured between each other——these muscles, these eyeball movement patterns are indeed configured this way. That is, their configurational relationship: I think in my brain, then position my eyeball from left to right with an intentionality, position it, then truly implement this positioning, and it precisely matches its movement initiation. You don't need to adjust this software, don't need to write this software. The correspondence between these interfaces and its framework——this consciousness interface is that you think, you exert force on it, and it can... this correspondence is always there, you know? Always there. It's called "original pre-presence", always there. Even our intentionality feels it exists prior to my pure cogito. It's as if, before I could control my eyeball, eyeball control already existed. The movement of my eyeball exists prior to my active semiotic thinking, prior to my intentional focus that directs my attention to move my eyeball, prior to this intentionality, and even prior to the learned, conscious act of controlling the movement of my eyeball.

External intentionalities——like wanting to eat, wanting to hear sounds, wanting to pay attention——can already manipulate my eyeball, already position my body, already coordinate the positional and factual left-right directional spatial relationships of its movement patterns. It's already coordinated, this thing was long there, long inside.

So, what I want to say is, in this situation, when you say a pure self can construct this entire system through a series of complex mechanisms, it's actually not very convincing, you know? Saying it's completely genesis, a genesis of pure self, constructing all these control structures or dominating structures, perfectly and naturally connected——it doesn't seem right. Moreover, clearly, there's no reflective process constructing these things. You say it's passive synthesis? Here, genesis will pose a very significant question to phenomenology. Its problem actually comes from Kant's a priori synthesis, the problem of synthetic a priori28.

Although phenomenology appears like empiricism or positivism, and attempts to observe all structures through a pure cogito in a reflective manner and verify its constructive elements, the fundamental problem is that intentionality must, in some sense, be a priori synthesis——and this a priori synthesis is viewed as originless29.

You can see these positional relationships and claim they have always been there. You can see yourself, including seeing your perception of their perpetual existence, and glimpse the phenomenological subject's silhouette. However, these things themselves are originless, and this result is itself without origin.

I believe grasping origin is not about saying, "Oh, I can initiate my eye movement, my inner hearing, my body's positioning." Damn, that's nothing. I can also initiate my right foot's little toe moving, I can initiate positioning. I'll always see a cogito, an active, moving subject within. But this cannot help you grasp origin.

What can help you grasp origin? It is the absence of origin, the origin's lack, the origin's non-presence. The a priori synthetic structure exists within body and mind. This a priori synthesis is easily discovered. The synthetic relationship between your eye movement and external visual intentionality——fuck, it can be called a priori synthesis. You cannot find its genesis, you're unable to find its genesis. You can say they are simply connected, that visual and eye movement, eye motor sense and visual attention sense, are mindlessly linked, with an inherent necessity that is a priori.

The problem then becomes: how can these originless structure30 considered by Kant…… this kind of originless a priori synthetic intentionalities be reintegrated into Husserl's phenomenological framework?

In this sense, their origin is that they originate themselves, you understand?

These things originate themselves, and simultaneously explain themselves, of itself by itself. Set off of itself and by itself, or in his own words, an invention 'itself' itself——with both prepositions framing it31. In this situation, you must introduce a dialectical origin structure into transcendental phenomenology. Otherwise, you cannot truly perform a transcendental reduction or phenomenological reduction, or provide a philosophical delineation of the relationship between the phenomenological subject and these consciousness structures that seemingly always exist.

In this sense, regarding this origin——this self-originless origin in the phenomenological sense——this origin is an invention. Simultaneously, we can even say the "cogito" verbally claims to have invented, to have initiated, but actually, it merely verifies. I continuously verify my body's control, my positioning power, my internal sensory or sensory positioning power. I can move my tongue.

I have positioning power. You know? And this occurs through a pure semiotic mechanism. To consciously control a body, you must rely on a semiotic network for positioning. And this semiotic network and the body's positional causal domain are not the same network.

Thus, the starting point, or the suturing point, of this castration is genesis. Genesis ultimately becomes sutured onto subjectivity; it is eventually stitched onto the subject, onto the transcendental cogito, and, more specifically, onto the subject’s temporal experience. The discovery of self-temporality——this sense of “I have always been here” —— is precisely the discovery of self-existence, the realization that “I have always existed.

However, in truth, this self is only temporarily creating itself. Yet, this temporary creation of itself and the simultaneous discovery that it has “always existed” is inherently dialectical. This is the genesis of the self. It can be said that the self is continuously generating itself in real-time, but it can also be said that it has always been there. It exists within a semiotic, backgrounded temporal network——a temporary order——in which it has always already been present.

Thus, Derrida needed to assist Husserl by introducing a form of dialecticism into his entire structure. The first chapter involves integrating this dialecticism into the temporality of the intentional object, the "noema"32, and then into the "temporality of genesis". Discussions about concepts like "initial impression" and "pre-experiential synthesis" essentially cover what I just mentioned, except Derrida's treatment is more precise, refined, and abstract. Another point is that "epoché" (suspension) and "genesis" themselves are irreducible——suspension itself cannot be reduced. Finally, he attempts to construct a transcendental logic. I haven't read this book. The final section is titled “The Genesis of the Self and the Transition to a New Transcendental Idealism”33, where he supplements a new form of transcendental idealism34. I didn’t finish reading it, so I don’t know exactly what he’s doing there. Perhaps someday I’ll have the chance to complete this book.

What I want to say is that Derrida attempts to save Husserl’s grand phenomenological edifice through this approach. I must admit that my academic and phenomenological abilities are limited——I simply don’t have the time. Honestly, I don’t regret not dedicating much time to it or not being particularly skilled in this area. Based on my basic understanding, phenomenology eventually had someone clean up its mess——that someone was young Derrida.

Derrida labeled the pure "invention" or "innovation"——the pure initiation, pure emergence from nothing, pure retreat, or pure suspension——as "death." Why? Because these elements were not placed within a symbolic system; they were not alive. They lacked integration into a contextual framework and were disconnected from preceding and succeeding elements.

There are many fascinating discussions in this book…… Some may laugh at me for finding Derrida's early, immature work interesting. But the key point is that this book serves as a bridge——it connects Hegel and Husserl through the problem of genesis35.

I believe that for someone at their intellectual peak around age 22, reading this book would feel quite “light(qingqiaoqiao)”36. But I’m really sorry, I’ve wasted a few years of my life, and then, damn it, I went off to study…… Well, honestly, I don’t even know what I ended up studying. Maybe I dabbled in a lot of miscellaneous fields, I didn’t study this subject deep enough.

However, if you asked me to read this book, I could probably spend about two weeks explaining it to you. Honestly, getting back into it wouldn’t be particularly challenging——it’s not technically demanding. But what I’ve been pondering is this: well, Derrida opened up phenomenology, but as far as I know, this was the last serious effort. Others didn’t take it as seriously. What I want to talk about is the attempt to rescue transcendental phenomenology. Because what Derrida actually did was use dialectics——but here, dialectics functions as a kind of formal logic. Formal logic is garbage, it is a rather lowly thing in Husserl’s framework. It’s “low” because it belongs to something worldly or natural——it’s something natural but formal. It’s structural; it’s a structured form of dialectics. As a formal logic, it stands on the side of the worldly and the natural——it aligns with the lifeworld, with the mundane, the accidental, the trivial, and the profane. Derrida wanted to use this kind of dialectics to rescue transcendental phenomenology. He sought to use it to either salvage transcendental logic or abolish it altogether——to dismantle the logos of transcendental logos, or what we call logocentrism, while preserving some of Husserl’s methods and certain ontological assumptions about subjectivity. In essence, swap out the core of transcendental phenomenology using this formal dialectics. This dialectical approach is broadly historicist and genetic——it’s a generative dialectic focused on processes of becoming. Yet this dialectic is extremely dry and skeletal in form. And here lies something fascinating: this very dryness makes it a dialectic of both the formal and the real. But fundamentally, it remains a formal dialectic.

You should read this book yourself——The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy. If you’re not interested, there’s no point in me explaining it to you, right? In this book, Derrida essentially tries to rescue Husserl37——to give Husserl’s legacy a new core so that it can keep running and allow people to extract useful elements from it. He attempts to reconcile Husserl’s late work on time-consciousness with transcendental logic——efforts that Husserl himself made late in his career using temporality and time-consciousness. Derrida’s approach can be likened to replacing an outdated power source with something more vital. Imagine Iron Man’s whatever rolling inside his chest——a clunky nuclear-powered device[38]——being swapped out by someone more skilled for an energy gem fueled by life itself. From Iron Man’s perspective, this life-based energy source might seem inferior compared to his pure mechanical core. But in reality, it’s more powerful, more vital——it has greater life force. Similarly, Derrida’s dialectics carry more vitality——they breathe new life into phenomenology.

As Derrida himself stated, in this effort he saw the enthusiasm of a young student, a philosophical choice made within the world of a young philosopher, and a commitment to a philosophical vocation39. His choice was rooted in the belief that Husserl’s transcendentalism was not a purely detached transcendentalism divorced from historical context. Instead, Derrida viewed Husserl’s transcendentalism as something fundamentally tied to life, historical in nature——a kind of event. However, it is an event that claims to break away from history while simultaneously being rooted in history. It is both rooted and rootless, grounded in history while representing a rupture within history itself.

Transcendental phenomenology, therefore, is itself a rupture within history. What struck me most in Derrida's introduction is his assertion that to achieve a philosophy of genesis, one must also achieve the genesis of philosophy. In other words, to develop a philosophy addressing the problem of origin or genesis, one must create an entirely new philosophy. However, this "philosophy of genesis" is inherently historical, though this history itself is fractured and inconsistent.

Derrida later reflected on this project and deemed it immature——a naive project, as he called it. He saw it as a doomed endeavor from the start. While it was indeed a project, it did not delve deeply enough. I am unsure whether Derrida later wrote further texts on these ideas40. My knowledge of Derrida’s writings is limited in this regard. However, I do know that in his later deconstructionist works, Derrida admitted that he had been "poisoned" by transcendental phenomenology——it was like a toxin that caused dialectical eruptions everywhere. Yet this dialectic was what he described as a quasi-phenomenological dialectic: something akin to new life growing out of a withered body. In his later philosophy, Derrida pursued something beyond language——a quasi-phenomenological and quasi-transcendental method. Using dialectical discussions, he sought to achieve something beyond language itself. He seemed to believe he had attained such a "beyond," capturing impossible historical moments——or rather their traces, residues, or whatever his différance, also his supplement of genesis, damn, these kind of things41——through his peculiar and enigmatic dialectical methods.

This was an immature plan. The book itself is short——if you exclude the introduction and postscript, it’s just over 100 pages. By reading it, you can understand this project42.

I recommend reading the English version because the Chinese translation suffers from poor syntax and awkward terminology, making it frustrating to read. After reading five pages of the Chinese version——I bought two copies of this book, I even bought two copies——I switched to the English PDF version instead. It’s quite a worthwhile book to study.

Some might mock me, saying, “Why spend so many sessions talking about Husserl?” Let me reiterate: I am fully aware that his transcendental project is a failure. That has never been my position to begin with. Of course, when I was younger, I was introduced to philosophy through this framework——it shaped my habits of thought and ways of thinking. But later, I essentially abandoned this system of reasoning altogether. Over time, I shifted toward a kind of pragmatist stance, and eventually moved further toward dialectics and psychoanalysis. So, it’s not as if I’m particularly convinced that transcendental philosophy is destined to succeed. From the outset, you can see that even its starting point requires being replaced by a quasi-transcendental dialectical method.

Let us now, finally, discuss its positions. The first three positions remain essentially unchanged. However, in the field theory, there needs to be a slight adjustment: the metaphysical versus the physical or empirical.

On the side of the empirical, we might place terms like “worldly” and “history”43. On the metaphysical side, we find terms like “transcendental” and “idea,” representing the dimension of concepts and ideals. In this framework, the transcendental cogito——the subject ——is positioned on the metaphysical side, while life is placed on the empirical side. The mediating force between these two poles is dialectics, or perhaps even structuralism——though more precisely, it remains dialectics. However, this dialectics has a tendency toward structuralist formalization. Because this structuralist inclination stems from how dialectics can be reduced to pure formality under a phenomenological lens. Within transcendental phenomenology——through essential intuition and reduction——dialectics risks becoming hollowed out into a mere essence or structure, something stripped of its original givenness. In such a state, dialectics transforms into a shallow construct——a kind of trickery or wordplay, an empty game devoid of substance or genuine essence. It becomes nothing more than a superficial gimmick——a worthless shell lacking any fundamental grounding.

