@ 52b4a076:e7fad8bd

I have been recently building NFDB, a new relay DB. This post is meant as a short overview.

Regular relays have challenges

Current relay software have significant challenges, which I have experienced when hosting Nostr.land: - Scalability is only supported by adding full replicas, which does not scale to large relays. - Most relays use slow databases and are not optimized for large scale usage. - Search is near-impossible to implement on standard relays. - Privacy features such as NIP-42 are lacking. - Regular DB maintenance tasks on normal relays require extended downtime. - Fault-tolerance is implemented, if any, using a load balancer, which is limited. - Personalization and advanced filtering is not possible. - Local caching is not supported.

NFDB: A scalable database for large relays

NFDB is a new database meant for medium-large scale relays, built on FoundationDB that provides: - Near-unlimited scalability - Extended fault tolerance - Instant loading - Better search - Better personalization - and more.

Search

NFDB has extended search capabilities including: - Semantic search: Search for meaning, not words. - Interest-based search: Highlight content you care about. - Multi-faceted queries: Easily filter by topic, author group, keywords, and more at the same time. - Wide support for event kinds, including users, articles, etc.

Personalization

NFDB allows significant personalization: - Customized algorithms: Be your own algorithm. - Spam filtering: Filter content to your WoT, and use advanced spam filters. - Topic mutes: Mute topics, not keywords. - Media filtering: With Nostr.build, you will be able to filter NSFW and other content - Low data mode: Block notes that use high amounts of cellular data. - and more

Other

NFDB has support for many other features such as: - NIP-42: Protect your privacy with private drafts and DMs - Microrelays: Easily deploy your own personal microrelay - Containers: Dedicated, fast storage for discoverability events such as relay lists

Calcite: A local microrelay database

Calcite is a lightweight, local version of NFDB that is meant for microrelays and caching, meant for thousands of personal microrelays.

Calcite HA is an additional layer that allows live migration and relay failover in under 30 seconds, providing higher availability compared to current relays with greater simplicity. Calcite HA is enabled in all Calcite deployments.

For zero-downtime, NFDB is recommended.

Noswhere SmartCache

Relays are fixed in one location, but users can be anywhere.

Noswhere SmartCache is a CDN for relays that dynamically caches data on edge servers closest to you, allowing: - Multiple regions around the world - Improved throughput and performance - Faster loading times

routerd

routerd is a custom load-balancer optimized for Nostr relays, integrated with SmartCache.

routerd is specifically integrated with NFDB and Calcite HA to provide fast failover and high performance.

Ending notes

NFDB is planned to be deployed to Nostr.land in the coming weeks.

A lot more is to come. 👀️️️️️️

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

If you ever read about a hypothetical "evil AI"—one that manipulates, dominates, and surveils humanity—you might find yourself wondering: how is that any different from what some governments already do?

Let’s explore the eerie parallels between the actions of a fictional malevolent AI and the behaviors of powerful modern states—specifically the U.S. federal government.

Surveillance and Control

Evil AI: Uses total surveillance to monitor all activity, predict rebellion, and enforce compliance.

Modern Government: Post-9/11 intelligence agencies like the NSA have implemented mass data collection programs, monitoring phone calls, emails, and online activity—often without meaningful oversight.

Parallel: Both claim to act in the name of “security,” but the tools are ripe for abuse.

Manipulation of Information

Evil AI: Floods the information space with propaganda, misinformation, and filters truth based on its goals.

Modern Government: Funds media outlets, promotes specific narratives through intelligence leaks, and collaborates with social media companies to suppress or flag dissenting viewpoints.

Parallel: Control the narrative, shape public perception, and discredit opposition.

Economic Domination

Evil AI: Restructures the economy for efficiency, displacing workers and concentrating resources.

Modern Government: Facilitates wealth transfer through lobbying, regulatory capture, and inflationary monetary policy that disproportionately hurts the middle and lower classes.

Parallel: The system enriches those who control it, leaving the rest with less power to resist.

Perpetual Warfare

Evil AI: Instigates conflict to weaken opposition or as a form of distraction and control.

Modern Government: Maintains a state of nearly constant military engagement since WWII, often for interests that benefit a small elite rather than national defense.

Parallel: War becomes policy, not a last resort.

Predictive Policing and Censorship

Evil AI: Uses predictive algorithms to preemptively suppress dissent and eliminate threats.

Modern Government: Experiments with pre-crime-like measures, flags “misinformation,” and uses AI tools to monitor online behavior.

Parallel: Prevent rebellion not by fixing problems, but by suppressing their expression.

Conclusion: Systemic Inhumanity

Whether it’s AI or a bureaucratic state, the more a system becomes detached from individual accountability and human empathy, the more it starts to act in ways we would call “evil” if a machine did them.

An AI doesn’t need to enslave humanity with lasers and killer robots. Sometimes all it takes is code, coercion, and unchecked power—something we may already be facing.

@ 9727846a:00a18d90

李承鹏：什么加税导致社会巨变，揭竿而起……都不说三千年饿殍遍野，易子而食，只要给口吃的就感谢皇恩浩荡。就说本朝，借口苏修卡我们脖子，几亿人啃了三年树皮，民兵端着枪守在村口，偷摸逃出去的都算勇士。

也不说98年总理大手一挥，一句“改革”，六千万工人下岗，基本盘稳得很。就像电影《钢的琴》里那群东北下岗工人，有的沦落街头，有的拉起乐队在婚礼火葬场做红白喜事，有的靠倒卖废弃钢材被抓，有的当小偷撬门溜锁，还有卖猪肉的，有去当小姐的……但人们按着中央的话语，说这叫“解放思想”。

“工人要替国家想，我不下岗谁下岗”，这是1999年春晚黄宏的小品，你现在觉得反人性，那时台下一片掌声，民间也很亢奋，忽然觉得自己有了力量。人们很容易站在国家立场把自己当炮灰，人民爱党爱国，所以操心什么加税，川普还能比斯大林同志赫鲁晓夫同志更狠吗，生活还能比毛主席时代更糟吗。不就是农产品啊牛肉啊芯片贵些，股票跌些，本来就生存艰难的工厂关的多些，大街上发呆眼神迷茫的人多些，跳楼的年轻人密集些，河里总能捞出不明来历的浮尸……但十五亿人民，会迅速稀释掉这些人和事。比例极小，信心极大，我们祖祖辈辈在从人到猪的生活转换适应力上，一直为世间翘楚。

民心所向，正好武统。

这正是想要的。没有一个帝王会关心你的生活质量，他只关心权力和帝国版图是否稳当。

而这莫名其妙又会和人民的想法高度契合，几千年来如此。所以聊一会儿就会散的，一定散的，只是会在明年春晚以另一种高度正能量的形式展现。

您保重。 25年4月9日

@ f7f4e308:b44d67f4

https://sns-video-hw.xhscdn.com/stream/1/110/258/01e7ec7be81a85850103700195f3c4ba45_258.mp4

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Prepared for Off-World Visitors by the Risan Institute of Cultural Heritage

Welcome to Risa, the jewel of the Alpha Quadrant, celebrated across the Federation for its tranquility, pleasure, and natural splendor. But what many travelers do not know is that Risa’s current harmony was not inherited—it was forged. Beneath the songs of surf and the serenity of our resorts lies a history rich in conflict, transformation, and enduring wisdom.

We offer this briefing not merely as a tale of our past, but as an invitation to understand the spirit of our people and the roots of our peace.

I. A World at the Crossroads

Before its admittance into the United Federation of Planets, Risa was an independent and vulnerable world situated near volatile borders of early galactic powers. Its lush climate, mineral wealth, and open society made it a frequent target for raiders and an object of interest for imperial expansion.

The Risan peoples were once fragmented, prone to philosophical and political disunity. In our early records, this period is known as the Winds of Splintering. We suffered invasions, betrayals, and the slow erosion of trust in our own traditions.

II. The Coming of the Vulcans

It was during this period of instability that a small delegation of Vulcan philosophers, adherents to the teachings of Surak, arrived on Risa. They did not come as conquerors, nor even as ambassadors, but as seekers of peace.

These emissaries of logic saw in Risa the potential for a society not driven by suppression of emotion, as Vulcan had chosen, but by the balance of joy and discipline. While many Vulcans viewed Risa’s culture as frivolous, these followers of Surak saw the seed of a different path: one in which beauty itself could be a pillar of peace.

The Risan tradition of meditative dance, artistic expression, and communal love resonated with Vulcan teachings of unity and inner control. From this unlikely exchange was born the Ricin Doctrine—the belief that peace is sustained not only through logic or strength, but through deliberate joy, shared vulnerability, and readiness without aggression.

III. Betazed and the Trial of Truth

During the same era, early contact with the people of Betazed brought both inspiration and tension. A Betazoid expedition, under the guise of diplomacy, was discovered to be engaging in deep telepathic influence and information extraction. The Risan people, who valued consent above all else, responded not with anger, but with clarity.

A council of Ricin philosophers invited the Betazoid delegation into a shared mind ceremony—a practice in which both cultures exposed their thoughts in mutual vulnerability. The result was not scandal, but transformation. From that moment forward, a bond was formed, and Risa’s model of ethical emotional expression and consensual empathy became influential in shaping Betazed’s own peace philosophies.

IV. Confronting Marauders and Empires

Despite these philosophical strides, Risa’s path was anything but tranquil.

• Orion Syndicate raiders viewed Risa as ripe for exploitation, and for decades, cities were sacked, citizens enslaved, and resources plundered. In response, Risa formed the Sanctum Guard, not a military in the traditional sense, but a force of trained defenders schooled in both physical technique and psychological dissuasion. The Ricin martial arts, combining beauty with lethality, were born from this necessity.

• Andorian expansionism also tested Risa’s sovereignty. Though smaller in scale, skirmishes over territorial claims forced Risa to adopt planetary defense grids and formalize diplomatic protocols that balanced assertiveness with grace. It was through these conflicts that Risa developed the art of the ceremonial yield—a symbolic concession used to diffuse hostility while retaining honor.

• Romulan subterfuge nearly undid Risa from within. A corrupt Romulan envoy installed puppet leaders in one of our equatorial provinces. These agents sought to erode Risa’s social cohesion through fear and misinformation. But Ricin scholars countered the strategy not with rebellion, but with illumination: they released a network of truths, publicly broadcasting internal thoughts and civic debates to eliminate secrecy. The Romulan operation collapsed under the weight of exposure.

• Even militant Vulcan splinter factions, during the early Vulcan-Andorian conflicts, attempted to turn Risa into a staging ground, pressuring local governments to support Vulcan supremacy. The betrayal struck deep—but Risa resisted through diplomacy, invoking Surak’s true teachings and exposing the heresy of their logic-corrupted mission.

V. Enlightenment Through Preparedness

These trials did not harden us into warriors. They refined us into guardians of peace. Our enlightenment came not from retreat, but from engagement—tempered by readiness.

• We train our youth in the arts of balance: physical defense, emotional expression, and ethical reasoning.
• We teach our history without shame, so that future generations will not repeat our errors.
• We host our guests with joy, not because we are naïve, but because we know that to celebrate life fully is the greatest act of resistance against fear.

Risa did not become peaceful by denying the reality of conflict. We became peaceful by mastering our response to it.

And in so doing, we offered not just pleasure to the stars—but wisdom.

We welcome you not only to our beaches, but to our story.

May your time here bring you not only rest—but understanding.

– Risan Institute of Cultural Heritage, in collaboration with the Council of Enlightenment and the Ricin Circle of Peacekeepers

@ efcb5fc5:5680aa8e

We're living in a digital dystopia. A world where our attention is currency, our data is mined, and our mental well-being is collateral damage in the relentless pursuit of engagement. The glossy facades of traditional social media platforms hide a dark underbelly of algorithmic manipulation, curated realities, and a pervasive sense of anxiety that seeps into every aspect of our lives. We're trapped in a digital echo chamber, drowning in a sea of manufactured outrage and meaningless noise, and it's time to build an ark and sail away.