Your discussions about the essence of dialectics are somewhat ridiculous. If Husserl were alive today, he might say that your understanding lacks true contradiction at its core “Addols”. Do you understand?

Dialectics itself is inherently ridiculous, but Derrida uses dialectics to reconcile these elements. The way he reconciles them is by constructing a theory of genesis44——let’s call it "genesisology"? I’m not sure how to spell "genesisology" in English. This theory of genesis is constructed through dialectics. However, this dialectics is primarily semiotic. It can also be seen as historical——a fractured history, a history that is constantly rupturing and generating itself. But fundamentally, this history is tied to subjectivity. Beyond subjectivity, what else could it be? It’s just that it’s no longer transcendental subjectivity. The fractured history——this ruptured history——continues to provide this rupture within theoretical frameworks. And what provides this rupture? It’s still the cogito, a constantly thinking “cogito”. But this subjectivity can also be described as a mechanism of subjectivization——a historical mechanism of subjectivization. This mechanism allows something vital——something related to life and death——to emerge from the empty, hollow semiotic binary oppositions. It can draw out many rich problem domains or other issues.

Yet ultimately, it remains hollow. This project is doomed to fail. I don’t want to finish reading it because I know it will fail in the end45——it will be hollow. You can try to structure it with temporal frameworks or weave one net after another, but in the end, there’s nothing to hold it together. Once you loosen your grip, everything falls apart——it’s still just that same mess. That’s my personal judgment. Since I haven’t finished reading this book, I’ll give its teleology a 4(X-X-X-4). The other two (position) remain unchanged, but in terms of teleology, it’s 4.

What destroys the triadic relationship between these elements? It’s primordial motion. This dialectics is an empty one——it’s just primordial motion. In this book, Derrida adopts an objective transcendental-phenomenological stance and refuses to acknowledge that within pure transcendental phenomenological intuition and reduction, one can ultimately find a primordial motion. He won’t admit it. He won’t admit that there’s a rupture here or that there’s a primordial motion present.

This primordial motion is de-subjectivized——it becomes epistemologized——but it is ontological in itself. While it may become epistemologized and allow you to experience it, this primordial motion or primordial difference precedes semiotic registration——it’s as simple as that. Or rather, it ensures that binary oppositions inevitably arise during the process of semiotic registration. This primordial motion makes binary oppositions unavoidable and necessitates introducing dialectics into the foundation of transcendental phenomenology. If such dialectics were introduced, Husserl would exclaim: "The sky has fallen! Everything is ruined! Phenomenology is over!" This primordial difference or primordial motion is unconditional——it exists at the most fundamental level as an absolute motion, an absolute motion in itself.

From this perspective, this represents a materialist transformation or attempt at materialism46 because it acknowledges a primordial difference and primordial motion. Of course, we wouldn’t say this has any specific substrate because it exists in itself——itself as itself. If this were to participate in semiotic registration and generate semiotic differences within that process, then we might call it différance (if différance could even be tested). But différance cannot truly be tested——it cannot be experienced directly as différance.

To explore further: teleology here is 4(X-X-X-4), because its attempt at reconciliation——its effort to achieve absolute certainty through reflective self-grasping——ultimately collapses into failure. There’s no way for reflective self-grasping to hold onto itself; you can’t hold onto it——the waters are too deep; you simply can’t hold on. It’s illusory; it’s death. In that fleeting moment when you attempt reflective self-grasping, you are not alive——you are dead. From the perspective of primordial motion, your subjectivity at that moment is dead. In this sense, Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology becomes a kind of necrophilia——a fixation on death. That so-called original gaze——the self looking at itself in absolute clarity——is death; it’s dead. And when you describe it as clear and transparent clarity? That’s because it’s terrifying——it’s horrifying, disgusting, something you instinctively want to avoid. Your consciousness represses and empties out what it truly sees through this original motion. Its failure was inevitable.

Alright then, that concludes my thoughts here. In my intellectual journey, phenomenology came to an end with Derrida tying up its loose ends. That’s why I bought this book but never read it fully——though I did read half of its introduction when I was younger (I bought two copies). From my perspective——and based on my reading of many journal articles and my understanding of philosophical history——transcendental phenomenology was a failed project. However, studying it can train your philosophical thinking skills——it doesn’t have a high entry barrier. Once you grasp its terminological system and jargon framework, discussing it feels no different from assembling computer components——installing CPUs or PCIe buses——it’s all quite similar. If you’re willing to spend dozens of hours reading Husserl's books and Derrida's book on him (The Problem of Genesis in Husserl's Philosophy), they’re worth reading too. Husserl rejected dialectics outright——but Derrida argued that at phenomenology's foundation lies an implicit grasp of dialectics. That concludes my thoughts here!

@ 2063cd79:57bd1320

Der letzte Artikel stand ganz im Zeichen von Mempool, Transaktionsgebühren, Ordinals, BRC-20 Tokens (aka Shitcoins auf Bitcoin) und Mining-Rewards. Der Mempool ist voller als der Hyde-Park in London am einzigen Sommertag mit Sonne im Jahr. Doch weil ich mich in letzter Zeit zu Genüge mit den vorgenannten Themen beschäftigt habe und man zur Zeit an jeder Ecke den Status des Mempools ungefragt eingeflößt bekommt, möchte ich mich diese Woche mit zwei Standpunkten beschäftigen, die entweder gegenläufig oder komplementär zueinander stehen (gibt es wirklich kein Antonym zum Wort komplementär?).

Ausschlaggebend für den Gedankengang, der mich zu dieswöchigem Artikel bewegt hat waren ein Artikel und eine Podcast-Episode, über die ich letzte Woche gestolpert bin. Bei dem Artikel handelt es sich um Jimmy Songs "How Fiat Money Broke the World" aus seiner Fixing the Incentives-Reihe im Bitcoin Magazine und bei der Podcast-Episode wurde ich von den Ausführungen von Peruvian Bull im TFTC Podcast Ausgabe 414: The Dollar Endgame von Marty Bent zum Nachdenken angeregt.

Prinzipiell stellt sich im Großen und Ganzen die Frage, wie eine großflächige Adaption von Bitcoin vonstatten gehen könnte. Hyperbitcoinization oder auch Bitcoin als gesetzliches Zahlungsmittel (wie z.B. in El Salvador, oder bald sogar in Indonesien und Mexiko (!)) sind dabei mögliche Szenarien. Der Nicht-Ghandi-Spruch “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” wird oft genutzt, um die soziologische Entwicklungsstufe, bzw. die öffentliche Wahrnehmung einer Idee, einer Erfindung oder eines Produkts in gewisse Entwicklungsstufen einzuordnen. Genauso wie bei Bitcoin. WIR SIND IN DER "THEN THEY FIGHT YOU" STUFE!!!11! kann man überall auf Bitcoin-Twitter, Nostr oder Reddit lesen.

Doch wer ist "THEY"? Wenn man nur von Nationalstaaten ausgeht und offizielle und inoffizielle (konspirative) multinationale Interessensgruppen außen vor lässt, stellt sich mir die Frage, welches Land / welcher Staat die meisten Gründe (politischer oder wirtschaftlicher Natur) hätte, Bitcoin zu adaptieren, bzw. zu bekämpfen. Natürlich kommen einem dabei als erstes die USA in den Sinn, immerhin das Land mit der höchsten kombinierten Bitcoin-Hashrate, mit den meisten Bitcoin-Infrastruktur-Anbietern, mit den größten Börsen (nach Handelsvolumen) und den meisten Bitcoin-Nutzer//innen in der Bevölkerung.

Doch macht das die USA zum größten potentiellen Gegner oder zum größten potentiellen Befürworter und Begünstigten von Bitcoin?

Jimmy Song "How Fiat Money Broke the World"

Jimmy Song baut seinen Artikel chronologisch auf. Es geht um die Entstehung des Fiat-Geld-Systems nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg und die damit einhergehende Abschaffung des Goldstandards. Mit der Errichtung des Bretton-Woods-Systems wurde eine neue Währungsordnung geschaffen, die den US Dollar als Ankerwährung bestimmte, der wiederum an Goldreserven gekoppelt werden sollte. So sollten flexible Wechselkurse innerhalb der verschiedenen Landeswährungen gewährleistet werden, während gleichzeitig die Sicherheit von Goldreserven existiert. Doch statt Gold für die internationale Handelsabwicklung zu verwenden, wurde nun der Dollar die Abwicklungswährung. Diese Entscheidung verhalf den USA zu einer hegemonialen Wirtschaftsmacht zu werden, denn die Fähigkeit, das Geld zu drucken, mit dem jedes andere Land seinen Handel abwickelte, gab den USA mehr Macht über den Rest der Welt.

Diese Dollar-Hegemonie begünstigte die USA deutlich im internationalen Handel, da sie zur Zentralbank für alle anderen Zentralbanken wurden. Nicht-US-Banken geben sogar Verbindlichkeiten in Dollar, und zwar nicht nur in Europa, sondern in vielen anderen Teilen der Welt. Infolgedessen halten andere Zentralbanken US Dollar als Reserve, die dann auf der Basis von Teilreserven verwendet werden können, um noch mehr Geld in Form von Krediten zu schaffen (das sogenannte Eurodollar-System).

Diese Position der Stärke nutzten die USA weiter aus und erschufen, was heute als das Petrodollar-System bekannt ist. Dank einem Abkommen zwischen Saudi-Arabien und den USA in den 1970ern wird das von allen Mitgliedsstaaten der OPEC geförderte Öl in US Dollar gehandelt, im Gegenzug für militärischen Schutz durch die USA. Das sogenannte Petrodollar-System hat dem US Dollar somit einen enormen Wert und hohe Liquidität verliehen.

Die war auch nötig, denn teure Sozialprogramme wie Medicare und Medicaid als auch das Social Security Programm wurden gestartet. Aber auch sehr teure Stellvertreterkriege, wie z.B. in Korea und Vietnam, wollten finanziert werden. Dies taten die USA, indem sie das Geld hierfür einfach druckten, was wiederum die Zentralbanken der anderen Länder nervös machte und dazu brachte, mit dem Abzug ihrer Goldeinlagen bei der US-Notenbank zu drohen. Der damalige Präsident Tricky Dick (Richard Nixon) reagierte darauf, indem er die Goldbindung des US Dollar zunächst nur temporär für immer aufhob. Damit hatte er den Dollar vom Gold ent- und an das Öl der Saudis (bzw. an den militärisch-industriellen Komplex der USA) gekoppelt.

Die USA haben also das exorbitante Privileg, das Geld drucken zu können, das die Welt für die Abwicklung von Handel verwendet. Dies bedeutet unter anderem, dass die USA ihre gedruckten Dollars exportieren und Waren und Dienstleistungen aus anderen Ländern importieren können. Somit wird das gedruckte Geld im Allgemeinen zuerst in den USA ausgegeben (Cantillon-Effekt in Reinform), was dazu führt, dass Geschäftserfolg in den USA zu einer viel höheren monetären Belohnung führt, als in anderen Ländern. Vereinfacht gesagt: In den USA schwimmt mehr Geld umher und somit wird Erfolg besser belohnt. Folglich wollen mehr Menschen in die USA ziehen, und die USA können auswählen, wer hineinkommt und wer nicht. Gut für die USA - schlecht für die anderen.

Die ehrgeizigsten Menschen aus anderen Ländern immigrieren in die USA und verdienen mehr Geld und leben ein viel besseres Leben als in ihren Heimatländern. Der Braindrain bedeutet, dass andere Länder unterm Strich verlieren. Menschen im Allgemeinen versuchen immer in Länder einzuwandern, die in der Cantillon-Hierarchie höher stehen. Die reichen Länder werden somit reicher an Humankapital, während die armen Länder an Humankapital ärmer werden.

Die USA schaffen es, ihre Stellung als Neuzeit-Kolonialist vor allem mit Hilfe von Sonderorganisationen, internationalen Finanzinstitutionen und anderen Stiftungen wie dem IWF, der BIZ, des WEF oder der Weltbank zu zementieren. Diese supranationalen Banken und Organisationen leihen Entwicklungsländern und "Ländern des globalen Südens" Geld für den (Wieder-) Aufbau und andere Struktur-relevante Tätigkeiten, aber nur unter strengen Auflagen, die noch strenger werden, wenn diese Kredite nicht zurückgezahlt werden können. In diesen Fällen werden diese Länder dann von den Banken "gerettet", unter der Auflage, noch mehr Kontrolle über die eigene Finanzsuveränität abzugeben.