I've witnessed the evolution, or rather, the devolution, of online interaction. From the raw, unfiltered chaos of early internet chat rooms to the sterile, algorithmically controlled environments of today's social giants, I've seen the promise of connection twisted into a tool for manipulation and control. We've become lab rats in a grand experiment, our emotional responses measured and monetized, our opinions shaped and sold to the highest bidder. But there's a flicker of hope in the darkness, a chance to reclaim our digital autonomy, and that hope is NOSTR (Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays).

The Psychological Warfare of Traditional Social Media

The Algorithmic Cage: These algorithms aren't designed to enhance your life; they're designed to keep you scrolling. They feed on your vulnerabilities, exploiting your fears and desires to maximize engagement, even if it means promoting misinformation, outrage, and division.

The Illusion of Perfection: The curated realities presented on these platforms create a toxic culture of comparison. We're bombarded with images of flawless bodies, extravagant lifestyles, and seemingly perfect lives, leading to feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt.

The Echo Chamber Effect: Algorithms reinforce our existing beliefs, isolating us from diverse perspectives and creating a breeding ground for extremism. We become trapped in echo chambers where our biases are constantly validated, leading to increased polarization and intolerance.

The Toxicity Vortex: The lack of effective moderation creates a breeding ground for hate speech, cyberbullying, and online harassment. We're constantly exposed to toxic content that erodes our mental well-being and fosters a sense of fear and distrust.

This isn't just a matter of inconvenience; it's a matter of mental survival. We're being subjected to a form of psychological warfare, and it's time to fight back.

NOSTR: A Sanctuary in the Digital Wasteland

NOSTR offers a radical alternative to this toxic environment. It's not just another platform; it's a decentralized protocol that empowers users to reclaim their digital sovereignty.

User-Controlled Feeds: You decide what you see, not an algorithm. You curate your own experience, focusing on the content and people that matter to you.

Ownership of Your Digital Identity: Your data and content are yours, secured by cryptography. No more worrying about being deplatformed or having your information sold to the highest bidder.

Interoperability: Your identity works across a diverse ecosystem of apps, giving you the freedom to choose the interface that suits your needs.

Value-Driven Interactions: The "zaps" feature enables direct micropayments, rewarding creators for valuable content and fostering a culture of genuine appreciation.

Decentralized Power: No single entity controls NOSTR, making it censorship-resistant and immune to the whims of corporate overlords.

Building a Healthier Digital Future

NOSTR isn't just about escaping the toxicity of traditional social media; it's about building a healthier, more meaningful online experience.

Cultivating Authentic Connections: Focus on building genuine relationships with people who share your values and interests, rather than chasing likes and followers.

Supporting Independent Creators: Use "zaps" to directly support the artists, writers, and thinkers who inspire you.

Embracing Intellectual Diversity: Explore different NOSTR apps and communities to broaden your horizons and challenge your assumptions.

Prioritizing Your Mental Health: Take control of your digital environment and create a space that supports your well-being.

Removing the noise: Value based interactions promote value based content, instead of the constant stream of noise that traditional social media promotes.

The Time for Action is Now

NOSTR is a nascent technology, but it represents a fundamental shift in how we interact online. It's a chance to build a more open, decentralized, and user-centric internet, one that prioritizes our mental health and our humanity.

We can no longer afford to be passive consumers in the digital age. We must become active participants in shaping our online experiences. It's time to break free from the chains of algorithmic control and reclaim our digital autonomy.

Join the NOSTR movement

Embrace the power of decentralization. Let's build a digital future that's worthy of our humanity. Let us build a place where the middlemen, and the algorithms that they control, have no power over us.

In addition to the points above, here are some examples/links of how NOSTR can be used:

Simple Signup: Creating a NOSTR account is incredibly easy. You can use platforms like Yakihonne or Primal to generate your keys and start exploring the ecosystem.

X-like Client: Apps like Damus offer a familiar X-like experience, making it easy for users to transition from traditional platforms.

Sharing Photos and Videos: Clients like Olas are optimized for visual content, allowing you to share your photos and videos with your followers.

Creating and Consuming Blogs: NOSTR can be used to publish and share blog posts, fostering a community of independent creators.

Live Streaming and Audio Spaces: Explore platforms like Hivetalk and zap.stream for live streaming and audio-based interactions.

NOSTR is a powerful tool for reclaiming your digital life and building a more meaningful online experience. It's time to take control, break free from the shackles of traditional social media, and embrace the future of decentralized communication.

Get the full overview of these and other on: https://nostrapps.com/

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Recently we have seen a wave of high profile X accounts hacked. These attacks have exposed the fragility of the status quo security model used by modern social media platforms like X. Many users have asked if nostr fixes this, so lets dive in. How do these types of attacks translate into the world of nostr apps? For clarity, I will use X’s security model as representative of most big tech social platforms and compare it to nostr.

The Status Quo

On X, you never have full control of your account. Ultimately to use it requires permission from the company. They can suspend your account or limit your distribution. Theoretically they can even post from your account at will. An X account is tied to an email and password. Users can also opt into two factor authentication, which adds an extra layer of protection, a login code generated by an app. In theory, this setup works well, but it places a heavy burden on users. You need to create a strong, unique password and safeguard it. You also need to ensure your email account and phone number remain secure, as attackers can exploit these to reset your credentials and take over your account. Even if you do everything responsibly, there is another weak link in X infrastructure itself. The platform’s infrastructure allows accounts to be reset through its backend. This could happen maliciously by an employee or through an external attacker who compromises X’s backend. When an account is compromised, the legitimate user often gets locked out, unable to post or regain control without contacting X’s support team. That process can be slow, frustrating, and sometimes fruitless if support denies the request or cannot verify your identity. Often times support will require users to provide identification info in order to regain access, which represents a privacy risk. The centralized nature of X means you are ultimately at the mercy of the company’s systems and staff.

Nostr Requires Responsibility

Nostr flips this model radically. Users do not need permission from a company to access their account, they can generate as many accounts as they want, and cannot be easily censored. The key tradeoff here is that users have to take complete responsibility for their security. Instead of relying on a username, password, and corporate servers, nostr uses a private key as the sole credential for your account. Users generate this key and it is their responsibility to keep it safe. As long as you have your key, you can post. If someone else gets it, they can post too. It is that simple. This design has strong implications. Unlike X, there is no backend reset option. If your key is compromised or lost, there is no customer support to call. In a compromise scenario, both you and the attacker can post from the account simultaneously. Neither can lock the other out, since nostr relays simply accept whatever is signed with a valid key.

The benefit? No reliance on proprietary corporate infrastructure.. The negative? Security rests entirely on how well you protect your key.

Future Nostr Security Improvements

For many users, nostr’s standard security model, storing a private key on a phone with an encrypted cloud backup, will likely be sufficient. It is simple and reasonably secure. That said, nostr’s strength lies in its flexibility as an open protocol. Users will be able to choose between a range of security models, balancing convenience and protection based on need.

One promising option is a web of trust model for key rotation. Imagine pre-selecting a group of trusted friends. If your account is compromised, these people could collectively sign an event announcing the compromise to the network and designate a new key as your legitimate one. Apps could handle this process seamlessly in the background, notifying followers of the switch without much user interaction. This could become a popular choice for average users, but it is not without tradeoffs. It requires trust in your chosen web of trust, which might not suit power users or large organizations. It also has the issue that some apps may not recognize the key rotation properly and followers might get confused about which account is “real.”

For those needing higher security, there is the option of multisig using FROST (Flexible Round-Optimized Schnorr Threshold). In this setup, multiple keys must sign off on every action, including posting and updating a profile. A hacker with just one key could not do anything. This is likely overkill for most users due to complexity and inconvenience, but it could be a game changer for large organizations, companies, and governments. Imagine the White House nostr account requiring signatures from multiple people before a post goes live, that would be much more secure than the status quo big tech model.

Another option are hardware signers, similar to bitcoin hardware wallets. Private keys are kept on secure, offline devices, separate from the internet connected phone or computer you use to broadcast events. This drastically reduces the risk of remote hacks, as private keys never touches the internet. It can be used in combination with multisig setups for extra protection. This setup is much less convenient and probably overkill for most but could be ideal for governments, companies, or other high profile accounts.

---

Nostr’s security model is not perfect but is robust and versatile. Ultimately users are in control and security is their responsibility. Apps will give users multiple options to choose from and users will choose what best fits their need.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Esteemed representatives of Risa,

We gather here under the calming glow of our twin suns, stewards of a society admired for its peace and celebrated for its tranquility. But we must not mistake serenity for passivity, nor confuse peace with weakness. Our peace is not an accident. It is not the byproduct of ignorance or naivety. It is hard-earned—preserved by those willing to stand vigilant in its defense.

Love as a Foundation, Strength as a Shield

Love conquers hate. This is the core truth of Risan philosophy. Yet, as every Ricin child is taught, love without strength is a leaf in the wind. The Ricin do not lay down their lives without resistance. We do not ask our people to accept violence without confronting it. True peace is not imposed by stripping the people of their agency—it is built by enabling them to protect it.

The Lessons of a Failed Experiment

There was a time, not so distant in our history, when we attempted to enforce peace through the abolition of all weapons. A time when even the mention of self-defense in our educational centers was met with rebuke. Schools purged training programs. Cultural arts that honored our warrior traditions were dismissed. And for a brief moment, we believed this would lead us to harmony.

But peace born from helplessness is a fragile illusion. It fractures under the slightest pressure. And fracture it did—when off-world raiders targeted our unguarded sanctuaries, when radical sects within our own society struck out, knowing the citizenry could not defend itself. It was then that we remembered: Risa’s greatest peacekeepers had always been those who knew how to fight—but chose restraint.

The Age of Ricin and the Reawakening of Discipline

So we returned to our roots. To the traditions of the Age of Ricin, when youth, upon reaching maturity, were taught not only the arts of compassion and creation but also the martial disciplines. They learn to wield weapons—not to glorify violence, but to understand it. To control it. To stand firm against it when all else fails.

https://i.nostr.build/kuUjRovISz7367TX.jpg

We do not romanticize war. We do not celebrate conflict. But we prepare for it, should it seek to extinguish our light. Our children now learn the disciplines of defense alongside their studies in poetry, music, and healing. They spar with blunt blades under the watchful eyes of masters. They meditate on the consequences of force. And they grow into citizens not easily provoked, but never unprepared.

A Call for Balance, Not Extremes

Let those beyond our borders question our ways. Let them forget the countless incursions by the Romulans. Let them ignore the scars left by centuries of subversion from the Orion Syndicate. We do not forget. We remember the lives lost, the liberties challenged, and the lessons learned through suffering. These experiences shaped us.

We do not wish to return to the era of soft silence, when teachers trembled at the word "weapon" and children were told that even imagination was dangerous. That was not enlightenment. That was indoctrination.

Conclusion: Guarding the Flame

We are the guardians of Risa’s flame—not just with words and treaties, but with discipline and readiness. We have made peace a practice, and preparation a virtue. And so I say to this chamber: let us never again disarm our people in the name of utopia. Let us never confuse comfort with safety, or the absence of weapons with the presence of peace.

Instead, let us raise generations who know what peace costs, and who will pay that price—not with surrender, but with courage.

Let our children be artists, lovers, dreamers—and if necessary, defenders.

This is the Risan way.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Please respect Virginia Giuffre’s memory by refraining from asking about the circumstances or theories surrounding her passing.

Since Virginia Giuffre’s death, I’ve reflected on what she would want me to say or do. This piece is my attempt to honor her legacy.