Im Wesentlichen tauschen sie dabei Kredite und längere Laufzeiten gegen organisatorische Kontrolle über den Staatshaushalt. Solche Beschränkungen können Punkte beinhalten, wie z.B. wieviel des nationalen Budgets für Infrastruktur ausgegeben werden kann. Oft müssen diese verschuldeten Regierungen eine eigene unabhängige Zentralbank gründen, die dazu verwendet werden kann, die Notwendigkeit einer staatlichen Genehmigung zu umgehen. So werden Länder dazu gebracht Staats-Ressourcen, wie Schürfrechte oder Ländereien an ausländische Unternehmen zu verkaufen.

Jimmy Song führt seinen Artikel noch etwas fort, doch die mir wichtigsten Punkte habe ich erwähnt. Kurz zusammengefasst: Die USA haben durch die de facto Kontrolle über das Geld eine Sonderposition in der Welt. Nicht nur sitzen sie am Gelddrucker - Geld drucken kann jeder, klappt eben nur unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen (zumindest zeitweise) - sondern haben durch diese Kontrollsituation weitere Vorteile: 1) Das größte Exportgut der USA ist der US Dollar. 2) Die US-Wirtschaft hat einen klaren Vorteil anderen Wirtschaften gegenüber, da das Unternehmertum dort besser belohnt wird. 3) Viele ehrgeizige und talentierte Menschen der ganzen Welt strömen in die USA, um von dieser Belohnung zu profitieren. 4) Die internationalen Buchstabensuppen-Finanzinstitutionen stärken den USA den Rücken.

Die USA haben also ein sehr großes (das gröte) Interesse daran, das globale Finanzmonopol in der aktuellen Form aufrechtzuerhalten.

Peruvian Bull "The Dollar Endgame"

Die Ausgangsthese von Peruvian Bull, einem Autor, der ein gleichnamiges Buch veröffentlicht hat (The Dollar Endgame) ist, dass viele Zeichen darauf hindeuten, dass der US Dollar als Leitwährung der Welt seine letzten Atemzüge macht. Er ist dabei recht pessimistisch und glaubt, dass wir schon in den nächten fünf bis sieben Jahren eine große Veränderung erleben werden.

Allerdings sieht er eine große Chance für die USA, Bitcoin zu nutzen, um diesem Untergang entgegenzuwirken. Viele Länder und Institutionen außerhalb der westlichen Welt sehen den US Dollar kritisch und sind nicht besonders glücklich über die Vormachtstellung, die der Dollar den USA auf dem internationalen Finanzmarkt, dem globalen Handel und der geopolitischen Weltordnung verleiht. Die US-Notenbank wird immer mehr in die Ecke gedrängt und der einzige Ausweg aus der momentanen Schuldenspirale ist Hyperinflation.

Meine zwei Sats sind, dass eine Wahrscheinlichkeit natürlich immer besteht, allerdings bin ich persönlich davon überzeugt, dass der US Dollar, wenn überhaupt, die letzte Währung sein wird, die eine Hyperinflation erlebt, da vorher ganz andere Währungen das Zeitliche segnen müssten.

Doch um bei der These zu bleiben, bietet Bitcoin eine alternative Lösung zur Hyperinflation. Denn die USA könnten ihre Verluste reduzieren, indem sie auf eine Bitcoin-gestützte Leitwährung wechseln. Dazu sind die USA auch bestens aufgestellt: Die von Minern aufgebrachte Hashrate ist nirgendwo größer, als in den USA, Bitcoin-Bestände in Wallets sind nirgendwo größer als in den USA und die größten Bitcoin-Unternehmen, Unternehmen die Bitcoin fördern, oder Technologie entwickeln, die Bitcoin zugute kommt, sitzen in den USA.

Würden die USA, bzw. die US-Notenbank, zu einem Bitcoin-gestützten Währungssystem wechseln, müssten alle anderen Länder der Welt nachziehen, solange die USA diese (oben beschriebene) globale Vormachtstellung in der Weltwirtschaft noch innehaben. Dies würde den USA einen gewaltigen First-Mover-Vorteil bescheren, da nirgendwo sonst die Infrastruktur und der Zugang zu Bitcoin so stark ausgeprägt sind.

Es ist also nur eine politische Entscheidung, ob dieser First-Mover-Vorteil ausgenutzt wird oder nicht. Indem die Nutzung (institutioneller oder privater Art, Mining, Innovation, etc.) eingeschränkt wird, z.B. durch Verbote, Besteuerung, oder andere ungünstige Gesetze, wird die gesamte Branche und damit das technische Wissen, die Innovation und das damit verbundene Kapital ins Ausland verdrängt und die USA schießen sich ins eigene Bein.

Es wird sicherlich institutionellen Widerstand geben, da die derzeitigen institutionellen Akteure stark vom aktuellen System profitieren und daher nicht zu einem Bitcoin-Währungssystem wechseln wollen, in dem sie keine Zensurrechte und keine exklusiven Übertragungsrechte haben. Daher werden US-Institutionen wie die Notenbank und das Finanzministerium von diesem Ansatz nicht allzu begeistert sein, doch wenn sie es ernsthaft genug betrachten und erkennen, dass es sich hierbei um eine Form der geopolitischen, strategischen Kriegsführung handelt, könnten sie gezwungen sein, ihre Meinung zu ändern und sich auf ein neues System vorzubereiten, das den Idealen, wie Freiheit, Redefreiheit, Eigentumsrechten und solides Geld, treu bleibt, auf denen die USA gegründet wurden.

Peruvian Bull und Marty Bent führen in dieser Episode noch weitere Punkte aus, doch die mir wichtigsten Punkte habe ich wieder erwähnt. Kurz zusammengefasst: Die USA stehen davor, ihre globale Vormachtstellung zu verlieren. Ein Ausweg könnte die Adaption von Bitcoin als Retter des US Dollar sein. Die USA haben den fruchtbarsten Nährboden für eine solche Änderung des Systems, da sie heute schon die meiste Hashrate, das größte geistige Eigentum und Innovation, als auch das meiste Kapital bündeln.

Die USA hätten also in der Theorie ein sehr großes Interesse daran, Bitcoin als Lösung und zur Stützung ihres globalen Finanzmonopols zu adaptieren.

Zwei Theorien in zwei entgegengesetzte Richtungen 👈👉

Auf der einen Seite sehen wir ein Argument, weshalb den USA daran gelegen wäre, das aktuelle System so lange wie möglich aufrechtzuerhalten und dem alten Mann auf Krücken unter die Arme zu greifen. Auf der anderen Seite besteht ein Argument dafür, dass die USA ein gesteigertes Interesse daran haben sollten, das alte System so schnell wie möglich hinter sich zu lassen und die Pole Position, die die USA im Bereich Bitcoin haben - ohne Regierungs-seitig was dafür getan zu haben - für sich zu nutzen, um dem alten Mann auf Krücken zu einer Verjüngung zu verhelfen.

Es ist schwierig einzuschätzen, welchen Weg die USA gehen werden, da es immer noch keinen allgemeinen Konsens darüber gibt, wie Bitcoin zu betrachten ist. Der kürzlich vorgestellte DAME-Gesetzesentwurf (Digital Asset Mining Energy excise tax), also eine Verbrauchssteuer für Miner, der Biden-Regierung, würde von Bitcoin-Mining-Unternehmen verlangen, eine 30% Steuer auf die Stromkosten zu zahlen, die für das Mining von Bitcoin verwendet werden. Ein solches Gesetz würde die Mining Industrie aus dem Land drängen, da Miner heute schon auf sehr knappen Margen operieren und somit unprofitabel würden. Dies gleicht einer Bestrafung von Unternehmen für das Streben nach Innovation und technologischem Fortschritt.

Auf der anderen Seite gibt es aber auch die Ansicht, Bitcoin müsse ins Land geholt werden, da man es dort am besten kontrollieren kann, ganz nach dem Motto "Halte deine Freunde nah und deine Feinde noch näher". So z.B. Carole House, ehemalige Direktorin für Cybersicherheit des Nationalen Sicherheitsrates des Weißen Hauses. Sie sprach bei einem Event an der Universität von Princeton und sagte "sie würde lieber mehr Hashrate in den USA sehen, damit sie Miner zwingen können, das Netzwerk zu zensieren" und dass es "nicht nur darum ginge, Minern zu sagen, dass sie bestimmte Transaktionen nicht in Blöcke einbauen, sondern auch nicht auf Blöcken mit nicht konformen Transaktionen aufzubauen, damit diese Transaktionen nirgendwo in der Kette ankommen".

Wir sehen also, dass es selbst zwischen den Gegnern von Bitcoin keinen endgültigen Konsens gibt, wie das Thema in Zukunft angegangen werden soll. Da ist esnicht verwunderlich, dass auf Ebene eines Paradigmenwechsels, den die Adaption von Bitcoin von Seiten der Notenbank bedeuten würde, noch unklarer ist. Für mich sind beide Erklärungen logisch. Allerdings wissen wir nur zu gut, dass Regierungen es manchmal nicht so mit Logik und Vernunft haben.

🫳🎤

---

In diesem Sinne, 2... 1... Risiko!‌

@ 953c0602:01aba028

[1] This refers to Derrida’s The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy (i.e., the “doctoral thesis” mentioned earlier), rather than Husserl’s Bernau Manuscripts referenced previously.

[2] Weimingzi attempted to connect Derrida’s The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy (finalized in 1954) with a portion of Husserl’s unpublished manuscripts known as the Bernau Manuscripts. However, at that moment, Weimingzi suddenly realized that he was unsure of the timeline for the editing and publication of the Bernau Manuscripts, so he halted his discussion. The Bernau Manuscripts were handed over to the Husserl Archives in Leuven by Eugen Fink in 1969 and were not published until 2001. Thus, not only had Derrida not seen the Bernau Manuscripts while writing The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy, but even by the time of its publication in 1990, he still had not encountered them. The Husserl texts Derrida utilized are listed in the appendix and bibliography of the second chapter of The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy.

[3] Referring to the “preface” of Derrida’s The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy:

“This is the interest and the difficulty of the problem of genesis, considered as synthesis: How can the absolutely originary foundation of sense and of being of a genesis be comprehended in and by this genesis? For if it is true that any synthesis is founded on an a priori synthesis, the problem of genesis is that of the sense of this a priori synthesis; if an a priori synthesis is at the source and foundation of any possible judgment and any experience， are we not referred to an indefnite dialectic？ How can the originarity of a foundation be an a priori synthesis？ How can everything start with a complication？ If any genesis and any synthesis refer to their constitution through an a priori synthesis，then has not the a priori synthesis itself，when it appears to itself in a constituting，transcendental and supposedly originary experience，already taken on sense，is it not always by defnition "already" constituted by another synthesis，and so on infnitely？ How can a phenomenological originarity lay absolute claim to the first constitution of sense if it is preceded by what could be called a historical "primitiveness"？ A primitiveness which，it has to be said，only "appears" as such through an originary constitution. Is there not some trick in any going beyond of this dialectic？ Does one not fall back into the formalism that one claims to be going beyond，by referring the philosophical thematization of this dialectic to the originarity of its transcendental constitution，to intentionality，to perception？ Is not phenomenological temporality，at once transcendental and originary，"temporalizing”，constituting，only in appearance and starting from a "natural" time，indifferent to transcendental consciousness itself，preceding it, enveloping it？ Husserl，especially in the last years of his life，would not perhaps have absolutely disputed this; perhaps all his last efforts were for saving phenomenology by assimilating to it this new relation.”

[4] The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy is structured into four parts, each centered on an in-depth exploration of specific works by Husserl, Part I focuses on Philosophy of Arithmetic: Psychological and Logical Investigations (now included in Volume 12 of the Hague edition of Husserl’s Collected Works) and the first volume of Logical Investigations (Volume 18 of the Hague edition); Part II examines the second volume of Logical Investigations (Volumes 19–20 of the Hague edition), Lectures on the Phenomenology of Internal Time-Consciousness (Volume 10), and Ideas I (Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy, Volume 3); Part III revolves around Experience and Judgment: Investigations in a Genealogy of Logic (not yet included in the Hague edition but roughly corresponding to Volume 17, Formal and Transcendental Logic) and Cartesian Meditations (Volume 1);Part IV engages with The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology and related lectures, such as The Origin of Geometry (Volumes 6 and 29).

[5] As noted in footnote 4, Derrida’s The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy does not address Ideas II. As the Chinese translator of the book, Yu Qizhi, points out in the “Bibliography,” the French edition of Ideas II was published only in 1982.

[6] In The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy, Derrida employs the term “originarity” rather than the more commonly used “originality.” This distinction is noted in a footnote within the “Preface” of Marian Hobson’s English translation of the work:

“The present translation keeps particularly close to Derrida's French in two cases, ‘originarity’ and ‘becoming’，which both refer to Husserl's German. Derrida has adopted the translations used by Paul Ricoeur，which deliberately do not naturalize the terms into the mere straightforward ‘originality’ and ‘development’.”

[7] The contradiction in the binary opposition within the “problem of genesis” in Husserl’s philosophy, as pointed out by Derrida, lies in the tension between transcendental genesis and empirical genesis. It is not, as Weimingzi suggests, a supposed opposition between “originarity” and “anticipation.” In fact, “absolute origin” and “anticipation” are unified within the concept of transcendental genesis. Weimingzi’s claim that “the problem of genesis has a dual nature……one being the absolute beginning…… and the other being that all genesis is anticipated” is mistaken from the outset.

For a discussion of the “duality” of genesis as addressed by Derrida, refer to the “Preface” of The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy:

“In a word, if the theme of transcendental genesis appeared at a certain moment in order to understand and found the theme of empirical genesis that preceded it in natural time， we need to ask ourselves about the meaning of this evolution. How was it possible？”

For the concept of “origin” referred here by Derrida is about transcendental genesis, refer to the “Preface” of the book mentioned above:

“First of all, genesis, when it is examined naively and in the most formal way possible， brings together two contradictory meanings in its concept: one of origin, one of becoming…… The existence of any genesis seems to have this tension between a transcendence and an immanence as its sense and direction.”

For the concept of “anticipation” referred here by Derrida is about transcendental genesis, refer to the “Preface” of the book mentioned above:

“A certain anticipation is thus faithful to the sense of every genesis: every innovation is a verification, every creation is a fulfilling, every emergence is tradition.”

[8] “(All genesis) occurs within a flow of past and future” refers to the context of empirical genesis and should not be linked with the previous clause (“all genesis is anticipated”) under the conjunction “therefore”. Weimingzi’s statement here——introducing a description related to empirical genesis while discussing the issue of “anticipation” —— further confirms what we revealed in footnote 7: Weimingzi has not clearly grasped the binary opposition between empirical genesis and transcendental genesis discussed by Derrida.

For the connection between “genesis within the flow of time” and empirical genesis, refer to the “Preface” of Derrida’s The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy:

“First of all, genesis, when it is examined naively and in the most formal way possible， brings together two contradictory meanings in its concept: one of origin, one of becoming…… But at the same stage, there is no genesis except within a temporal and ontological totality which encloses it; every genetic product is produced by something other than itself, it is carried by a past, called forth and oriented by a future.”

[9] During the recording of this video, Weimingzi held a physical copy of The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy, which appeared on screen. In this particular scene, Weimingzi shakes the book in his hand. Therefore, it is clear that the sentence refers to this book, rather than Speech and Phenomena mentioned earlier.

[10] “物论,” meaning materialism, refers to what is commonly known as dialectical materialism or philosophical materialism. The term “理项” here likely refers to what Weimingzi intended to denote as “相型论,” meaning idealism, which is often translated as subjective idealism or philosophical idealism. Notably, these two terms in Yu Qizhi’s translation differ from traditional renderings in philosophical works.

[11] Is “invention” a “phenomenological category”? This is a question. We find that not only does the “Glossary” appended to Yu Qizhi’s translation of The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy fail to include any vocabulary rooted in the term “invent”, but also the “German-French-English-Chinese Phenomenological Terminology Comparison Table” appended to Youzheng Li’s translation of Ideas I similarly omits any terms derived from the root “invent.”

Derrida does indeed use the term “invention” in The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy (in both English and French as “invention,” translated by Yu Qizhi as “发明” invention without any explanatory parentheses). Let us examine how Derrida employs this “category”, with reference to the “Preface” of Derrida’s The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy:

“An invention without verification could not be assimilated; it would be pure accommodation, at the limit, it would not even be ‘for a consciousness’. There is no consciousness that does not perceive every sense as a sense ‘for self’ (this ‘for self’ being one of a transcendental subjectivity, not a psychological one). Every sense being for a consciousness， by definition not being able to make itself a stranger to a ‘transcendental ego’, an intentional ego, it always reveals itself as ‘already’ present. At the limit, an invention without verification would deny the intentionality of consciousness, it would be invention ‘of’ nothing or invention (of) itself(by) itself, which would destroy the very sense of any inventions, which is a synthetic sense. The paradox and strangeness of transcendental intentionality reappear at the core of every invention, symbol of genesis: it is through a ‘synthetic’ value that a becoming and a temporal act are acts of verification and at the limit analytic. But just as invention without verification is only conceivable in the myth of consciousness without intentionality, of thinking torn from the world and from time, so verification without invention is not verifying anything by anything. It is a pure tautology, an empty and merely formal identity, a negation (of)consciousness, (of) world, (of) time, where every truth appears; it is thus through the “analytic” essence of every verification, of every aiming at sense, that this latter must refer out in a synthetic act to something other than itself…… In a sense, for Kant, the empirical and the a priori are mutually exclusive. The sense of every genesis is a phenomenal one. Invention is not absolute verification. Hence it is not real invention.”

It turns out that “invention” is a concept rooted in Kantian philosophy. From the referenced text, it is evident that Derrida, by introducing the concept of “verification” (French: vérification; German: Bewährung), effectively excludes the Kantian concept of “invention” from Husserlian phenomenology.

[12] The problem of genesis in Husserl’s philosophy is not concerned with the genesis of “ideas” within the mind, but rather with the genesis of phenomena in their worldly manifestation. Refer to Derrida’s “Preface” in The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy:

“The ‘transcendental’ reduction, end and principle of this movement, is the reduction, the farewell to every historical genesis, in the classical and ‘worldly’ sense of the term. But after this retreat to a philosophical purity of an idealist style, there are announced a kind of return, the outlines of a movement of broad reconquest: it is the notion of transcendental genesis which， resistant in principle to every reduction, revealed perhaps by every reduction properly understood, will oversee a kind of philosophical recuperation of history and allow a reconciliation of phenomenology and ‘worldly’ sciences. The first will be the foundation of the latter. For from the beginning of his career, Husserl had formulated the demand for such a synthesis.”

[13] Here, Weimingzi refers to “verification” as “vertification” and even writes it as “vertification” on the writing board. It is worth noting that, as mentioned in footnote 11, “invention” is a concept from Kantian philosophy rather than Husserlian phenomenology. Yet, Weimingzi provides an extended and ambiguous discussion on this matter. Meanwhile, the concept that truly belongs to Husserl—— “verification” ——is included in the two glossaries mentioned in footnote 11, but Weimingzi misspells it.

[14] In Weimingzi’s account, “consciousness” and “intentionality” are used as synonyms, which does not align with the Husserlian phenomenology introduced by Derrida. For further details, see footnote 17.

[15] It is only at this point that Weimingzi corrected their pronunciation and spelling of “verification.”

Weimingzi engaged in some ambiguous discussions surrounding the concept of “invention”, which does not exist in Husserlian phenomenology, while his grasp of the concept of “verification”, which does indeed belong to Husserlian phenomenology, proved to be flawed.

[16] Note that here, Weimingzi refers to the “dialectical structure of origin”, but what they actually mean is the “dialectical structure of genesis”, as evidenced by an arrow drawn on the canvas originating from “Genesis”.

However, as pointed out in footnotes 7 and 8, Weimingzi mistakenly conflates the binary opposition of “transcendental genesis” and “empirical genesis” with the binary opposition of “originarity” and “anticipation”. Furthermore, they align “invention” and “intentionality” with “originarity” and “anticipation”, respectively. As noted in footnote 11, “invention” is not a concept within Husserlian phenomenology. Consequently, constructing a binary opposition between “invention” and “intentionality” deviates from the Husserlian phenomenology introduced by Derrida. At most, it reflects a particular interpretation of “transcendental genesis”.

It is particularly important to note that, according to the Husserlian phenomenology introduced by Derrida, “intentionality” plays a role within the structure of transcendental genesis. To avoid reverting to Brentano’s framework, Husserl maintains the category of “intentionality” within the structure of transcendental genesis. Thus, the opposition between transcendental genesis and empirical genesis manifests in terms of intentionality as a contrast between “intentionality” and “the temporality of consciousness.” For further details on this point, refer to Chapter 1 of Part III in Derrida’s The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy:

“Now, the absolute foundation of phenomenological clear evidence, the last authority for all language, all logic, all philosophical discourse, is that intentionality is merged with the temporality of consciousness.”

[17] This passage also confuses the concepts of “consciousness” and “intentionality”, as evidenced by the earlier statement: “You have an intentionality, or you have a thought, or a consciousness, which arises.” When we generate a “thought,” what exactly “has been there”? Once we distinguish between the concepts of “consciousness” and “intentionality,” this statement becomes clear: when we generate a thought, we can already confirm the existence of a transcendental intentionality that has been present all along.

[18] It must be emphasized once again that what is brought forth can only be a “thought,” not “intentionality.”

[19] At this point, Weimingzi flipped through the book, located the text they intended to discuss, and corrected the spelling of “contamination”. It is important to note that the term “contamination” appear in both the original text and its annotations in the book. For reference, see Derrida’s The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy, “To the Reader” (1990 edition):

“This panoramic reading, which here sweeps across the whole work of Husserl with the imperturbable impudence of a scanner, refers to a sort of law whose stability seems to me today all the more astonishing because, since then, even in its literal formulation, this law will not have stopped commanding everything l have tried to prove, as if a sort of idiosyncrasy was already negotiating in its own way a necessity that would always overtake it and that would have to be interminably reappropriated. What necessity？It is always a question of an originary complication of the origin, of an initial contamination of the simple, of an inaugural divergence that no analysis could present, make present in its phenomenon or reduce to the point like nature of the element, instantaneous and identical to itself. In fact the question that governs the whole trajectory is already: ‘How can the originarity of a foundation be an a priori synthesis？ How can everything start with a complication?’ All the limits on which phenomenological discourse is constructed are examined from the standpoint of the fatal necessity of a ‘contamination’ (‘unperceived entailment or dissimulated contamination’ between the two edges of the opposition: transcendental/‘worldly’, eidetic/empirical, intentional/ nonintentional, active/passive, present/nonpresent, pointlike/non-pointlike, originary / derived, pure/impure, etc.), the quaking of each border coming to propagate itself onto all the others. A law of differential contamination imposes its logic from one end of the book to the other; and I ask myself why the very word ‘contamination’ has not stopped imposing itself on me from thence forward.”

[20] The three sets of binary oppositions presented by Weimingzi do not correspond to any of the eight sets of binary oppositions listed in Derrida’s original text cited in footnote 19. Instead, they resemble the so-called “metaphysical” binary oppositions, often associated with hierarchical thinking, rather than phenomenological binary oppositions.

Moreover, it is worth noting that Weimingzi mentions “the real and the essential,” “the formal and the real.” Even if “the real” and “the actual” (or “real” in another sense) are distinguishable within Weimingzi’s framework, these two terms should occupy equivalent positions. However, in their enumeration, one appears as the first term in a pair while the other appears as the second term in another pair. This inconsistency in the ordering of the terms within these pairs reflects a certain confusion.

[21] As noted in footnote 20, the frameworks listed by Weimingzi are fundamentally not those introduced by Derrida within the context of Husserlian phenomenology.

[22] Here, Weimingzi emphasizes “the action of consciousness”, which reverts to the issue pointed out in footnote 12.

[23] In this discussion, we primarily draw upon Husserl’s Experience and Judgment to elucidate this issue. As noted in footnote 4, Experience and Judgment is one of the key texts around which Derrida’s The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy revolves. Moreover, Derrida points out that Experience and Judgment is a work Husserl agreed to publish shortly before his death.

How should we understand the statement “I recall that I just stepped on the floor” as a “ternary relation”? In fact, it is quite simple. The “I who is recalling” constitutes the first element, while the occurrence of the content being recalled (“I stepped on the floor”) has a dual nature: the transcendental genesis of the recalled content forms the second element, and the empirical genesis of the recalled content forms the third element.