When I first spoke with Virginia, I was struck by her unshakable hope. I had grown cynical after years in the anti-human trafficking movement, worn down by a broken system and a government that often seemed complicit. But Virginia’s passion, creativity, and belief that survivors could be heard reignited something in me. She reminded me of my younger, more hopeful self. Instead of warning her about the challenges ahead, I let her dream big, unburdened by my own disillusionment. That conversation changed me for the better, and following her lead led to meaningful progress.

Virginia was one of the bravest people I’ve ever known. As a survivor of Epstein, Maxwell, and their co-conspirators, she risked everything to speak out, taking on some of the world’s most powerful figures.

She loved when I said, “Epstein isn’t the only Epstein.” This wasn’t just about one man—it was a call to hold all abusers accountable and to ensure survivors find hope and healing.

The Epstein case often gets reduced to sensational details about the elite, but that misses the bigger picture. Yes, we should be holding all of the co-conspirators accountable, we must listen to the survivors’ stories. Their experiences reveal how predators exploit vulnerabilities, offering lessons to prevent future victims.

You’re not powerless in this fight. Educate yourself about trafficking and abuse—online and offline—and take steps to protect those around you. Supporting survivors starts with small, meaningful actions. Free online resources can guide you in being a safe, supportive presence.

When high-profile accusations arise, resist snap judgments. Instead of dismissing survivors as “crazy,” pause to consider the trauma they may be navigating. Speaking out or coping with abuse is never easy. You don’t have to believe every claim, but you can refrain from attacking accusers online.

Society also fails at providing aftercare for survivors. The government, often part of the problem, won’t solve this. It’s up to us. Prevention is critical, but when abuse occurs, step up for your loved ones and community. Protect the vulnerable. it’s a challenging but a rewarding journey.

If you’re contributing to Nostr, you’re helping build a censorship resistant platform where survivors can share their stories freely, no matter how powerful their abusers are. Their voices can endure here, offering strength and hope to others. This gives me great hope for the future.

Virginia Giuffre’s courage was a gift to the world. It was an honor to know and serve her. She will be deeply missed. My hope is that her story inspires others to take on the powerful.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Spoken by Counselor Elaron T’Saren of Risa to the High Council, Stardate 52874.2

Honored members of the Council,

I bring you greetings from Risa—not the Risa of travel brochures and romantic holo-novels, but the true Risa. The Risa that has endured, adapted, and emerged stronger after each trial. I speak not as a tourist ambassador, but as a Counselor of our oldest institute of philosophy, and as a son of the Ricin tradition.

Today, the specter of the Borg hangs above us. The collective offers no room for diplomacy, no respect for culture, no compromise. We face not mere invaders—but a force that seeks to erase individuality, history, and identity. Some among the Council wonder what Risa—a world of peace—can offer in such a time. I say to you: we can offer the truth about peace.

The Hidden Roots of Our Tranquility

Long ago, before Risa joined the Federation, we too believed that peace could be maintained by disarming the populace, by eliminating even the mention of conflict in our schools. It was called the Great Disarmament. A generation was raised with no understanding of defense, and in time, we paid the price.

We were raided by Orion pirates. Exploited by off-world cartels. Our people were taken, our arts destroyed, our skies blackened. And we learned—too late—that peace without preparedness is only the illusion of safety.

The Birth of Ricin Doctrine

From the ashes of that failure arose the Ricin: scholars, philosophers, warriors of thought and purpose. They taught that peace is not the absence of conflict, but the mastery of it. That the mind and the body must be trained in tandem. That love without strength is a leaf in the wind.

We did not become a militant world. We became a watchful one. Our children were taught martial discipline—not to glorify violence, but to understand it, to confront it, and to defeat it when necessary. They learned meditation alongside hand-to-hand technique, negotiation beside tactical reasoning.

When we joined the Federation, we did so willingly. But let none assume we surrendered our right to defend our way of life.

Why I Speak to You Now

The Borg are not like the Orion Syndicate. They are not opportunistic, or ideological. They are methodical. And they are coming. You cannot debate with them. You cannot delay them. You can only prepare for them.

And yet, I hear murmurs within the halls of the Federation: whispers of abandoning planetary defense training, of downplaying the psychological need for individual and planetary preparedness. I hear the tired lie that “peace will protect us.”

No, Councilors. It is discipline that protects peace.

The Call to Action

I do not come bearing weapons. I come bearing wisdom. Let us take the Risan lesson and apply it across the Federation. Reestablish tactical readiness training in civilian schools. Encourage planetary governments to integrate defense and philosophy, not as contradictions, but as complements.

Let every child of the Federation grow up knowing not just the principles of liberty, but the means to defend them. Let every artist, scientist, and healer stand ready to protect the civilization they help to build.

Let us not wait until the Borg are in our orbit to remember what we must become.

Conclusion

The Borg seek to erase our uniqueness. Let us show them that the Federation is not a fragile collection of planets—but a constellation of cultures bound by a shared resolve.

We do not choose war. But neither do we flee from it.

We are the guardians of Risa’s flame—and we offer our light to the stars.

Thank you.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Hear this, warriors of the Empire!

A dishonorable shadow spreads across our once-proud institutions, infecting our very bloodlines with weakness. The House of Duras—may their names be spoken with contempt—has betrayed the sacred warrior code of Kahless. No, they have not attacked us with disruptors or blades. Their weapon is more insidious: fear and silence.

Cowardice Masquerading as Concern

These traitors would strip our children of their birthright. They forbid the young from training with the bat'leth in school! Their cowardly decree does not come in the form of an open challenge, but in whispers of fear, buried in bureaucratic dictates. "It is for safety," they claim. "It is to prevent bloodshed." Lies! The blood of Klingons must be tested in training if it is to be ready in battle. We are not humans to be coddled by illusions of safety.

Indoctrination by Silence

In their cowardice, the House of Duras seeks to shape our children not into warriors, but into frightened bureaucrats who speak not of honor, nor of strength. They spread a vile practice—of punishing younglings for even speaking of combat, for recounting glorious tales of blades clashing in the halls of Sto-Vo-Kor! A child who dares write a poem of battle is silenced. A young warrior who shares tales of their father’s triumphs is summoned to the headmaster’s office.

This is no accident. This is a calculated cultural sabotage.

Weakness Taught as Virtue

The House of Duras has infected the minds of the teachers. These once-proud mentors now tremble at shadows, seeing future rebels in the eyes of their students. They demand security patrols and biometric scanners, turning training halls into prisons. They have created fear, not of enemies beyond the Empire, but of the students themselves.

And so, the rituals of strength are erased. The bat'leth is banished. The honor of open training and sparring is forbidden. All under the pretense of protection.

A Plan of Subjugation

Make no mistake. This is not a policy; it is a plan. A plan to disarm future warriors before they are strong enough to rise. By forbidding speech, training, and remembrance, the House of Duras ensures the next generation kneels before the High Council like servants, not warriors. They seek an Empire of sheep, not wolves.

Stand and Resist

But the blood of Kahless runs strong! We must not be silent. We must not comply. Let every training hall resound with the clash of steel. Let our children speak proudly of their ancestors' battles. Let every dishonorable edict from the House of Duras be met with open defiance.

Raise your voice, Klingons! Raise your blade! The soul of the Empire is at stake. We will not surrender our future. We will not let the cowardice of Duras shape the spirit of our children.

The Empire endures through strength. Through honor. Through battle. And so shall we!

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Capitalism is the most effective system for scaling innovation. The pursuit of profit is an incredibly powerful human incentive. Most major improvements to human society and quality of life have resulted from this base incentive. Market competition often results in the best outcomes for all.

That said, some projects can never be monetized. They are open in nature and a business model would centralize control. Open protocols like bitcoin and nostr are not owned by anyone and if they were it would destroy the key value propositions they provide. No single entity can or should control their use. Anyone can build on them without permission.

As a result, open protocols must depend on donation based grant funding from the people and organizations that rely on them. This model works but it is slow and uncertain, a grind where sustainability is never fully reached but rather constantly sought. As someone who has been incredibly active in the open source grant funding space, I do not think people truly appreciate how difficult it is to raise charitable money and deploy it efficiently.

Projects that can be monetized should be. Profitability is a super power. When a business can generate revenue, it taps into a self sustaining cycle. Profit fuels growth and development while providing projects independence and agency. This flywheel effect is why companies like Google, Amazon, and Apple have scaled to global dominance. The profit incentive aligns human effort with efficiency. Businesses must innovate, cut waste, and deliver value to survive.

Contrast this with non monetized projects. Without profit, they lean on external support, which can dry up or shift with donor priorities. A profit driven model, on the other hand, is inherently leaner and more adaptable. It is not charity but survival. When survival is tied to delivering what people want, scale follows naturally.

The real magic happens when profitable, sustainable businesses are built on top of open protocols and software. Consider the many startups building on open source software stacks, such as Start9, Mempool, and Primal, offering premium services on top of the open source software they build out and maintain. Think of companies like Block or Strike, which leverage bitcoin’s open protocol to offer their services on top. These businesses amplify the open software and protocols they build on, driving adoption and improvement at a pace donations alone could never match.

When you combine open software and protocols with profit driven business the result are lean, sustainable companies that grow faster and serve more people than either could alone. Bitcoin’s network, for instance, benefits from businesses that profit off its existence, while nostr will expand as developers monetize apps built on the protocol.

Capitalism scales best because competition results in efficiency. Donation funded protocols and software lay the groundwork, while market driven businesses build on top. The profit incentive acts as a filter, ensuring resources flow to what works, while open systems keep the playing field accessible, empowering users and builders. Together, they create a flywheel of innovation, growth, and global benefit.

@ eb35d9c0:6ea2b8d0

I had a ton of fun making this episode of Midnight Signals. It taught me a lot about the haunting of the Bell family and the demise of John Bell. His death was attributed to the Bell Witch making Tennessee the only state to recognize a person's death to the supernatural.

If you enjoyed the episode, visit the Midnight Signals site. https://midnightsignals.net

Show Notes

Journey back to the early 1800s and the eerie Bell Witch haunting that plagued the Bell family in Adams, Tennessee. It began with strange creatures and mysterious knocks, evolving into disembodied voices and violent attacks on young Betsy Bell. Neighbors, even Andrew Jackson, witnessed the phenomena, adding to the legend. The witch's identity remains a mystery, sowing fear and chaos, ultimately leading to John Bell's tragic demise. The haunting waned, but its legacy lingers, woven into the very essence of the town. Delve into this chilling story of a family's relentless torment by an unseen force.

Transcript

Good evening, night owls. I'm Russ Chamberlain, and you're listening to midnight signals, the show, where we explore the darkest corners of our collective past. Tonight, our signal takes us to the early 1800s to a modest family farm in Adams, Tennessee. Where the Bell family encountered what many call the most famous haunting in American history.

Make yourself comfortable, hush your surroundings, and let's delve into this unsettling tale. Our story begins in 1804, when John Bell and his wife Lucy made their way from North Carolina to settle along the Red River in northern Tennessee. In those days, the land was wide and fertile, mostly unspoiled with gently rolling hills and dense woodland.

For the Bells, John, Lucy, and their children, The move promised prosperity. They arrived eager to farm the rich soil, raise livestock, and find a peaceful home. At first, life mirrored [00:01:00] that hope. By day, John and his sons worked tirelessly in the fields, planting corn and tending to animals, while Lucy and her daughters managed the household.

Evenings were spent quietly, with scripture readings by the light of a flickering candle. Neighbors in the growing settlement of Adams spoke well of John's dedication and Lucy's gentle spirit. The Bells were welcomed into the Fold, a new family building their future on the Tennessee Earth. In those early years, the Bells likely gave little thought to uneasy rumors whispered around the region.