Regarding the transcendental genesis of the recalled content, refer to Chapter 1 of Part III in Derrida’s The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy:

“The existent, aim of knowledge, must always be ‘pregiven’. But it must not be given in any old fashion. It must be given in the evidence of the ‘self givenness’ [given in person] and not in a simple ‘presentification’ of imagination or of memory.”

We only need to change the example so that the content of recollection does not involve the so-called “I”, and then the issue transforms into the phenomenological epistemological problem of “recollection”. Specifically, it becomes a problem concerning the binary opposition between the transcendental genesis and empirical genesis of the content being recalled. Husserl uses “another table” as an example; see §37 in Chapter 3 of Husserl’s Experience and Judgment:

“The most immediate question will concern above all the connection of perception with memory as positional [setzender] presentification and the mode of their intuitive unity, of a unity, therefore, which can also appear when the unifed objects, which are in reciprocal relation, are not given simultaneously in a perception but are given partly in perceptions, partly in presentifcations.

The following serves as an example: through perception I see a table before me, and at the same time I am reminded of another table, which formerly was in its place……

Certainly, there is a legitimacy to talking about the separate-ness of the perceived and the remembered, If I live in memory I have a unity of intuition of memory; what is remembered is there before all acts of comparing, distinguishing, relating; there membered is ‘sensuous’ and made of flowing parts, ‘intuitive’, unitary, and self-enclosed just as long as I live in one intuition of memory which persists uninterrupted, as long as I don't ‘leap’ from memory to memory in a chaos of sudden ‘whims’. Every uniform memory is in itself continuously uniform and in itself constitutes for consciousness a unity of objectivities, which is an intuitive-sensuous unity: intuitive in flowing parts, we said, That is, the running-through in memory of an event of sufficiently long duration has exactly the same structure as its apprehension in original perception. Just as in perception there is always only a single phase intuitively present to consciousness in the original, which phase, immediately detached from the next and retained in grasp, is united synthetically with it, so, in the memory of the event, the whole event is, to be sure, intuitively intended in its unity, namely, in all of its phases, although always only a single stretch of its flowing temporality is ‘really intuitive’.

The principle of the closed nature [Geschlossenheit] of memory is naturally exactly the same as that which we have determined previously for perception, namely, it is based on a unity of temporal duration. It is a unity, not only in relation to the extraction and thematic contemplation of a perceived individual thing or event, but in relation to the unitary phenomenon of the “impression" which founds this activity, a phenomenon in which a unity of objectivity(however numerous its components may be )is sensuously pregiven to us, is already passively there for us. It is an originally constituted structure which flows along continuously. This structure, whether of perception (firsthand sensuous givenness) or of memory，is always for itself, and only the horizon-intentions give it a connection with the objectivity which extends beyond it, with the objective world of which it is a constituent part.”

“Partly in perception, partly in recollection” means “partly in phenomenological intuition, partly in phenomenological reduction.” The so-called “intuitive unity” pertains to the empirical genesis of the content of recollection, whereas the “principle of closure” pertains to the transcendental genesis of the content of recollection.

[24] In fact, Derrida has already pointed out that “transcendental intentionality” is unnecessary. Refer to Chapter 2 of Part I in Derrida’s The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy:

“The objective sense of being can well do without. But will being not also do without a transcendental intentionality?”

It is worth noting that Weimingzi regards Derrida’s The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy as an effort to “rescue” Husserlian phenomenology. However, Derrida did not actually make such an “effort”. As Derrida’s doctoral dissertation, this work is, overall, a review-oriented piece. As noted in footnote 4, Derrida examines several of Husserl’s works in this book along a chronological trajectory and ultimately declares the failure of Husserl’s efforts in transcendental phenomenology. Weimingzi, having not finished reading the book, failed to notice Derrida’s judgment on Husserlian phenomenology. For details, see footnote 45.

[25] The result is that these statements are neither rigorous nor comprehensible.

[26] Due to Weimingzi’s erroneous framing of “absolute origin” and “anticipation” as a binary opposition, using it to replace the binary opposition of “transcendental genesis” and “empirical genesis” (see footnotes 7 and 8), as well as his failure to distinguish between intentionality (Intentionalität) and intention (see footnote 16), he ended up presenting this example in a very ambiguous manner.

In the Husserlian phenomenology introduced by Derrida, transcendental intentionality anticipates empirical genesis. For instance, when a person’s eyes move from left to right, this movement involves a dialectical unity between the transcendental genesis——whose content is the anticipation of the eyes moving from left to right——and the worldly, empirical genesis of this movement. This serves as an example of the quotation in footnote 7: “All creation is realization.”

The metaphor of a “console” aptly illustrates the actual situation of transcendental phenomenology. To say it “does not exist” is to view it from today’s perspective, or from outside phenomenology. Transcendental intentionality anticipating the movement of the eyes from left to right is akin to operating a game controller, while the empirical genesis of the eyes moving from left to right resembles the unfolding content on a game screen. How, then, do people gain knowledge of this “console”? The method lies in “transcendental intuition” and “transcendental reduction”. However, what are the specific mechanisms of transcendental intuition and transcendental reduction? This question aligns with what Weimingzi previously referred to as the “fatal blow (to phenomenology)”.

[27] The point here is that initially, our grasp of the occurrence of eye movement is simple: “the eyes moved from left to right”. However, our understanding can deepen. For example, we may further recognize that the eyes moved horizontally by 10° (as Weimingzi mentions in terms like “positioning” and “deflection”). How, then, does transcendental intentionality anticipate our deeper grasp of the empirical genesis of eye movement? Should we believe that transcendental intentionality already contains all the rich information within the depth we can comprehend——even before we consciously deepen our grasp (phenomenological intuition)? Or should we think that transcendental intentionality reveals itself progressively and appropriately as our understanding deepens (phenomenological reduction)?

This is precisely the question Derrida raises. Refer to the quotation in footnote 3: “How can everything begin with complexity?”

[28] Weimingzi stated: “Its problem ultimately still originates from Kant’s ‘a priori synthesis,’ that is, the problem of synthetic a priori.” This statement is steady and correct but equally steady in failing to provide any further insight. For Derrida, what is crucial is to develop or transform this concept of “a priori synthesis” (or “pre-experiential synthesis”) that “originates from Kant.” Derrida points out: “In Kant, experience and the a priori (pre-experiential) are mutually incompatible.” However, in Hegel and Husserl, “it is the a priori synthesis (pre-experiential synthesis) that makes all experience and all experiential meaning possible.”

Refer to the Preface of Derrida’s The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy:

“Kant, in refuting Hume, showed convincingly that without the intervention of an a priori form of the understanding, any judgment loses its necessary character. We will not here go into historical analyses, let us just note that Kant called ‘synthetic a priori’ judgments only those of a mathematical order. These judgments are precisely those which escape from genesis. Their synthesis is not ‘real’, at least not in the eyes of Kant. Insofar as they are not born in effective historical experience, insofar as they are not ‘constituted’ by this, they are a priori. In a sense， for Kant, the empirical and the a priori are mutually exclusive. The sense of every genesis is a phenomenal one. Invention is not absolute verification. Hence it is not real invention. The sense of every empirical-genetic judgment is the object of a construction, thus by definition dubious. On this point at least, it is surprising to see the precision with which Hegel's criticism of Kant points to Husserl's perspective: far from the experience of the real which is called “phenomenal”, excluding a priori synthesis, it is a priori synthesis (of thought and the real, of sense and of the sensible, for example, and in a very general way) which makes experience possible, and every meaning of experience.”

[29] Considering the origin of a priori synthesis, refer to §8 in Chapter 1 of Husserl’s Experience and Judgment:

“For us the world is always a world in which cognition in the most diverse ways has already done its work. Thus it is not open to doubt that there is no experience, in the simple and primary sense of an experience of things, which, grasping a thing for the first time and bringing cognition to bear on it, does not already “know” more about the thing than is in this cognitional one. Every act of experience, whatever it may be that is experienced in the proper sense as it comes into view, has eo ipso necessarily, a knowledge and a potential knowledge [Mitwissenhaving] reference to precisely this thing, namely, to something of it which has not yet come into view， 'This preknowledge [Vorwissen]is indeterminate as to content, or not completely deter-mined， but it is never completely empty; and were it not already manifest, the experience would not at all be experience of this one, this particular, thing.”

[30] This refers to the fact that, in Kantian philosophy, genesis lacks the foundation of “a priori synthesis” in Kant’s sense. See the quotation in footnote 11: “In Kant, experience and the pre-experiential are mutually incompatible. All the meaning of genesis is the meaning of phenomena.”

Additionally, refer to Derrida’s The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy:

“Let us just note that Kant called ‘synthetic a priori judgments’ only those of a mathematical order. These judgments are precisely those which escape from genesis. Their synthesis is not ‘real’, at least not in the eyes of Kant.

[31] The original words of Weimingzi are as follows: Weimingzi turned “itself” into a preposition. The “two prepositions” refer to the previously mentioned “of and by.” Framing these two prepositions together means that “itself” has been prepositionalized, carrying the meaning of “of and by.”

[32] The term “Noema” (German: Noema), translated as “object of consciousness” in the glossary appended to Yu Qizhi’s translation of The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy, is rendered as “intentional object” in the comparative table appended to Ideas I referenced in Note 11.

In Derrida’s work, the temporality of the “object of consciousness” is discussed in the second part, with the title of its first chapter being “Noematic Temporality and Genetic Temporality”.

[33] Here, Weimingzi assumed a posture of reading a book. “The Genetic Constitution of the Ego and the Passage to a New Form of Transcendental Idealism” is the title he read from Chapter 2 of Part III in The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy.

Weimingzi referred to this chapter as the “final” one. Earlier, he also mentioned, “Finally, attempting to undertake a transcendental logic,” which likewise referred to the content of Part III. As noted in Footnote 4, Derrida’s book consists of four parts. However, even while reading aloud the chapter titles from the table of contents, Weimingzi consistently referred to the content of Part III as “final.” This peculiarity is both intriguing and puzzling. We speculate that this might be because the chapter titles in Part IV make less frequent use of phenomenological concepts (though not entirely absent) and include terms like “philosophical history,” which seem less “lofty.” If articulated explicitly, it might fail to achieve an effect of ostentation.

The chapter titles in Part IV are as follows:

Part IV: Teleology——The Sense of History and the History of Sense

1.The Birth and Crisis of Philosophy

2.The First Task of Philosophy: The Reactivation of Genesis

3.The History of Philosophy and the Transcendental Motive

[34] The “new form of idealism” articulated by Derrida is precisely what he terms “teleological idealism.” This concept is unveiled in Chapter 2 of Part III of The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy and is further elaborated upon in Part IV. Due to his incomplete reading of the book, Weimingzi failed to recognize the significance of the concept of “teleology,” which is prominently featured in the title of Part IV.

However, considering that Weimingzi identifies “teleology” as one of the theoretical orientations within the four dimensions of his “Ismism” framework, his neglect of the term “teleology” here remains striking.

For reference, Derrida’s discussion of the “new form of idealism” in Chapter 2 of Part III:

“Therefore let us not be surprised when in Cartesian Meditations, presenting phenomenology as absolute science, as the foundation of every possible science of every science that is existent in history and constituted in a culture, Husserl alludes to a new "idea"; a teleological idea that will give him a sense of the becoming which in itself and as such is not constituted by any becoming.”

[35] Referencing the quotation from Footnote 22: “At least on this point, we are struck by how Hegel’s critique of Kant accurately foreshadows Husserl’s perspective: it is far from being the so-called ‘phenomena’—— the reality of experience that excludes a priori synthesis——that makes all experience and the meaning of all experience possible. Rather, it is the a priori synthesis (for example, and generally speaking, between thought and reality, meaning and sensibility) that constitutes the very possibility of all experience and all experiential meaning.”

[36] The original words of Weimingzi were as follows, though it should be considered a slip of the tongue involving “light and airy” (qingpiaopiao). The “piaopiao” in qingpiaopiao (“light and airy”) shares the same tone and rhyme as the “qiaoqiao” in jingqiaoqiao (“quiet and still”). Additionally, words such as qingqiao (“light and nimble”) and qingqiao (“light and graceful”), which convey related meanings, also use the initial consonant q. The combination of these factors likely led to this slip of the tongue.

[37] Refer to the quotation in Footnote 45.

[38] This refers to the “Arc Reactor” on Iron Man’s chest.

[39] Refer to the quotation in Footnote 40.

[40] Regarding the subsequent text, Derrida mentions two works: Introduction to Husserl’s “The Origin of Geometry” (1962) and Speech and Phenomena (1967).

For reference, see Derrida’s “To the Reader” in The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy (1990):

“that several years later, even when in the introduction to Edmund Husserl's Origin of Geometry (1962) and in Speech and Phenomena (1967), I was pursuing the reading started in this way, the word "dialectic" finished either by totally disappearing or even by designating that without which or separate from which difference, originary supplement, and traces had to be thought, all these are perhaps a kind of road sign: about the philosophical and political map according to which a student of philosophy tried to find his bearings in 1950s France.”

It is worth noting that Weimingzi had indeed read the 1990 “Preface” to The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy. For instance, his discussion of “contamination” can be found in the original text cited in Footnote 15, and his commentary on “the choice of a young student” is referenced in Footnote 32, with the latter originating from this very section.

Moreover, he also mentioned Speech and Phenomena earlier in this text. Why, then, does he appear unaware of it here?

[41] Refer to the quotation in Footnote 40.

[42] Derrida’s The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy does not include a “Postscript.” The so-called “Postscript” likely refers to the 1990 Preface, which is labeled as such in both the Chinese and English editions.

Regarding the book’s length, the Chinese edition (2019) spans approximately 250 pages: the 1953–54 Preface, titled “The Theme of Genesis and the Genesis of Themes,” occupies 40 pages, while the main text begins on page 41 and ends on page 291. The English edition treats the 1953–54 Preface as separately paginated, with its main text totaling 214 pages. In any case, this is a book of over 200 pages, not merely “a little over 100 pages.”

Additionally, the 1953–54 Preface, “The Theme of Genesis and the Genesis of Themes”, is a highly significant text. In fact, it is evident that Weimingzi primarily relied on these 40 pages for his lecture in this video. How could Weimingzi possibly advise others to omit this section when recommending the book?

As we noted earlier in footnote 33, when Weimingzi glanced through the table of contents of The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy, he overlooked the fourth section, which includes terms such as “teleology” and “philosophy of history.” This act of omission shares a common foundation with his classification of “history” as part of the “realm of the physical”: namely, how Weimingzi conceptualizes the notion of “philosophy of history.

[43] Weimingzi places “history” on the “metaphysical vs. physical” spectrum as belonging to the “physical” side, which does not align with the phenomenology of Husserl as introduced by Derrida. Categorizing “history” on the “physical” side implies an “anti-philosophy of history”, a stance that contradicts Derrida's interpretation of Husserlian phenomenology.

Weimingzi himself has stated that The Problem of Genesis in Husserl's Philosophy “enables a connection between Hegel and Husserl” (see footnote 35). The concept of the philosophy of history is precisely one of the key points that links the two. We have already referenced texts where Derrida identifies similarities between Husserl's and Hegel's philosophies (see footnote 22). Here, we further cite passages from Derrida's The Problem of Genesis in Husserl's Philosophy. For instance, in the "Preface," Derrida writes:

“Both through its conventions and its method, this philosophy will reveal to us [what are] the radical implications of this essential inseparability of these two worlds of meanings: history of philosophy and philosophy of history.”

Additionally, in Chapter 3 of Part IV, Derrida begins with the following statement:

“History borrows all its sense from the intentional rationality which thus secretly animates it; the idea of philosophy, indefinite unveiling of this ratio, burst into European humanity. Transcendental phenomenology, in its project, is one with this analogous life itself.”

Placing “history” on the “physical” side reflects a profound misunderstanding on Weimingzi's part regarding Derrida's perspective in this book. This misunderstanding is partly due to Weimingzi’s own admission that he did not finish reading Derrida’s work. However, it likely also stems from a deeper misapprehension of Hegelian dialectics and the philosophy of history—concepts Weimingzi claims to have "turned toward."

As noted earlier (see footnote 33), Weimingzi overlooked references to "teleology" and "philosophy of history" in Part IV when browsing the table of contents of The Problem of Genesis in Husserl's Philosophy. This oversight shares a common foundation with his decision to categorize “history” as belonging to the “physical” realm: namely, how Weimingzi conceptualizes the idea of “philosophy of history”.

[44] The blackboard writing proceeded as follows (“The correct spelling of ‘发生’ is ‘genesis’”). Subsequently, unable to spell the word for “genetics” with the root “-ology,” Weimingzi crossed out this term on the blackboard.

It should be noted that Derrida’s book does not employ the term for “发生学” derived from the root “-ology.” The term translated by Yu Qizhi as “genetics” appears in the English version as “genetics” when used as a noun and “genetically” when used as an adverb.

[45] Derrida’s The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy is a work of “synthesis” or “overview”. It does not construct anything on behalf of Husserl. Because Weimingzi did not finish reading this book, he assumed that Derrida was attempting to “rescue” Husserlian phenomenology (Weimingzi repeatedly mentioned “rescue”; we cite just one instance in the original text referenced in footnote 37) and declared Derrida’s failure. However, Derrida merely provided an overview of Husserlian phenomenology and, in fact, declared its failure himself.

For reference, see Chapter 1 of Part III in The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy:

This philosophical refection being always unfinished, it seems that, in spite of what Husserl says, the race toward the originary is permanently and essentially condemned to failure.

[46] Derrida regarded his work The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy as an idealist endeavor. He referenced the work of his classmate, the Vietnamese philosopher Tran Duc Thao, titled Phenomenology and Dialectical Materialism (1951). Derrida believed that the concept of “dialectics” in his own work transcended “dialectical materialism.” For reference, see the “To the Reader” section in the 1990 edition of The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy:

“dialectic, an ‘originary dialectic’. The word comes back insistently, page after page. A ‘dialectical’ escalation claims to go farther than dialectical materialism (that of Tran Duc Thao， for example，often quoted and deemed insufficiently dialectical, still a ‘prisoner … of a meta-physics’.”

References:

Husserl, Edmund. Translated by Li Youzheng. General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology M. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 1992.

Husserl, Edmund. Edited by Ludwig Landgrebe. Translated by Deng Xiaomang et al. Experience and Judgment: Investigations in a Genealogy of Logic M. Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company, 1999.

Derrida, Jacques. Translated by Yu Qizhi. The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy M. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2019.

@ 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.

@ 4dffec17:4c4cbd48

Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, not only developed the groundbreaking technology but also mined a significant number of bitcoins in Bitcoin's early days. However, these bitcoins, estimated to be worth billions today, remain untouched—deepening the mystery surrounding Satoshi’s identity and intentions.

How Many Bitcoins Does Satoshi Own?

It is widely believed that Satoshi mined around 1 million bitcoins during Bitcoin’s early days, primarily between 2009 and 2010. These coins are spread across thousands of wallet addresses, yet none have ever been spent or transferred.

Why Are Satoshi’s Wallets Significant?

1. Unprecedented Wealth: With Bitcoin’s price fluctuating in the tens of thousands per BTC, Satoshi’s holdings are valued at over $40 billion today, making the creator one of the wealthiest individuals—if they are still alive.

2. Symbol of Integrity: The fact that Satoshi has never moved or sold these coins adds to the perception that Bitcoin was created for technological revolution, not personal gain.

3. Network Stability: If Satoshi’s coins were suddenly moved, it could significantly impact Bitcoin’s price and cause speculation or fear within the community due to the massive supply entering circulation.

Theories Behind the Untouched Wallets

Lost Access: Some speculate Satoshi lost access to the private keys, making the coins permanently inaccessible.

Deliberate Silence: Satoshi may have chosen to keep the wallets untouched to avoid influencing the market or compromising Bitcoin’s decentralization.

Satoshi is Deceased: Another theory is that Satoshi may have passed away, leaving the wallets dormant forever.

Final Thoughts

The untouched fortune in Satoshi Nakamoto’s wallets remains a powerful symbol of Bitcoin’s core values—decentralization, trustlessness, and financial freedom. Whether out of principle, lost keys, or mystery, the silence of these wallets only deepens the legend of Bitcoin’s creator.

satoshi

bitcoin

freedom

finance

Nastr

economy

@ a012dc82:6458a70d

Table Of Content

• The Lazarus Group's Cryptocurrency Holdings

• A Significant Drop in Holdings

• No Privacy Coins in Sight

• Underreported Holdings?

• Previous Attacks and Thefts

• Warnings and Threats

• Conclusion

• FAQ

In the ever-evolving world of cryptocurrencies, security breaches and cyber heists have become alarmingly common. One name that frequently emerges in relation to these digital thefts is the Lazarus Group. This North Korean hacking collective has been linked to a series of high-profile cyber-attacks, amassing a significant amount of cryptocurrency in the process. This article delves deep into the group's activities, their holdings, and the implications of their actions on the crypto world.

The Lazarus Group's Cryptocurrency Holdings

The Lazarus Group, originating from North Korea, has made headlines with its vast cryptocurrency holdings. Recent reports suggest that this hacking collective has a digital treasure chest worth around $47 million. Bitcoin, the most popular and valuable cryptocurrency, forms the bulk of their holdings, with an estimated value of $42.5 million. In addition to Bitcoin, the group has diversified its holdings with Ether (ETH) valued at $1.9 million, BNB (BNB) worth $1.1 million, and a mix of stablecoins, primarily Binance USD (BUSD), which amounts to approximately $640,000.

A Significant Drop in Holdings

While the current figures are staggering, there has been a noticeable decline in the Lazarus Group's cryptocurrency assets. Data indicates that their holdings were valued at $86 million as of September 6. This value plummeted in the aftermath of the Stake.com hack, an event that saw the Lazarus Group as a prime suspect. Dune Analytics, a data monitoring platform, has been keeping a close eye on the group's activities. They have identified 295 wallets associated with the Lazarus Group, information corroborated by agencies like the FBI and the OFAC.

No Privacy Coins in Sight

For a hacking group that thrives on anonymity, it's surprising to note the absence of privacy coins in their portfolio. Coins such as Monero (XMR), Dash (DASH), and Zcash (ZEC), known for their enhanced privacy features, are conspicuously missing from their holdings. However, this hasn't deterred the group from continuing their operations. Their crypto wallets, devoid of privacy coins, have seen consistent activity, with the latest transaction recorded on September 20.

Underreported Holdings?

The figures mentioned might just be the tip of the iceberg. According to 21.co, the Lazarus Group's actual cryptocurrency holdings could be much higher than what's currently reported. This assertion is based on the data available to the public, suggesting that the group might have undisclosed assets hidden away.

Previous Attacks and Thefts

The Lazarus Group's foray into the crypto world has been marked by a series of attacks and thefts. They were the masterminds behind the CoinEx exchange hack, which resulted in losses exceeding $55 million. Their nefarious activities don't end there. The FBI has linked them to other significant breaches, including those targeting Alphapo, CoinsPaid, and Atomic Wallet. These attacks, in 2023 alone, saw the group walking away with more than $200 million. However, there's a silver lining. Chainalysis reports indicate a decline in crypto thefts by hackers associated with North Korea, with an 80% drop recorded from 2022.

Warnings and Threats The digital realm remains under the shadow of the Lazarus Group. Recent alerts from U.S. federal authorities have highlighted the group's potential to target critical sectors, including the U.S. healthcare and public health domains. These warnings underscore the group's capabilities and the persistent threat they pose.

Conclusion

The Lazarus Group's activities serve as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities inherent in the digital space. Their vast cryptocurrency holdings, accumulated through a series of hacks and breaches, highlight the need for enhanced security measures in the crypto world. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, it's imperative for stakeholders to remain vigilant, ensuring that their assets are protected from such sophisticated threats. The story of the Lazarus Group is not just about a hacking collective's exploits but a call to action for the broader crypto community.

FAQ

Who is the Lazarus Group? The Lazarus Group is a North Korean hacking collective known for its high-profile cyber-attacks and significant cryptocurrency holdings.

How much cryptocurrency does the Lazarus Group hold? The group is reported to have amassed around $47 million in cryptocurrency, with Bitcoin forming the majority of their holdings.

Were there any recent significant drops in their holdings? Yes, their holdings saw a decline from $86 million as of September 6, especially after the Stake.com hack.

Does the Lazarus Group hold any privacy coins? Surprisingly, the group does not hold any known privacy coins like Monero, Dash, or Zcash.

Have there been any warnings about the Lazarus Group's activities? U.S. federal authorities have issued warnings about the group's potential to target sectors like U.S. healthcare and public health.