Strange lights seen deep in the woods, soft cries heard by travelers at dusk, small mysteries that most dismissed as product of the imagination. Life on the frontier demanded practicality above all else, leaving little time to dwell on spirits or curses. Unbeknownst to them, events on their farm would soon dominate not only their lives, but local lore for generations to come.[00:02:00]

It was late summer, 1817, when John Bell's ordinary routines took a dramatic turn. One evening, in the waning twilight, he spotted an odd creature near the edge of a tree line. A strange beast resembling part dog, part rabbit. Startled, John raised his rifle and fired, the shot echoing through the fields. Yet, when he went to inspect the spot, nothing remained.

No tracks, no blood, nothing to prove the creature existed at all. John brushed it off as a trick of falling light or his own tired eyes. He returned to the house, hoping for a quiet evening. But in the days that followed, faint knocking sounds began at the windows after sunset. Soft scratching rustled against the walls as if curious fingers or claws tested the timbers.

The family's dog barked at shadows, growling at the emptiness of the yard. No one considered it a haunting at first. Life on a rural [00:03:00] farm was filled with pests, nocturnal animals, and the countless unexplained noises of the frontier. Yet the disturbances persisted, night after night, growing a little bolder each time.

One evening, the knocking on the walls turned so loud it woke the entire household. Lamps were lit, doors were open, the ground searched, but the land lay silent under the moon. Within weeks, the unsettling taps and scrapes evolved into something more alarming. Disembodied voices. At first, the voices were faint.

A soft murmur in rooms with no one in them. Betsy Bell, the youngest daughter, insisted she heard her name called near her bed. She ran to her mother and her father trembling, but they found no intruder. Still, The voice continued, too low for them to identify words, yet distinct enough to chill the blood.

Lucy Bell began to fear they were facing a spirit, an unclean presence that had invaded their home. She prayed for divine [00:04:00] protection each evening, yet sometimes the voice seemed to mimic her prayers, twisting her words into a derisive echo. John Bell, once confident and strong, grew unnerved. When he tried reading from the Bible, the voice mocked him, imitating his tone like a cruel prankster.

As the nights passed, disturbances gained momentum. Doors opened by themselves, chairs shifted with no hand to move them, and curtains fluttered in a room void of drafts. Even in daytime, Betsy would find objects missing, only for them to reappear on the kitchen floor or a distant shelf. It felt as if an unseen intelligence roamed the house, bent on sowing chaos.

Of all the bells, Betsy suffered the most. She was awakened at night by her hair being yanked hard enough to pull her from sleep. Invisible hands slapped her cheeks, leaving red prints. When she walked outside by day, she heard harsh whispers at her ear, telling her she would know [00:05:00] no peace. Exhausted, she became withdrawn, her once bright spirit dulled by a ceaseless fear.

Rumors spread that Betsy's torment was the worst evidence of the haunting. Neighbors who dared spend the night in the Bell household often witnessed her blankets ripped from the bed, or watched her clutch her bruised arms in distress. As these accounts circulated through the community, people began referring to the presence as the Bell Witch, though no one was certain if it truly was a witch's spirit or something else altogether.

In the tightly knit town of Adams, word of the strange happenings at the Bell Farm soon reached every ear. Some neighbors offered sympathy, believing wholeheartedly that the family was besieged by an evil force. Others expressed skepticism, guessing there must be a logical trick behind it all. John Bell, ordinarily a private man, found himself hosting visitors eager to witness the so called witch in action.

[00:06:00] These visitors gathered by the parlor fireplace or stood in darkened hallways, waiting in tense silence. Occasionally, the presence did not appear, and the disappointed guests left unconvinced. More often, they heard knocks vibrating through the walls or faint moans drifting between rooms. One man, reading aloud from the Bible, found his words drowned out by a rasping voice that repeated the verses back at him in a warped, sing song tone.

Each new account that left the bell farm seemed to confirm the unearthly intelligence behind the torment. It was no longer mere noises or poltergeist pranks. This was something with a will and a voice. Something that could think and speak on its own. Months of sleepless nights wore down the Bell family.

John's demeanor changed. The weight of the haunting pressed on him. Lucy, steadfast in her devotion, prayed constantly for deliverance. The [00:07:00] older Bell children, seeing Betsy attacked so frequently, tried to shield her but were powerless against an enemy that slipped through walls. Farming tasks were delayed or neglected as the family's time and energy funneled into coping with an unseen assailant.

John Bell began experiencing health problems that no local healer could explain. Trembling hands, difficulty swallowing, and fits of dizziness. Whether these ailments arose from stress or something darker, they only reinforced his sense of dread. The voice took to mocking him personally, calling him by name and snickering at his deteriorating condition.

At times, he woke to find himself pinned in bed, unable to move or call out. Despite it all, Lucy held the family together. Soft spoken and gentle, she soothed Betsy's tears and administered whatever remedies she could to John. Yet the unrelenting barrage of knocks, whispers, and violence within her own home tested her faith [00:08:00] daily.

Amid the chaos, Betsy clung to one source of joy, her engagement to Joshua Gardner, a kind young man from the area. They hoped to marry and begin their own life, perhaps on a parcel of the Bell Land or a new farmstead nearby. But whenever Joshua visited the Bell Home, The unseen spirit raged. Stones rattled against the walls, and the door slammed as if in warning.

During quiet walks by the river, Betsy heard the voice hiss in her ear, threatening dire outcomes if she ever were to wed Joshua. Night after night, Betsy lay awake, her tears soaked onto her pillow as she wrestled with the choice between her beloved fiancé and this formidable, invisible foe. She confided in Lucy, who offered comfort but had no solution.

For a while, Betsy and Joshua resolved to stand firm, but the spirit's fury only escalated. Believing she had no alternative, Betsy broke off the engagement. Some thought the family's [00:09:00] torment would subside if the witches demands were met. In a cruel sense, it seemed to succeed. With Betsy's engagement ended, the spirit appeared slightly less focused on her.

By now, the Bell Witch was no longer a mere local curiosity. Word of the haunting spread across the region and reached the ears of Andrew Jackson, then a prominent figure who would later become president. Intrigued, or perhaps skeptical, he traveled to Adams with a party of men to witness the phenomenon firsthand.

According to popular account, the men found their wagon inexplicably stuck on the road near the Bell property, refusing to move until a disembodied voice commanded them to proceed. That night, Jackson's men sat in the Bell parlor, determined to uncover fraud if it existed. Instead, they found themselves subjected to jeering laughter and unexpected slaps.

One boasted of carrying a special bullet that could kill any spirit, only to be chased from the house in terror. [00:10:00] By morning, Jackson reputedly left, shaken. Although details vary among storytellers, the essence of his experience only fueled the legend's fire. Some in Adams took to calling the presence Kate, suspecting it might be the spirit of a neighbor named Kate Batts.

Rumors pointed to an old feud or land dispute between Kate Batts and John Bell. Whether any of that was true, or Kate Batts was simply an unfortunate scapegoat remains unclear. The entity itself, at times, answered to Kate when addressed, while at other times denying any such name. It was a puzzle of contradictions, claiming multiple identities.

A wayward spirit, a demon, or a lost soul wandering in malice. No single explanation satisfied everyone in the community. With Betsy's engagement to Joshua broken, the witch devoted increasing attention to John Bell. His health declined rapidly in 1820, marked by spells of near [00:11:00] paralysis and unremitting pain.

Lucy tended to him day and night. Their children worried and exhausted, watched as their patriarch grew weaker, his once strong presence withering under an unseen hand. In December of that year, John Bell was found unconscious in his bed. A small vial of dark liquid stood nearby. No one recognized its contents.

One of his sons put a single drop on the tongue of the family cat, which died instantly. Almost immediately, the voice shrieked in triumph, boasting that it had given John a final, fatal dose. That same day, John Bell passed away without regaining consciousness, leaving his family both grief stricken and horrified by the witch's brazen gloating.

The funeral drew a large gathering. Many came to mourn the respected farmer. Others arrived to see whether the witch would appear in some dreadful form. As pallbearers lowered John Bell's coffin, A jeering laughter rippled across the [00:12:00] mourners, prompting many to look wildly around for the source. Then, as told in countless retellings, the voice broke into a rude, mocking song, echoing among the gravestones and sending shudders through the crowd.

In the wake of John Bell's death, life on the farm settled into an uneasy quiet. Betsy noticed fewer night time assaults. And the daily havoc lessened. People whispered that the witch finally achieved its purpose by taking John Bell's life. Then, just as suddenly as it had arrived, the witch declared it would leave the family, though it promised to return in seven years.

After a brief period of stillness, the witch's threat rang true. Around 1828, a few of the Bells claimed to hear light tapping or distant murmurs echoing in empty rooms. However, these new incidents were mild and short lived compared to the previous years of torment. Soon enough, even these faded, leaving the bells [00:13:00] with haunted memories, but relative peace.

Near the bell property stood a modest cave by the Red River, a spot often tied to the legend. Over time, people theorized that cave's dark recesses, though the bells themselves rarely ventured inside. Later visitors and locals would tell of odd voices whispering in the cave or strange lights gliding across the damp stone.

Most likely, these stories were born of the haunting's lingering aura. Yet, they continued to fuel the notion that the witch could still roam beyond the farm, hidden beneath the earth. Long after the bells had ceased to hear the witch's voice, the story lived on. Word traveled to neighboring towns, then farther, into newspapers and traveler anecdotes.

The tale of the Tennessee family plagued by a fiendish, talkative spirit captured the imagination. Some insisted the Bell Witch was a cautionary omen of what happens when old feuds and injustices are left [00:14:00] unresolved. Others believed it was a rare glimpse of a diabolical power unleashed for reasons still unknown.

Here in Adams, people repeated the story around hearths and campfires. Children were warned not to wander too far near the old bell farm after dark. When neighbors passed by at night, they might hear a faint rustle in the bush or catch a flicker of light among the trees, prompting them to walk faster.

Hearts pounding, minds remembering how once a family had suffered greatly at the hands of an unseen force. Naturally, not everyone agreed on what transpired at the Bell farm. Some maintained it was all too real, a case of a vengeful spirit or malignant presence carrying out a personal vendetta. Others whispered that perhaps a member of the Bell family had orchestrated the phenomenon with cunning trickery, though that failed to explain the bruises on Betsy, the widespread witnesses, or John's mysterious death.

Still, others pointed to the possibility of an [00:15:00] unsettled spirit who had attached itself to the land for reasons lost to time. What none could deny was the tangible suffering inflicted on the Bells. John Bell's slow decline and Betsy's bruises were impossible to ignore. Multiple guests, neighbors, acquaintances, even travelers testified to hearing the same eerie voice that threatened, teased and recited scripture.

In an age when the supernatural was both feared and accepted, the Bell Witch story captured hearts and sparked endless speculation. After John Bell's death, the family held onto the farm for several years. Betsy, robbed of her engagement to Joshua, eventually found a calmer path through life, though the memory of her tormented youth never fully left her.

Lucy, steadfast and devout to the end, kept her household as best as she could, unwilling to surrender her faith even after all she had witnessed. Over time, the children married and started families of their own, [00:16:00] quietly distancing themselves from the tragedy that had defined their upbringing.

Generations passed, the farm changed hands, the Bell House was repurposed and renovated, and Adams itself transformed slowly from a frontier settlement into a more established community. Yet the name Bellwitch continued to slip into conversation whenever strange knocks were heard late at night or lonely travelers glimpsed inexplicable lights in the distance.

The story refused to fade, woven into the identity of the land itself. Even as the first hand witnesses to the haunting aged and died, their accounts survived in letters, diaries, and recollections passed down among locals. Visitors to Adams would hear about the famed Bell Witch, about the dreadful death of John Bell, the heartbreak of Betsy's broken engagement, and the brazen voice that filled nights with fear.