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.

@ 662f9bff:8960f6b2

Folks - it really is time to wake up. How many more wars do we need? War on the Virus, War on Terror, War in Afghanistan, War in the Middle East, War in Vietnam - now War in Ukraine and who knows where else?

I grew up in Belfast in the 1970s and lived through the proxy war fought in my hometown. More recently I lived through a remarkably similar situation here in HK during 2019 and observed it happening too in Bangkok with some of the same participants spotted in media clips who had travelled from HK, presumably to orchestrate it there too. For years the motto of Belfast was "Belfast Says No" and it was prominent in a huge banner on the City Hall. Bitterness and resentment reigned for years until "Peace Broke Out", led by the women of Belfast insisting that people "Stop Fighting". Remember the Peace People?

Bottom line - war is never good. Benefits to society only ever emerge at times when people are working together, trading and collaborating for the better good.

In such situations you have "Voice or Exit" - you can speak up (if you are allowed) or exit (if you are allowed). That is why I left Northern Ireland (exit); the mess continued for 25 more years after that.

Concerning "Exit" - did you ever wonder why governments are now restricting the rights to travel? Or if/how you can preserve wealth if/when war develops?

The perpetual war footing that we find ourselves in was clearly warned about in George Orwell's 1984 - drumbeat of hostile distant foreign empires and their aggressions and victories. Sound familiar to anyone? Strangely, this was the conclusion of the "Report from Iron Mountain" from a 1967 US government panel which concluded that war, or a credible substitute for war, is necessary if governments are to maintain power. Search and ye shall find (still). Link here in case you cannot find it or are lazy!

Will you or your family benefit from what they say they are doing in your name?

By the way - the American People knew all this when they rebelled against the British and wrote their Constitution,

For those who prefer a more structured reading list, take your pick below:

• The Creature from Jekyll Island - The untold history of the FED...
• Sovereign Individual - written in 1997 they did predict personal computers, mobile phones, cryptocurrencies and even the current pandemic situation..
• The Fourth Turning - we have been here before
• The Fiat Standard - How it works - what you were never taught at school
• When Money Dies - The Nightmare of Deficit Spending, Devaluation, and Hyperinflation in Weimar, Germany
• The Price of Tomorrow - The key to an abundant future is not what you have been told
• One of the best interviews of the year: Peter and Lyn discuss Currency wars
• Report from Iron Mountain - On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace

That's it!

No one can be told what The Matrix is. \ You have to see it for yourself.

Do share this newsletter with any of your friends and family who might be interested.

You can also email me at: LetterFrom@rogerprice.me

💡Enjoy the newsletters in your own language : Dutch, French, German, Serbian, Chinese Traditional & Simplified, Thai and Burmese.

@ 554ab6fe:c6cbc27e

Time is the most precious. Spending time with those we love, relaxing and enjoying peace of mind, and finding time for simple pleasures that warm our hearts are all examples of why we value time over everything else. We all want more time and know how finite it is.

In a previous article, I discussed how a better name for Bitcoin could be the Entropy Engine. In brief, Bitcoin is the Entropy Engine because system users rely upon entropic processes, either through private key generation or the mining process, to benefit from the system. Additionally, considering that life on earth is the consequence of the second law of thermodynamics, it is evident that Bitcoin accelerates our entropic purpose by monetizing energy production in a way never seen in human history. Bitcoin is all things entropy.

After writing the previous article, it slowly dawned on me that Bitcoin is valuable precisely because of its constraints related to entropy. Being an Entropy Engine gives Bitcoin the property of being scarce, and scarcity alongside utility brings value. These properties stem from the relationship between entropy and time. This article will discuss the relationship between entropy, time, and scarcity. These concepts will then help explain economic principles and pave the way to explaining why Bitcoin is a fascinating invention that brought economic value to the digital world.

Entropy is a measure of the disorder or randomness in a system. Essentially, entropy reflects the number of ways a system can be arranged, with higher entropy indicating more possible arrangements and more significant disorder. In an isolated system, entropy tends to increase over time, articulated through the second law of thermodynamics, which states that natural processes move towards a state of maximum entropy1. Our everyday experience with entropy can best be explained through heat. When energy is used to perform work, some of it gets released as heat, increasing the system's entropy by making the energy more dispersed and less useful.

Another impact entropy has on our daily lives is through the experience of time. As previously stated, the second law of thermodynamics states that, in a closed system, entropy always increases over time. Therefore, there is this dynamic where entropy is continuously growing, and our participation in a universe with such a law gives rise to the experience of an arrow of time1. In other words, time is a psychological experience resulting from interacting with a universe governed by the second law of thermodynamics1. It may seem intuitive to anyone reading this, but it is worth highlighting that time is always moving forward because entropy is continually increasing. No human can get any time back. From the point of view of a human, time is finite. Like energy and matter, which, according to the first law of thermodynamics, can neither be created nor destroyed, time is one of the universe's most limited resources.

Understanding the finite nature of time, energy, and matter is fundamental in economics. In his treatise on economics Man, Economy, and State with Power and Markets, Murray Rothbard states that "A man's time is always scarce. […] Therefore, time is a means that man must use to arrive at his ends. It is a means that is omnipresent in all human action"2. He goes on to state that "[…][i]n the first place, all means are scarce, i.e., limited with respect to the ends that they could possibly serve. […] Secondly, these scarce means must be allocated by the actor to serve certain ends and leave other ends unsatisfied. This act of choice may be called economizing the means to serve the most desired ends"2. Economics is fundamentally the study of how human beings make choices that allocate resources to satisfy their desires. Rothbard here highlights how because both time and the planet's resources are finite, human beings must choose how to allocate those resources. On aggregate, these individual decisions lead to the flourishing of human society as it develops and grows by becoming more and more efficient in resource allocation.

We all live on this one planet together. The resources on this earth are finite, which raises the question of how best to allocate these resources to satisfy everyone's needs and desires peacefully. The study of economics shows that free markets, which facilitate the free decision-making process of every human being, are the best way for all the resources to be allocated to maximize human flourishing if it is done so under the principle of non-aggression2,3. Notably, markets are needed because time and matter/energy are finite in the first place and are the necessary means to satisfy our ends. Put another way, economic value exists because of the scarce and useful nature of resources.

Consider now the vital relationship between the laws of thermodynamics and economics. The first law of thermodynamics, which states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, gives rise to the fact that resources are scarce on earth, which fuels economic decision-making amongst human beings. Additionally, the second law of thermodynamics, which highlights the universe's entropic nature, indicates that time is also scarce, valuable, and an integral aspect of economic decision-making, as all economic actions must use time. Most importantly, as described in more detail in the previous article, biological life can be viewed as the consequence of the entropic process of the universe. Life formed to help accelerate the increase in entropy. The process by which humans utilize energy and help accelerate the increase in entropy can also be viewed from an economic lens: economic decision-making helps drive the pursuit and innovation of energy production and usage. If economics is the study of the process by which human beings collectively make decisions, through individual action, that drive our societal progress forward. Then it is also the study of how human beings further accelerate their role in the entropic process of the universe. Entropy is the reason why we have economic markets, and economic markets help accelerate the entropic process. It is impossible to separate the laws of thermodynamics from the existence of the economic process within human society.

What is also appropriate to consider is the necessary properties of money. Nick Szabo, in his work "Shelling Out: The Origins of Money," provides an anthropological interpretation of how the use of money developed4. In trade, two potentially untrusting parties must find a way to trust one another. To do so, we can rely upon tokens of record governed by the laws of nature, which we all can trust. A commodity can be a helpful medium of exchange when it is scarce and hard to reproduce to the degree that people understand the extreme amount of energy and effort it would take to counterfeit one. Scarcity is how homo-sapiens detect the energy required to obtain a given object, giving it trust and validity as a unit of record. In this way, the first law of thermodynamics, which expresses matter as finite, provides a condition from which human beings can benefit by using it to trust one another. Not only is scarcity an underlying property that is the cause for economics, but the scarcer commodities, or at least those with the highest stock-to-flow ratio, are used as a medium of exchange that allows for more productive exchange within the economy5. In other words, most of a certain kind of scarcity is an underlying property in what makes high-quality money.

What is then interesting to ponder is the concept of the most scarce. One of the scarcest things we value, that which is most scarce, is time. Due to the second law of thermodynamics, time is the most finite and scarce resource. There is no way of 'recovering' or 'creating' more time. In that same vein, money can be conceptualized as an economic abstraction of time. I work now to receive money, which I can use to satisfy an end later. Similarly, I invest some money now so that it may grow, and I can benefit even more from that money later. Money and time are linked. Therefore, it stands to reason that the soundest form of money will be related to time in some fundamental sense. The better a money can store time, the more attractive that money is to use.

One significant component that contributes to the considerable innovation of Bitcoin is the difficulty adjustment. The difficulty adjustment in Bitcoin ensures that the time to mine a block remains close to 10 minutes, regardless of changes in the total mining power (the amount of energy being contributed to the network). This adjustment is crucial because it prevents blocks from being mined too quickly or slowly as miners join or leave the network. By recalibrating every 2016 blocks, the network maintains a certain rhythm, creating a new block every 10 minutes. It isn't easy to design a circuit board that can track time accurately and autonomously without relying on external time sources. However, creating a computer network that emulates the laws of thermodynamics via the mining process while simultaneously including the difficulty adjustment to give the machine a sense of time allowed it to adopt properties that were unique to nature itself. In this case, it is the first digital software that fully inherited the properties of scarcity.

Judging the correct ending for an article that blends so many disciplines is difficult. Perhaps the best way is to go full circle. The works of Donald Hoffman suggest that time is a consequence of human consciousness, not fundamental to the universe, that serves a positive utility towards our evolutionary pursuit of survival6. The predecessor article to this one highlighted how life is a consequence of the entropic nature of the universe. Perhaps time and our perceived relationship between time and entropy are helpful for life in pursuing its nature in this regard. Human beings gravitate towards scarce money like mosquitos gravitate toward light because it can be beneficial in the economic pursuit, which drives us toward the efficiency of furthering the production of entropy. This is potentially why those studying Bitcoin tend to view it as a technology of freedom, peace, prosperity, and more because money is a fundamental tool at which we are allowed to pursue such inherent purpose.

References

1. Grünbaum A. TIME AND ENTROPY. Am Sci. Published online 1996.

2. Rothbard MN. Man, Economy, and State with Power and Markets. Second Edition. Ludwig von Mises Institute; 1977.

3. Mises L von. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Ludwig von Mises Institute; 1940.

4. Szabo N. Shelling Out: The Origins of Money. Satoshi Nakamoto Institute. Published 2002. Accessed April 19, 2023. https://nakamotoinstitute.org/shelling-out/

5. Ammous S. The Bitcoin Standard. Wiley; 2018.

6. Hoffman DD, Prakash C. Objects of consciousness. Front Psychol. 2014;5(JUN). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577

@ 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.

@ 662f9bff:8960f6b2

Still pleasant weather in HK but it is cooling down and in a few days we will likely shift in to the cold and cloudy January/February that is HK winter.

A shorter update from me this week as I think the more important things are in the links below. Read, watch, listen and DYOR. Maybe time to wake up?

Reading

I have now started on When Money Dies - The Nightmare of Deficit Spending, Devaluation, and Hyperinflation in Weimar, Germany. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Once aware of them you will see signs all around you. FYI quite apparent now in Turkey.

Interesting also: I think it is not linked on their website but still accessible if you know where to look (maybe download and safestore it before it disappears): The Bank of England 1914-21 (Unpublished War History). This corroborates and elaborates on what you can read in The Creature from Jeckyll Island.

Watching

Just a few things to watch this week - in the order that I watched them. They are long but rather important - so I am pushing this out early in the weekend so you have time.

Mattias Desmet on Our Grave Situation

Professor Mattias Desmet (from Ghent, Belgium) talks about his work that connects past historical episodes of what is called “Mass Formation” (aka Mass Psychosis) and current events. The risks are as grave as they come. Unless a few brave and courageous people are willing to stand up and say “I don’t agree!” history suggests that we will end up with a fully totalitarian outcome. That is a dark path. It inevitably leads to mass casualties and atrocities. Eventually all totalitarian systems end in their own destruction.