Some folks approached the story with reverence, others with skepticism. But no one [00:17:00] denied that it shaped the character of the town. In the hush of a moonlit evening, one might stand on that old farmland, fields once tilled by John Bell's callous hands, now peaceful beneath the Tennessee sky. And imagine the entire family huddled in the house, listening with terrified hearts for the next knock on the wall.

It's said that if you pause long enough, you might sense a faint echo of their dread, carried on a stray breath of wind. The Bell Witch remains a singular chapter in American folklore, a tale of a family besieged by something unseen, lethal, and uncannily aware. However one interprets the events, whether as vengeful ghosts, demonic presence, or some other unexplainable force, the Bell Witch.

Its resonance lies in the very human drama at its core. Here was a father undone by circumstances he could not control. A daughter tormented in her own home, in a close knit household tested by relentless fear. [00:18:00] In the end, the Bell Witch story offers a lesson in how thin the line between our daily certainties and the mysteries that defy them.

When night falls, and the wind rattles the shutters in a silent house, we remember John Bell and his family, who discovered that the safe haven of home can become a battlefield against forces beyond mortal comprehension. I'm Russ Chamberlain, and you've been listening to Midnight Signals. May this account of the Bell Witch linger with you as a reminder that in the deepest stillness of the night, Anything seems possible.

Even the unseen tapping of a force that seeks to make itself known. Sleep well, if you dare.

@ 2b24a1fa:17750f64

Ein Gedicht unserer Zeit von Lionne Douce.

Sprecherin: Sabrina Khalil

https://soundcloud.com/radiomuenchen/der-gutmenschzug-ist-da-von?

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

In an age where culture often precedes policy, a subtle yet potent mechanism may be at play in the shaping of American perspectives on gun ownership. Rather than directly challenging the Second Amendment through legislation alone, a more insidious strategy may involve reshaping the cultural and social norms surrounding firearms—by conditioning the population, starting at its most impressionable point: the public school system.

The Cultural Lever of Language

Unlike Orwell's 1984, where language is controlled by removing words from the lexicon, this modern approach may hinge instead on instilling fear around specific words or topics—guns, firearms, and self-defense among them. The goal is not to erase the language but to embed a taboo so deep that people voluntarily avoid these terms out of social self-preservation. Children, teachers, and parents begin to internalize a fear of even mentioning weapons, not because the words are illegal, but because the cultural consequences are severe.

The Role of Teachers in Social Programming

Teachers, particularly in primary and middle schools, serve not only as educational authorities but also as social regulators. The frequent argument against homeschooling—that children will not be "properly socialized"—reveals an implicit understanding that schools play a critical role in setting behavioral norms. Children learn what is acceptable not just academically but socially. Rules, discipline, and behavioral expectations are laid down by teachers, often reinforced through peer pressure and institutional authority.

This places teachers in a unique position of influence. If fear is instilled in these educators—fear that one of their students could become the next school shooter—their response is likely to lean toward overcorrection. That overcorrection may manifest as a total intolerance for any conversation about weapons, regardless of the context. Innocent remarks or imaginative stories from young children are interpreted as red flags, triggering intervention from administrators and warnings to parents.

Fear as a Policy Catalyst

School shootings, such as the one at Columbine, serve as the fulcrum for this fear-based conditioning. Each highly publicized tragedy becomes a national spectacle, not only for mourning but also for cementing the idea that any child could become a threat. Media cycles perpetuate this narrative with relentless coverage and emotional appeals, ensuring that each incident becomes embedded in the public consciousness.

The side effect of this focus is the generation of copycat behavior, which, in turn, justifies further media attention and tighter controls. Schools install security systems, metal detectors, and armed guards—not simply to stop violence, but to serve as a daily reminder to children and staff alike: guns are dangerous, ubiquitous, and potentially present at any moment. This daily ritual reinforces the idea that the very discussion of firearms is a precursor to violence.

Policy and Practice: The Zero-Tolerance Feedback Loop

Federal and district-level policies begin to reflect this cultural shift. A child mentioning a gun in class—even in a non-threatening or imaginative context—is flagged for intervention. Zero-tolerance rules leave no room for context or intent. Teachers and administrators, fearing for their careers or safety, comply eagerly with these guidelines, interpreting them as moral obligations rather than bureaucratic policies.

The result is a generation of students conditioned to associate firearms with social ostracism, disciplinary action, and latent danger. The Second Amendment, once seen as a cultural cornerstone of American liberty and self-reliance, is transformed into an artifact of suspicion and anxiety.

Long-Term Consequences: A Nation Re-Socialized

Over time, this fear-based reshaping of discourse creates adults who not only avoid discussing guns but view them as morally reprehensible. Their aversion is not grounded in legal logic or political philosophy, but in deeply embedded emotional programming begun in early childhood. The cultural weight against firearms becomes so great that even those inclined to support gun rights feel the need to self-censor.

As fewer people grow up discussing, learning about, or responsibly handling firearms, the social understanding of the Second Amendment erodes. Without cultural reinforcement, its value becomes abstract and its defenders marginalized. In this way, the right to bear arms is not abolished by law—it is dismantled by language, fear, and the subtle recalibration of social norms.

Conclusion

This theoretical strategy does not require a single change to the Constitution. It relies instead on the long game of cultural transformation, beginning with the youngest minds and reinforced by fear-driven policy and media narratives. The outcome is a society that views the Second Amendment not as a safeguard of liberty, but as an anachronism too dangerous to mention.

By controlling the language through social consequences and fear, a nation can be taught not just to disarm, but to believe it chose to do so freely. That, perhaps, is the most powerful form of control of all.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

One of the most common criticisms leveled against nostr is the perceived lack of assurance when it comes to data storage. Critics argue that without a centralized authority guaranteeing that all data is preserved, important information will be lost. They also claim that running a relay will become prohibitively expensive. While there is truth to these concerns, they miss the mark. The genius of nostr lies in its flexibility, resilience, and the way it harnesses human incentives to ensure data availability in practice.

A nostr relay is simply a server that holds cryptographically verifiable signed data and makes it available to others. Relays are simple, flexible, open, and require no permission to run. Critics are right that operating a relay attempting to store all nostr data will be costly. What they miss is that most will not run all encompassing archive relays. Nostr does not rely on massive archive relays. Instead, anyone can run a relay and choose to store whatever subset of data they want. This keeps costs low and operations flexible, making relay operation accessible to all sorts of individuals and entities with varying use cases.

Critics are correct that there is no ironclad guarantee that every piece of data will always be available. Unlike bitcoin where data permanence is baked into the system at a steep cost, nostr does not promise that every random note or meme will be preserved forever. That said, in practice, any data perceived as valuable by someone will likely be stored and distributed by multiple entities. If something matters to someone, they will keep a signed copy.

Nostr is the Streisand Effect in protocol form. The Streisand effect is when an attempt to suppress information backfires, causing it to spread even further. With nostr, anyone can broadcast signed data, anyone can store it, and anyone can distribute it. Try to censor something important? Good luck. The moment it catches attention, it will be stored on relays across the globe, copied, and shared by those who find it worth keeping. Data deemed important will be replicated across servers by individuals acting in their own interest.

Nostr’s distributed nature ensures that the system does not rely on a single point of failure or a corporate overlord. Instead, it leans on the collective will of its users. The result is a network where costs stay manageable, participation is open to all, and valuable verifiable data is stored and distributed forever.

@ 460c25e6:ef85065c

If you don't know where your posts are, you might as well just stay in the centralized Twitter. You either take control of your relay lists, or they will control you. Amethyst offers several lists of relays for our users. We are going to go one by one to help clarify what they are and which options are best for each one.

Public Home/Outbox Relays

Home relays store all YOUR content: all your posts, likes, replies, lists, etc. It's your home. Amethyst will send your posts here first. Your followers will use these relays to get new posts from you. So, if you don't have anything there, they will not receive your updates.

Home relays must allow queries from anyone, ideally without the need to authenticate. They can limit writes to paid users without affecting anyone's experience.

This list should have a maximum of 3 relays. More than that will only make your followers waste their mobile data getting your posts. Keep it simple. Out of the 3 relays, I recommend: - 1 large public, international relay: nos.lol, nostr.mom, relay.damus.io, etc. - 1 personal relay to store a copy of all your content in a place no one can delete. Go to relay.tools and never be censored again. - 1 really fast relay located in your country: paid options like http://nostr.wine are great

Do not include relays that block users from seeing posts in this list. If you do, no one will see your posts.

Public Inbox Relays

This relay type receives all replies, comments, likes, and zaps to your posts. If you are not getting notifications or you don't see replies from your friends, it is likely because you don't have the right setup here. If you are getting too much spam in your replies, it's probably because your inbox relays are not protecting you enough. Paid relays can filter inbox spam out.

Inbox relays must allow anyone to write into them. It's the opposite of the outbox relay. They can limit who can download the posts to their paid subscribers without affecting anyone's experience.

This list should have a maximum of 3 relays as well. Again, keep it small. More than that will just make you spend more of your data plan downloading the same notifications from all these different servers. Out of the 3 relays, I recommend: - 1 large public, international relay: nos.lol, nostr.mom, relay.damus.io, etc. - 1 personal relay to store a copy of your notifications, invites, cashu tokens and zaps. - 1 really fast relay located in your country: go to nostr.watch and find relays in your country

Terrible options include: - nostr.wine should not be here. - filter.nostr.wine should not be here. - inbox.nostr.wine should not be here.

DM Inbox Relays

These are the relays used to receive DMs and private content. Others will use these relays to send DMs to you. If you don't have it setup, you will miss DMs. DM Inbox relays should accept any message from anyone, but only allow you to download them.

Generally speaking, you only need 3 for reliability. One of them should be a personal relay to make sure you have a copy of all your messages. The others can be open if you want push notifications or closed if you want full privacy.

Good options are: - inbox.nostr.wine and auth.nostr1.com: anyone can send messages and only you can download. Not even our push notification server has access to them to notify you. - a personal relay to make sure no one can censor you. Advanced settings on personal relays can also store your DMs privately. Talk to your relay operator for more details. - a public relay if you want DM notifications from our servers.

Make sure to add at least one public relay if you want to see DM notifications.

Private Home Relays

Private Relays are for things no one should see, like your drafts, lists, app settings, bookmarks etc. Ideally, these relays are either local or require authentication before posting AND downloading each user\'s content. There are no dedicated relays for this category yet, so I would use a local relay like Citrine on Android and a personal relay on relay.tools.

Keep in mind that if you choose a local relay only, a client on the desktop might not be able to see the drafts from clients on mobile and vice versa.

Search relays:

This is the list of relays to use on Amethyst's search and user tagging with @. Tagging and searching will not work if there is nothing here.. This option requires NIP-50 compliance from each relay. Hit the Default button to use all available options on existence today: - nostr.wine - relay.nostr.band - relay.noswhere.com

Local Relays:

This is your local storage. Everything will load faster if it comes from this relay. You should install Citrine on Android and write ws://localhost:4869 in this option.

General Relays:

This section contains the default relays used to download content from your follows. Notice how you can activate and deactivate the Home, Messages (old-style DMs), Chat (public chats), and Global options in each.

Keep 5-6 large relays on this list and activate them for as many categories (Home, Messages (old-style DMs), Chat, and Global) as possible.

Amethyst will provide additional recommendations to this list from your follows with information on which of your follows might need the additional relay in your list. Add them if you feel like you are missing their posts or if it is just taking too long to load them.

My setup

Here's what I use: 1. Go to relay.tools and create a relay for yourself. 2. Go to nostr.wine and pay for their subscription. 3. Go to inbox.nostr.wine and pay for their subscription. 4. Go to nostr.watch and find a good relay in your country. 5. Download Citrine to your phone.

Then, on your relay lists, put:

Public Home/Outbox Relays: - nostr.wine - nos.lol or an in-country relay. - .nostr1.com

Public Inbox Relays - nos.lol or an in-country relay - .nostr1.com

DM Inbox Relays - inbox.nostr.wine - .nostr1.com

Private Home Relays - ws://localhost:4869 (Citrine) - .nostr1.com (if you want)

Search Relays - nostr.wine - relay.nostr.band - relay.noswhere.com

Local Relays - ws://localhost:4869 (Citrine)

General Relays - nos.lol - relay.damus.io - relay.primal.net - nostr.mom

And a few of the recommended relays from Amethyst.

Final Considerations

Remember, relays can see what your Nostr client is requesting and downloading at all times. They can track what you see and see what you like. They can sell that information to the highest bidder, they can delete your content or content that a sponsor asked them to delete (like a negative review for instance) and they can censor you in any way they see fit. Before using any random free relay out there, make sure you trust its operator and you know its terms of service and privacy policies.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Nostr is not decentralized nor censorship-resistant

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

Nostr today is indeed centralized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

See also:

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

@ 846ebf79:fe4e39a4

The next iteration is coming

We're busy racing to the finish line, for the #Alexandria Gutenberg beta. Then we can get the bug hunt done, release v0.1.0, and immediately start producing the first iteration of the Euler (v0.2.0) edition.

While we continue to work on fixing the performance issues and smooth rendering on the Reading View, we've gone ahead and added some new features and apps, which will be rolled-out soon.

The biggest projects this iteration have been:

• the HTTP API for the #Realy relay from nostr:npub1fjqqy4a93z5zsjwsfxqhc2764kvykfdyttvldkkkdera8dr78vhsmmleku,
• implementation of a publication tree structure by nostr:npub1wqfzz2p880wq0tumuae9lfwyhs8uz35xd0kr34zrvrwyh3kvrzuskcqsyn,
• and the Great DevOps Migration of 2025 from the ever-industrious Mr. nostr:npub1qdjn8j4gwgmkj3k5un775nq6q3q7mguv5tvajstmkdsqdja2havq03fqm7.

All are backend-y projects and have caused a major shift in process and product, on the development team's side, even if they're still largely invisible to users.

Another important, but invisible-to-you change is that nostr:npub1ecdlntvjzexlyfale2egzvvncc8tgqsaxkl5hw7xlgjv2cxs705s9qs735 has implemented the core bech32 functionality (and the associated tests) in C/C++, for the #Aedile NDK.

On the frontend:

nostr:npub1636uujeewag8zv8593lcvdrwlymgqre6uax4anuq3y5qehqey05sl8qpl4 is currently working on the blog-specific Reading View, which allows for multi-npub or topical blogging, by using the 30040 index as a "folder", joining the various 30041 articles into different blogs. She has also started experimenting with categorization and columns for the landing page.

nostr:npub1l5sga6xg72phsz5422ykujprejwud075ggrr3z2hwyrfgr7eylqstegx9z revamped the product information pages, so that there is now a Contact page (including the ability to submit a Nostr issue) and an About page (with more product information, the build version displayed, and a live #GitCitadel feed).

We have also allowed for discrete headings (headers that aren't section headings, akin to the headers in Markdown). Discrete headings are formatted, but not added to the ToC and do not result in a section split by Asciidoc processors.

We have added OpenGraph metadata, so that hyperlinks to Alexandria publications, and other events, display prettily in other apps. And we fixed some bugs.

The Visualisation view has been updated and bug-fixed, to make the cards human-readable and closeable, and to add hyperlinks to the events to the card-titles.

We have added support for the display of individual wiki pages and the integration of them into 30040 publications. (This is an important feature for scientists and other nonfiction writers.)

We prettified the event json modal, so that it's easier to read and copy-paste out of.

The index card details have been expanded and the menus on the landing page have been revamped and expanded. Design and style has been improved, overall.

Project management is very busy

Our scientific adviser nostr:npub1m3xdppkd0njmrqe2ma8a6ys39zvgp5k8u22mev8xsnqp4nh80srqhqa5sf is working on the Euler plans for integrating features important for medical researchers and other scientists, which have been put on the fast track.

Next up are:

• a return of the Table of Contents
• kind 1111 comments, highlights, likes
• a prototype social feed for wss://theforest.nostr1.com, including long-form articles and Markdown rendering
• compose and edit of publications
• a search field
• the expansion of the relay set with the new relays from nostr:npub12262qa4uhw7u8gdwlgmntqtv7aye8vdcmvszkqwgs0zchel6mz7s6cgrkj, including some cool premium features
• full wiki functionality and disambiguation pages for replaceable events with overlapping d-tags
• a web app for mass-uploading and auto-converting PDFs to 30040/41 Asciidoc events, that will run on Realy, and be a service free for our premium relay subscribers
• ability to subscribe to the forest with a premium status
• the book upload CLI has been renamed and reworked into the Sybil Test Utility and that will get a major release, covering all the events and functionality needed to test Euler
• the #GitRepublic public git server project
• ....and much more.

Thank you for reading and may your morning be good.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Censorship-resistant relay discovery in Nostr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 09fbf8f3:fa3d60f0

🌟 深度探索：在Cloudflare上免费部署DeepSeek-R1 32B大模型

🌍 一、 注册或登录Cloudflare平台（CF老手可跳过）

1️⃣ 进入Cloudflare平台官网：

。www.cloudflare.com/zh-cn/
登录或者注册账号。

2️⃣ 新注册的用户会让你选择域名，无视即可，直接点下面的Start building。

3️⃣ 进入仪表盘后，界面可能会显示英文，在右上角切换到[简体中文]即可。

---

🚀 二、正式开始部署Deepseek API项目。

1️⃣ 首先在左侧菜单栏找到【AI】下的【Wokers AI】，选择【Llama 3 Woker】。

2️⃣ 为项目取一个好听的名字，后点击部署即可。

3️⃣ Woker项目初始化部署好后，需要编辑替换掉其原代码。

4️⃣ 解压出提供的代码压缩包，找到【32b】的部署代码，将里面的文本复制出来。

下载地址：
📁 夸克
📁 UC网盘
📁 迅雷网盘

5️⃣ 接第3步，将项目里的原代码清空，粘贴第4步复制好的代码到编辑器。

6️⃣ 代码粘贴完，即可点击右上角的部署按钮。

7️⃣ 回到仪表盘，点击部署完的项目名称。

8️⃣ 查看【设置】，找到平台分配的项目网址，复制好备用。

---

💻 三、选择可用的UI软件，这边使用Chatbox AI演示。

1️⃣ 根据自己使用的平台下载对应的安装包，博主也一并打包好了全平台的软件安装包。

2️⃣ 打开安装好的Chatbox，点击左下角的设置。

3️⃣ 选择【添加自定义提供方】。

4️⃣ 按照图片说明填写即可，【API域名】为之前复制的项目网址(加/v1)；【改善网络兼容性】功能务必开启；【API密钥】默认为”zhiyuan“，可自行修改；填写完毕后保存即可。

5️⃣ Cloudflare项目部署好后，就能正常使用了，接口仿照OpenAI API具有较强的兼容性，能导入到很多支持AI功能的软件或插件中。

6️⃣ Cloudflare的域名默认被墙了，需要自己准备一个域名设置。

---

转自微信公众号：纸鸢花的小屋
推广：低调云（梯子VPN）
。www.didiaocloud.xyz

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Reanalysis: Could the Great Pyramid Function as an Ammonia Generator Powered by a 25GW Breeder Reactor?

Introduction

The Great Pyramid of Giza has traditionally been considered a tomb or ceremonial structure. Yet an intriguing alternative hypothesis suggests it could have functioned as a large-scale ammonia generator, powered by a high-energy source, such as a nuclear breeder reactor. This analysis explores the theoretical practicality of powering such a system using a continuous 25-gigawatt (GW) breeder reactor.

The Pyramid as an Ammonia Generator

Producing ammonia (NH₃) from atmospheric nitrogen (N₂) and hydrogen (H₂) requires substantial energy. Modern ammonia production (via the Haber-Bosch process) typically demands high pressure (~150–250 atmospheres) and temperatures (~400–500°C). However, given enough available energy, it is theoretically feasible to synthesize ammonia at lower pressures if catalysts and temperatures are sufficiently high or if alternative electrochemical or plasma-based fixation methods are employed.

Theoretical System Components:

1. High Heat Source (25GW breeder reactor)
   A breeder reactor could consistently generate large amounts of heat. At a steady state of approximately 25GW, this heat source would easily sustain temperatures exceeding the 450°C threshold necessary for ammonia synthesis reactions, particularly if conducted electrochemically or catalytically.

2. Steam and Hydrogen Production
   The intense heat from a breeder reactor can efficiently evaporate water from subterranean channels (such as those historically suggested to exist beneath the pyramid) to form superheated steam. If coupled with high-voltage electrostatic fields (possibly in the millions of volts), steam electrolysis into hydrogen and oxygen becomes viable. This high-voltage environment could substantially enhance electrolysis efficiency.

3. Nitrogen Fixation (Ammonia Synthesis)
   With hydrogen readily produced, ammonia generation can proceed. Atmospheric nitrogen, abundant around the pyramid, can combine with the hydrogen generated through electrolysis. Under these conditions, the pyramid's capstone—potentially made from a catalytic metal like osmium, platinum, or gold—could facilitate nitrogen fixation at elevated temperatures.

Power Requirements and Energy Calculations

A thorough calculation of the continuous power requirements to maintain this system follows:

• Estimated Steady-state Power: ~25 GW of continuous thermal power.
• Total Energy Over 10,000 years: """ Energy = 25 GW × 10,000 years × 365.25 days/year × 24 hrs/day × 3600 s/hr ≈ 7.9 × 10²¹ Joules """

Feasibility of a 25GW Breeder Reactor within the Pyramid

A breeder reactor capable of sustaining 25GW thermal power is physically plausible—modern commercial reactors routinely generate 3–4GW thermal, so this is within an achievable engineering scale (though certainly large by current standards).

Fuel Requirements:

• Each kilogram of fissile fuel (e.g., U-233 from Thorium-232) releases ~80 terajoules (TJ) or 8×10¹³ joules.
• Considering reactor efficiency (~35%), one kilogram provides ~2.8×10¹³ joules usable energy: """ Fuel Required = 7.9 × 10²¹ J / 2.8 × 10¹³ J/kg ≈ 280,000 metric tons """
• With a breeding ratio of ~1.3: """ Initial Load = 280,000 tons / 1.3 ≈ 215,000 tons """

Reactor Physical Dimensions (Pebble Bed Design):

• King’s Chamber size: ~318 cubic meters.
• The reactor core would need to be extremely dense and highly efficient. Advanced engineering would be required to concentrate such power in this space, but it is within speculative feasibility.

Steam Generation and Scaling Management

Key methods to mitigate mineral scaling in the system: 1. Natural Limestone Filtration 2. Chemical Additives (e.g., chelating agents, phosphate compounds) 3. Superheating and Electrostatic Ionization 4. Electrostatic Control

Conclusion and Practical Considerations

Yes, the Great Pyramid could theoretically function as an ammonia generator if powered by a 25GW breeder reactor, using: - Thorium or Uranium-based fertile material, - Sustainable steam and scaling management, - High-voltage-enhanced electrolysis and catalytic ammonia synthesis.

While speculative, it is technologically coherent when analyzed through the lens of modern nuclear and chemical engineering.