Dr Robert Malone on Joe Rogan Experience

Its a looong interview but there are timestamps below if you want to dip in. \ Dr. Robert Malone is the inventor of the nine original mRNA vaccine patents, which were originally filed in 1989 (including both the idea of mRNA vaccines and the original proof of principle experiments) and RNA transfection. Dr. Malone, has close to 100 peer-reviewed publications which have been cited over 12,000 times. Since January 2020, Dr. Malone has been leading a large team focused on clinical research design, drug development, computer modeling and mechanisms of action of repurposed drugs for the treatment of COVID-19. Dr. Malone is the Medical Director of The Unity Project, a group of 300 organizations across the US standing against mandated COVID vaccines for children. He is also the President of the Global Covid Summit, an organization of over 16,000 doctors and scientists committed to speaking truth to power about COVID pandemic research and treatment.

Here are some of the key points discussed with time codes:

• 24:19: An estimated 500,000 COVID Deaths resulted from the suppression of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).
• 25:39: Former head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Dr. Janet Woodcock, intentionally prevented doctors from using HCQ outside of the hospital setting (HCQ is one of the few antiviral medications safe in pregnancy and is largely ineffective once a person has been hospitalized).
• 31:10: Pharma industry’s systematic efforts to discredit ivermectin.
• 32:40: COVID deaths in the Indian State of Uttar Pradesh plummeted soon after packets of medicines were distributed to their population. It is suspected these packets included Ivermectin but this was never formally disclosed. This puzzling policy went into effect soon after a meeting between President Biden and Prime Minister Modi.
• 36:28: Increased risk of adverse events from vaccinating after SARS-COV2 infection.
• 38:40: 140 studies demonstrate natural immunity is superior to vaccine-induced immunity. Natural immunity is 6- to 13-fold better than vaccination in preventing hospitalization.
• 43:44: The Trusted News Initiative employed to protect western elections from foreign influence was used to justify the suppression of “misinformation” around the pandemic.
• 50:15: Emails between NIH Director Francis Collins and Fauci demonstrate an intention to launch a smear campaign against the founders of the Great Barrington Declaration.
• 54:00: How is Israel (highly vaccinated) faring in comparison to Palestine (poorly vaccinated)?
• 57:00: Why is good data nearly impossible to find?
• 1:06:00: The regulatory process is broken because vaccine manufacturers are responsible for their own data (FDA is not doing its job as a regulatory body).
• 1:14:50: Arguably the best clinicians of our day are having their medical licensure attacked.
• 1:22:50: Hong Kong study demonstrates that 1 in 2,700 boys getting hospitalized with myocarditis after vaccination.
• 1:27:00: Lipid nanoparticles pose danger to ovaries.
• 1:46:30: Long COVID and post-vaccination syndrome are impossible to differentiate.
• 1:49:00: Dysregulation of T-cells after vaccination may be causing latent virus reactivation (e.g., shingles).
• 1:59:00: Omicron and the possible negative efficacy of vaccines.
• 2:06:20: What is Original Antigenic Sin?
• 2:20:00: Monoclonal antibody therapies are still important but have been limited by our authorities.
• 2:22:10: Vaccine mandates are illegal.
• 2:35:50: Pfizer is one of the most criminal pharmaceutical organizations in the world.
• 2:37:00: What are mass formation psychosis and tribalism?
• 2:53:00: We are having a worldwide epidemic of suicide in children.

That's it!

No one can be told what The Matrix is. \ You have to see it for yourself.

Do share this newsletter with any of your friends and family who might be interested.

You can also email me at: LetterFrom@rogerprice.me

💡Enjoy the newsletters in your own language : Dutch, French, German, Serbian, Chinese Traditional & Simplified, Thai and Burmese.

@ d34e832d:383f78d0

Lets explore three key aspects of Bitcoin technology to enhance your engagement with the ecosystem:

1. Running an Alby Hub Cloud Instance
2. Setting Up a Nutshell Ecash Mint on an Affordable VPS
3. Integrating Nostr Wallet Connect for Seamless Tipping

These components empower users to manage transactions, ensure privacy, and facilitate smooth interactions within the Bitcoin and Nostr communities.

1. Running an Alby Hub Cloud Instance

Purpose and Benefits:

Alby Hub is a self-custodial Lightning wallet that allows you to manage Bitcoin transactions efficiently. By running an Alby Hub instance in the cloud, you gain 24/7 online access to receive payments via a Lightning address, integrate with various applications, and maintain control over your funds without the need for personal hardware.

Setting Up Alby Hub in the Cloud:

• Choose Alby Cloud: For a hassle-free setup, Alby offers a cloud service where you can start your own hub in just 2 minutes. Give it A Try: Alby Cloud

• Subscription Benefits: Subscribing to Alby Cloud provides you with a self-custodial Lightning wallet, 24/7 online access, exclusive partner deals, priority support, and access to a subscriber community.

• Self-custodial Lightning wallet

• Getting Started: Visit the Alby Cloud page, select the subscription that suits you, and follow the guided setup process to have your hub up and running quickly.

• Alby Cloud page

For a visual guide on setting up Alby Hub, you can watch the following tutorial:

2. Setting Up a Nutshell Ecash Mint on an Affordable VPS

Purpose and Benefits:

Nutshell is an implementation of Ecash, a digital cash system that prioritizes privacy and anonymity. Setting up a Nutshell Ecash mint on a Virtual Private Server (VPS) allows you to operate your own mint, enhancing transaction privacy and providing a backup system for your Bitcoin transactions.

Setting Up on a $5 VPS:

• Select a VPS Provider: Choose an affordable VPS provider that supports Bitcoin and Nostr communities. For instance, SatoshiHost offers VPS services tailored for such needs.

• Install Nutshell: After setting up your VPS, install the Nutshell software by following the official installation guide.

• Nutshell

• Full Cashu Implementation

• Configure the Mint: Set up the mint parameters, including denomination and security settings, to suit your requirements.

• Secure the Server: Implement security measures such as firewalls and regular updates to protect your mint from potential threats.

• Recommendations
• Server Tips

3. Integrating Nostr Wallet Connect for Seamless Tipping

Purpose and Benefits:

Nostr Wallet Connect (NWC) is an open protocol that enables applications to interact with Bitcoin Lightning wallets. Integrating NWC allows for seamless tipping and payments within Nostr apps, enhancing user experience and promoting engagement.

Integration Steps:

• Choose a Supporting App: Select a Nostr app that supports NWC, such as Amythystor Damus.

• Connect Your Wallet: Use NWC to link your preferred Lightning wallet to the Nostr app. This connection facilitates seamless payments without the need to switch between applications.

• Test the Integration: Perform a test transaction to ensure that the tipping functionality works as intended.

• Maintain Security: Regularly update your wallet and Nostr app to incorporate the latest security features and improvements.

For a deeper understanding of Nostr Wallet Connect and its significance, you can watch the following discussion:

Final Thoughts On Setup

Implementing these components enhances your interaction with the Bitcoin ecosystem by providing efficient transaction management, improved privacy, and seamless integration with Nostr applications. By running an Alby Hub cloud instance, setting up a Nutshell Ecash mint on an affordable VPS, and integrating Nostr Wallet Connect, you contribute to a more robust and user-friendly Bitcoin environment.

Invitation for Feedback

I encourage you to share any questions or feedback regarding these topics. Let's continue the conversation to explore how we can further engage with and improve upon these technologies.

@ 3ffac3a6:2d656657

Prologue: The Last Trade

Ethan Nakamura was a 29-year-old software engineer and crypto enthusiast who had spent years building his life around Bitcoin. Obsessed with the idea of financial sovereignty, he had amassed a small fortune trading cryptocurrencies, all while dreaming of a world where decentralized systems ruled over centralized power.

One night, while debugging a particularly thorny piece of code for a smart contract, Ethan stumbled across an obscure, encrypted message hidden in the blockchain. It read:

"The key to true freedom lies beyond. Burn it all to unlock the gate."

Intrigued and half-convinced it was an elaborate ARG (Alternate Reality Game), Ethan decided to follow the cryptic instruction. He loaded his entire Bitcoin wallet into a single transaction and sent it to an untraceable address tied to the message. The moment the transaction was confirmed, his laptop screen began to glitch, flooding with strange symbols and hash codes.

Before he could react, a flash of light engulfed him.

---

Chapter 1: A New Ledger

Ethan awoke in a dense forest bathed in ethereal light. The first thing he noticed was the HUD floating in front of him—a sleek, transparent interface that displayed his "Crypto Balance": 21 million BTC.

“What the…” Ethan muttered. He blinked, hoping it was a dream, but the numbers stayed. The HUD also showed other metrics:

• Hash Power: 1,000,000 TH/s
• Mining Efficiency: 120%
• Transaction Speed: Instant

Before he could process, a notification pinged on the HUD:

"Welcome to the Decentralized Kingdom. Your mining rig is active. Begin accumulating resources to survive."

Confused and a little terrified, Ethan stood and surveyed his surroundings. As he moved, the HUD expanded, revealing a map of the area. His new world looked like a cross between a medieval fantasy realm and a cyberpunk dystopia, with glowing neon towers visible on the horizon and villagers dressed in tunics carrying strange, glowing "crypto shards."

Suddenly, a shadow loomed over him. A towering beast, part wolf, part machine, snarled, its eyes glowing red. Above its head was the name "Feral Node" and a strange sigil resembling a corrupted block.

Instinct kicked in. Ethan raised his hands defensively, and to his shock, the HUD offered an option:

"Execute Smart Contract Attack? (Cost: 0.001 BTC)"

He selected it without hesitation. A glowing glyph appeared in the air, releasing a wave of light that froze the Feral Node mid-lunge. Moments later, it dissolved into a cascade of shimmering data, leaving behind a pile of "Crypto Shards" and an item labeled "Node Fragment."

---

Chapter 2: The Decentralized Kingdom

Ethan discovered that the world he had entered was built entirely on blockchain-like principles. The land was divided into regions, each governed by a Consensus Council—groups of powerful beings called Validators who maintained the balance of the world. However, a dark force known as The Central Authority sought to consolidate power, turning decentralized regions into tightly controlled fiefdoms.

Ethan’s newfound abilities made him a unique entity in this world. Unlike its inhabitants, who earned wealth through mining or trading physical crypto shards, Ethan could generate and spend Bitcoin directly—making him both a target and a potential savior.

---

Chapter 3: Allies and Adversaries

Ethan soon met a colorful cast of characters:

• Luna, a fiery rogue and self-proclaimed "Crypto Thief," who hacked into ledgers to redistribute wealth to oppressed villages. She was skeptical of Ethan's "magical Bitcoin" but saw potential in him.

• Hal, an aging miner who ran an underground resistance against the Central Authority. He wielded an ancient "ASIC Hammer" capable of shattering corrupted nodes.

• Oracle Satoshi, a mysterious AI-like entity who guided Ethan with cryptic advice, often referencing real-world crypto principles like decentralization, trustless systems, and private keys.

Ethan also gained enemies, chief among them the Ledger Lords, a cabal of Validators allied with the Central Authority. They sought to capture Ethan and seize his Bitcoin, believing it could tip the balance of power.

---

Chapter 4: Proof of Existence

As Ethan delved deeper into the world, he learned that his Bitcoin balance was finite. To survive and grow stronger, he had to "mine" resources by solving problems for the people of the Decentralized Kingdom. From repairing broken smart contracts in towns to defending miners from feral nodes, every task rewarded him with shards and upgrades.

He also uncovered the truth about his arrival: the blockchain Ethan had used in his world was a prototype for this one. The encrypted message had been a failsafe created by its original developers—a desperate attempt to summon someone who could break the growing centralization threatening to destroy the world.

---

Chapter 5: The Final Fork

As the Central Authority's grip tightened, Ethan and his allies prepared for a final battle at the Genesis Block, the origin of the world's blockchain. Here, Ethan would face the Central Authority's leader, an amalgamation of corrupted code and human ambition known as The Miner King.

The battle was a clash of philosophies as much as strength. Using everything he had learned, Ethan deployed a daring Hard Fork, splitting the world’s blockchain and decentralizing power once again. The process drained nearly all of his Bitcoin, leaving him with a single satoshi—a symbolic reminder of his purpose.

---

Epilogue: Building the Future

With the Central Authority defeated, the Decentralized Kingdom entered a new era. Ethan chose to remain in the world, helping its inhabitants build fairer systems and teaching them the principles of trustless cooperation.

As he gazed at the sunrise over the rebuilt Genesis Block, Ethan smiled. He had dreamed of a world where Bitcoin could change everything. Now, he was living it.

@ 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