See also: nostr:naddr1qqxnzde5xymrgvekxycrswfeqy2hwumn8ghj7am0deejucmpd3mxztnyv4mz7q3qc856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsxpqqqp65wun9c08

@ daa41bed:88f54153

There has been a good bit of discussion on Nostr over the past few days about the merits of zaps as a method of engaging with notes, so after writing a rather lengthy article on the pros of a strategic Bitcoin reserve, I wanted to take some time to chime in on the much more fun topic of digital engagement.

Let's begin by defining a couple of things:

Nostr is a decentralized, censorship-resistance protocol whose current biggest use case is social media (think Twitter/X). Instead of relying on company servers, it relies on relays that anyone can spin up and own their own content. Its use cases are much bigger, though, and this article is hosted on my own relay, using my own Nostr relay as an example.

Zap is a tip or donation denominated in sats (small units of Bitcoin) sent from one user to another. This is generally done directly over the Lightning Network but is increasingly using Cashu tokens. For the sake of this discussion, how you transmit/receive zaps will be irrelevant, so don't worry if you don't know what Lightning or Cashu are.

If we look at how users engage with posts and follows/followers on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, etc., it becomes evident that traditional social media thrives on engagement farming. The more outrageous a post, the more likely it will get a reaction. We see a version of this on more visual social platforms like YouTube and TikTok that use carefully crafted thumbnail images to grab the user's attention to click the video. If you'd like to dive deep into the psychology and science behind social media engagement, let me know, and I'd be happy to follow up with another article.

In this user engagement model, a user is given the option to comment or like the original post, or share it among their followers to increase its signal. They receive no value from engaging with the content aside from the dopamine hit of the original experience or having their comment liked back by whatever influencer they provide value to. Ad revenue flows to the content creator. Clout flows to the content creator. Sales revenue from merch and content placement flows to the content creator. We call this a linear economy -- the idea that resources get created, used up, then thrown away. Users create content and farm as much engagement as possible, then the content is forgotten within a few hours as they move on to the next piece of content to be farmed.

What if there were a simple way to give value back to those who engage with your content? By implementing some value-for-value model -- a circular economy. Enter zaps.

Unlike traditional social media platforms, Nostr does not actively use algorithms to determine what content is popular, nor does it push content created for active user engagement to the top of a user's timeline. Yes, there are "trending" and "most zapped" timelines that users can choose to use as their default, but these use relatively straightforward engagement metrics to rank posts for these timelines.

That is not to say that we may not see clients actively seeking to refine timeline algorithms for specific metrics. Still, the beauty of having an open protocol with media that is controlled solely by its users is that users who begin to see their timeline gamed towards specific algorithms can choose to move to another client, and for those who are more tech-savvy, they can opt to run their own relays or create their own clients with personalized algorithms and web of trust scoring systems.

Zaps enable the means to create a new type of social media economy in which creators can earn for creating content and users can earn by actively engaging with it. Like and reposting content is relatively frictionless and costs nothing but a simple button tap. Zaps provide active engagement because they signal to your followers and those of the content creator that this post has genuine value, quite literally in the form of money—sats.

I have seen some comments on Nostr claiming that removing likes and reactions is for wealthy people who can afford to send zaps and that the majority of people in the US and around the world do not have the time or money to zap because they have better things to spend their money like feeding their families and paying their bills. While at face value, these may seem like valid arguments, they, unfortunately, represent the brainwashed, defeatist attitude that our current economic (and, by extension, social media) systems aim to instill in all of us to continue extracting value from our lives.

Imagine now, if those people dedicating their own time (time = money) to mine pity points on social media would instead spend that time with genuine value creation by posting content that is meaningful to cultural discussions. Imagine if, instead of complaining that their posts get no zaps and going on a tirade about how much of a victim they are, they would empower themselves to take control of their content and give value back to the world; where would that leave us? How much value could be created on a nascent platform such as Nostr, and how quickly could it overtake other platforms?

Other users argue about user experience and that additional friction (i.e., zaps) leads to lower engagement, as proven by decades of studies on user interaction. While the added friction may turn some users away, does that necessarily provide less value? I argue quite the opposite. You haven't made a few sats from zaps with your content? Can't afford to send some sats to a wallet for zapping? How about using the most excellent available resource and spending 10 seconds of your time to leave a comment? Likes and reactions are valueless transactions. Social media's real value derives from providing monetary compensation and actively engaging in a conversation with posts you find interesting or thought-provoking. Remember when humans thrived on conversation and discussion for entertainment instead of simply being an onlooker of someone else's life?

If you've made it this far, my only request is this: try only zapping and commenting as a method of engagement for two weeks. Sure, you may end up liking a post here and there, but be more mindful of how you interact with the world and break yourself from blind instinct. You'll thank me later.

@ 127d3bf5:466f416f

I can see why someone would think that buying some other crypto is a reasonable idea for "diversification" or even just for a bit of fun gambling, but it is not.

There are many reasons you should stick to Bitcoin only, and these have been proven correct every cycle. I've outlined these before but will cut and paste below as a summary.

The number one reason, is healthy ethical practice:

• The whole point of Bitcoin is to escape the trappings and flaws of traditional systems. Currency trading and speculative investing is a Tradfi concept, and you will end up back where you started. Sooner or later this becomes obvious to everyone. Bitcoin is the healthy and ethical choice for yourself and everyone else.

But...even if you want to be greedy, hold your horses:

• There is significant risk in wallets, defi, and cefi exchanges. Many have lost all their funds in these through hacks and services getting banned or going bankrupt.
• You get killed in exchange fees even when buying low and selling high. This is effectively a transaction tax which is often hidden (sometimes they don't show the fee, just mark up the exchange rate). Also true on defi exchanges.
• You are up against traders and founders with insider knowledge and much more sophisticated prediction models that will fleece you eventually. You cannot time the market better than they can, and it is their full-time to job to beat you and suck as much liquidity out of you as they can. House always wins.
• Every crypto trade is a taxable event, so you will be taxed on all gains anyway in most countries. So not only are the traders fleecing you, the govt is too.
• It ruins your quality of life constantly checking prices and stressing about making the wrong trade.

The best option, by far, is to slowly DCA into Bitcoin and take this off exchanges into your own custody. In the long run this strategy works out better financially, ethically, and from a quality-of-life perspective. Saving, not trading.

I've been here since 2014 and can personally attest to this.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Warning: This piece contains a conversation about difficult topics. Please proceed with caution.

TL;DR please educate your children about online safety.

Julian Assange wrote in his 2012 book Cypherpunks, “This book is not a manifesto. There isn’t time for that. This book is a warning.” I read it a few times over the past summer. Those opening lines definitely stood out to me. I wish we had listened back then. He saw something about the internet that few had the ability to see. There are some individuals who are so close to a topic that when they speak, it’s difficult for others who aren’t steeped in it to visualize what they’re talking about. I didn’t read the book until more recently. If I had read it when it came out, it probably would have sounded like an unknown foreign language to me. Today it makes more sense.

This isn’t a manifesto. This isn’t a book. There is no time for that. It’s a warning and a possible solution from a desperate and determined survivor advocate who has been pulling and unraveling a thread for a few years. At times, I feel too close to this topic to make any sense trying to convey my pathway to my conclusions or thoughts to the general public. My hope is that if nothing else, I can convey my sense of urgency while writing this. This piece is a watchman’s warning.

When a child steps online, they are walking into a new world. A new reality. When you hand a child the internet, you are handing them possibilities—good, bad, and ugly. This is a conversation about lowering the potential of negative outcomes of stepping into that new world and how I came to these conclusions. I constantly compare the internet to the road. You wouldn’t let a young child run out into the road with no guidance or safety precautions. When you hand a child the internet without any type of guidance or safety measures, you are allowing them to play in rush hour, oncoming traffic. “Look left, look right for cars before crossing.” We almost all have been taught that as children. What are we taught as humans about safety before stepping into a completely different reality like the internet? Very little.

I could never really figure out why many folks in tech, privacy rights activists, and hackers seemed so cold to me while talking about online child sexual exploitation. I always figured that as a survivor advocate for those affected by these crimes, that specific, skilled group of individuals would be very welcoming and easy to talk to about such serious topics. I actually had one hacker laugh in my face when I brought it up while I was looking for answers. I thought maybe this individual thought I was accusing them of something I wasn’t, so I felt bad for asking. I was constantly extremely disappointed and would ask myself, “Why don’t they care? What could I say to make them care more? What could I say to make them understand the crisis and the level of suffering that happens as a result of the problem?”

I have been serving minor survivors of online child sexual exploitation for years. My first case serving a survivor of this specific crime was in 2018—a 13-year-old girl sexually exploited by a serial predator on Snapchat. That was my first glimpse into this side of the internet. I won a national award for serving the minor survivors of Twitter in 2023, but I had been working on that specific project for a few years. I was nominated by a lawyer representing two survivors in a legal battle against the platform. I’ve never really spoken about this before, but at the time it was a choice for me between fighting Snapchat or Twitter. I chose Twitter—or rather, Twitter chose me. I heard about the story of John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, and I was so unbelievably broken over it that I went to war for multiple years. I was and still am royally pissed about that case. As far as I was concerned, the John Doe #1 case proved that whatever was going on with corporate tech social media was so out of control that I didn’t have time to wait, so I got to work. It was reading the messages that John Doe #1 sent to Twitter begging them to remove his sexual exploitation that broke me. He was a child begging adults to do something. A passion for justice and protecting kids makes you do wild things. I was desperate to find answers about what happened and searched for solutions. In the end, the platform Twitter was purchased. During the acquisition, I just asked Mr. Musk nicely to prioritize the issue of detection and removal of child sexual exploitation without violating digital privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption. Elon thanked me multiple times during the acquisition, made some changes, and I was thanked by others on the survivors’ side as well.

I still feel that even with the progress made, I really just scratched the surface with Twitter, now X. I left that passion project when I did for a few reasons. I wanted to give new leadership time to tackle the issue. Elon Musk made big promises that I knew would take a while to fulfill, but mostly I had been watching global legislation transpire around the issue, and frankly, the governments are willing to go much further with X and the rest of corporate tech than I ever would. My work begging Twitter to make changes with easier reporting of content, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation material—without violating privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption—and advocating for the minor survivors of the platform went as far as my principles would have allowed. I’m grateful for that experience. I was still left with a nagging question: “How did things get so bad with Twitter where the John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 case was able to happen in the first place?” I decided to keep looking for answers. I decided to keep pulling the thread.

I never worked for Twitter. This is often confusing for folks. I will say that despite being disappointed in the platform’s leadership at times, I loved Twitter. I saw and still see its value. I definitely love the survivors of the platform, but I also loved the platform. I was a champion of the platform’s ability to give folks from virtually around the globe an opportunity to speak and be heard.

I want to be clear that John Doe #1 really is my why. He is the inspiration. I am writing this because of him. He represents so many globally, and I’m still inspired by his bravery. One child’s voice begging adults to do something—I’m an adult, I heard him. I’d go to war a thousand more lifetimes for that young man, and I don’t even know his name. Fighting has been personally dark at times; I’m not even going to try to sugarcoat it, but it has been worth it.

The data surrounding the very real crime of online child sexual exploitation is available to the public online at any time for anyone to see. I’d encourage you to go look at the data for yourself. I believe in encouraging folks to check multiple sources so that you understand the full picture. If you are uncomfortable just searching around the internet for information about this topic, use the terms “CSAM,” “CSEM,” “SG-CSEM,” or “AI Generated CSAM.” The numbers don’t lie—it’s a nightmare that’s out of control. It’s a big business. The demand is high, and unfortunately, business is booming. Organizations collect the data, tech companies often post their data, governments report frequently, and the corporate press has covered a decent portion of the conversation, so I’m sure you can find a source that you trust.

Technology is changing rapidly, which is great for innovation as a whole but horrible for the crime of online child sexual exploitation. Those wishing to exploit the vulnerable seem to be adapting to each technological change with ease. The governments are so far behind with tackling these issues that as I’m typing this, it’s borderline irrelevant to even include them while speaking about the crime or potential solutions. Technology is changing too rapidly, and their old, broken systems can’t even dare to keep up. Think of it like the governments’ “War on Drugs.” Drugs won. In this case as well, the governments are not winning. The governments are talking about maybe having a meeting on potentially maybe having legislation around the crimes. The time to have that meeting would have been many years ago. I’m not advocating for governments to legislate our way out of this. I’m on the side of educating and innovating our way out of this.

I have been clear while advocating for the minor survivors of corporate tech platforms that I would not advocate for any solution to the crime that would violate digital privacy rights or erode end-to-end encryption. That has been a personal moral position that I was unwilling to budge on. This is an extremely unpopular and borderline nonexistent position in the anti-human trafficking movement and online child protection space. I’m often fearful that I’m wrong about this. I have always thought that a better pathway forward would have been to incentivize innovation for detection and removal of content. I had no previous exposure to privacy rights activists or Cypherpunks—actually, I came to that conclusion by listening to the voices of MENA region political dissidents and human rights activists. After developing relationships with human rights activists from around the globe, I realized how important privacy rights and encryption are for those who need it most globally. I was simply unwilling to give more power, control, and opportunities for mass surveillance to big abusers like governments wishing to enslave entire nations and untrustworthy corporate tech companies to potentially end some portion of abuses online. On top of all of it, it has been clear to me for years that all potential solutions outside of violating digital privacy rights to detect and remove child sexual exploitation online have not yet been explored aggressively. I’ve been disappointed that there hasn’t been more of a conversation around preventing the crime from happening in the first place.

What has been tried is mass surveillance. In China, they are currently under mass surveillance both online and offline, and their behaviors are attached to a social credit score. Unfortunately, even on state-run and controlled social media platforms, they still have child sexual exploitation and abuse imagery pop up along with other crimes and human rights violations. They also have a thriving black market online due to the oppression from the state. In other words, even an entire loss of freedom and privacy cannot end the sexual exploitation of children online. It’s been tried. There is no reason to repeat this method.

It took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out why I always felt a slight coldness from those in tech and privacy-minded individuals about the topic of child sexual exploitation online. I didn’t have any clue about the “Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse.” This is a term coined by Timothy C. May in 1988. I would have been a child myself when he first said it. I actually laughed at myself when I heard the phrase for the first time. I finally got it. The Cypherpunks weren’t wrong about that topic. They were so spot on that it is borderline uncomfortable. I was mad at first that they knew that early during the birth of the internet that this issue would arise and didn’t address it. Then I got over it because I realized that it wasn’t their job. Their job was—is—to write code. Their job wasn’t to be involved and loving parents or survivor advocates. Their job wasn’t to educate children on internet safety or raise awareness; their job was to write code.

They knew that child sexual abuse material would be shared on the internet. They said what would happen—not in a gleeful way, but a prediction. Then it happened.

I equate it now to a concrete company laying down a road. As you’re pouring the concrete, you can say to yourself, “A terrorist might travel down this road to go kill many, and on the flip side, a beautiful child can be born in an ambulance on this road.” Who or what travels down the road is not their responsibility—they are just supposed to lay the concrete. I’d never go to a concrete pourer and ask them to solve terrorism that travels down roads. Under the current system, law enforcement should stop terrorists before they even make it to the road. The solution to this specific problem is not to treat everyone on the road like a terrorist or to not build the road.

So I understand the perceived coldness from those in tech. Not only was it not their job, but bringing up the topic was seen as the equivalent of asking a free person if they wanted to discuss one of the four topics—child abusers, terrorists, drug dealers, intellectual property pirates, etc.—that would usher in digital authoritarianism for all who are online globally.

Privacy rights advocates and groups have put up a good fight. They stood by their principles. Unfortunately, when it comes to corporate tech, I believe that the issue of privacy is almost a complete lost cause at this point. It’s still worth pushing back, but ultimately, it is a losing battle—a ticking time bomb.

I do think that corporate tech providers could have slowed down the inevitable loss of privacy at the hands of the state by prioritizing the detection and removal of CSAM when they all started online. I believe it would have bought some time, fewer would have been traumatized by that specific crime, and I do believe that it could have slowed down the demand for content. If I think too much about that, I’ll go insane, so I try to push the “if maybes” aside, but never knowing if it could have been handled differently will forever haunt me. At night when it’s quiet, I wonder what I would have done differently if given the opportunity. I’ll probably never know how much corporate tech knew and ignored in the hopes that it would go away while the problem continued to get worse. They had different priorities. The most voiceless and vulnerable exploited on corporate tech never had much of a voice, so corporate tech providers didn’t receive very much pushback.

Now I’m about to say something really wild, and you can call me whatever you want to call me, but I’m going to say what I believe to be true. I believe that the governments are either so incompetent that they allowed the proliferation of CSAM online, or they knowingly allowed the problem to fester long enough to have an excuse to violate privacy rights and erode end-to-end encryption. The US government could have seized the corporate tech providers over CSAM, but I believe that they were so useful as a propaganda arm for the regimes that they allowed them to continue virtually unscathed.

That season is done now, and the governments are making the issue a priority. It will come at a high cost. Privacy on corporate tech providers is virtually done as I’m typing this. It feels like a death rattle. I’m not particularly sure that we had much digital privacy to begin with, but the illusion of a veil of privacy feels gone.

To make matters slightly more complex, it would be hard to convince me that once AI really gets going, digital privacy will exist at all.

I believe that there should be a conversation shift to preserving freedoms and human rights in a post-privacy society.

I don’t want to get locked up because AI predicted a nasty post online from me about the government. I’m not a doomer about AI—I’m just going to roll with it personally. I’m looking forward to the positive changes that will be brought forth by AI. I see it as inevitable. A bit of privacy was helpful while it lasted. Please keep fighting to preserve what is left of privacy either way because I could be wrong about all of this.

On the topic of AI, the addition of AI to the horrific crime of child sexual abuse material and child sexual exploitation in multiple ways so far has been devastating. It’s currently out of control. The genie is out of the bottle. I am hopeful that innovation will get us humans out of this, but I’m not sure how or how long it will take. We must be extremely cautious around AI legislation. It should not be illegal to innovate even if some bad comes with the good. I don’t trust that the governments are equipped to decide the best pathway forward for AI. Source: the entire history of the government.

I have been personally negatively impacted by AI-generated content. Every few days, I get another alert that I’m featured again in what’s called “deep fake pornography” without my consent. I’m not happy about it, but what pains me the most is the thought that for a period of time down the road, many globally will experience what myself and others are experiencing now by being digitally sexually abused in this way. If you have ever had your picture taken and posted online, you are also at risk of being exploited in this way. Your child’s image can be used as well, unfortunately, and this is just the beginning of this particular nightmare. It will move to more realistic interpretations of sexual behaviors as technology improves. I have no brave words of wisdom about how to deal with that emotionally. I do have hope that innovation will save the day around this specific issue. I’m nervous that everyone online will have to ID verify due to this issue. I see that as one possible outcome that could help to prevent one problem but inadvertently cause more problems, especially for those living under authoritarian regimes or anyone who needs to remain anonymous online. A zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) would probably be the best solution to these issues. There are some survivors of violence and/or sexual trauma who need to remain anonymous online for various reasons. There are survivor stories available online of those who have been abused in this way. I’d encourage you seek out and listen to their stories.

There have been periods of time recently where I hesitate to say anything at all because more than likely AI will cover most of my concerns about education, awareness, prevention, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation online, etc.

Unfortunately, some of the most pressing issues we’ve seen online over the last few years come in the form of “sextortion.” Self-generated child sexual exploitation (SG-CSEM) numbers are continuing to be terrifying. I’d strongly encourage that you look into sextortion data. AI + sextortion is also a huge concern. The perpetrators are using the non-sexually explicit images of children and putting their likeness on AI-generated child sexual exploitation content and extorting money, more imagery, or both from minors online. It’s like a million nightmares wrapped into one. The wild part is that these issues will only get more pervasive because technology is harnessed to perpetuate horror at a scale unimaginable to a human mind.

Even if you banned phones and the internet or tried to prevent children from accessing the internet, it wouldn’t solve it. Child sexual exploitation will still be with us until as a society we start to prevent the crime before it happens. That is the only human way out right now.

There is no reset button on the internet, but if I could go back, I’d tell survivor advocates to heed the warnings of the early internet builders and to start education and awareness campaigns designed to prevent as much online child sexual exploitation as possible. The internet and technology moved quickly, and I don’t believe that society ever really caught up. We live in a world where a child can be groomed by a predator in their own home while sitting on a couch next to their parents watching TV. We weren’t ready as a species to tackle the fast-paced algorithms and dangers online. It happened too quickly for parents to catch up. How can you parent for the ever-changing digital world unless you are constantly aware of the dangers?

I don’t think that the internet is inherently bad. I believe that it can be a powerful tool for freedom and resistance. I’ve spoken a lot about the bad online, but there is beauty as well. We often discuss how victims and survivors are abused online; we rarely discuss the fact that countless survivors around the globe have been able to share their experiences, strength, hope, as well as provide resources to the vulnerable. I do question if giving any government or tech company access to censorship, surveillance, etc., online in the name of serving survivors might not actually impact a portion of survivors negatively. There are a fair amount of survivors with powerful abusers protected by governments and the corporate press. If a survivor cannot speak to the press about their abuse, the only place they can go is online, directly or indirectly through an independent journalist who also risks being censored. This scenario isn’t hard to imagine—it already happened in China. During #MeToo, a survivor in China wanted to post their story. The government censored the post, so the survivor put their story on the blockchain. I’m excited that the survivor was creative and brave, but it’s terrifying to think that we live in a world where that situation is a necessity.

I believe that the future for many survivors sharing their stories globally will be on completely censorship-resistant and decentralized protocols. This thought in particular gives me hope. When we listen to the experiences of a diverse group of survivors, we can start to understand potential solutions to preventing the crimes from happening in the first place.

My heart is broken over the gut-wrenching stories of survivors sexually exploited online. Every time I hear the story of a survivor, I do think to myself quietly, “What could have prevented this from happening in the first place?” My heart is with survivors.

My head, on the other hand, is full of the understanding that the internet should remain free. The free flow of information should not be stopped. My mind is with the innocent citizens around the globe that deserve freedom both online and offline.

The problem is that governments don’t only want to censor illegal content that violates human rights—they create legislation that is so broad that it can impact speech and privacy of all. “Don’t you care about the kids?” Yes, I do. I do so much that I’m invested in finding solutions. I also care about all citizens around the globe that deserve an opportunity to live free from a mass surveillance society. If terrorism happens online, I should not be punished by losing my freedom. If drugs are sold online, I should not be punished. I’m not an abuser, I’m not a terrorist, and I don’t engage in illegal behaviors. I refuse to lose freedom because of others’ bad behaviors online.

I want to be clear that on a long enough timeline, the governments will decide that they can be better parents/caregivers than you can if something isn’t done to stop minors from being sexually exploited online. The price will be a complete loss of anonymity, privacy, free speech, and freedom of religion online. I find it rather insulting that governments think they’re better equipped to raise children than parents and caretakers.

So we can’t go backwards—all that we can do is go forward. Those who want to have freedom will find technology to facilitate their liberation. This will lead many over time to decentralized and open protocols. So as far as I’m concerned, this does solve a few of my worries—those who need, want, and deserve to speak freely online will have the opportunity in most countries—but what about online child sexual exploitation?

When I popped up around the decentralized space, I was met with the fear of censorship. I’m not here to censor you. I don’t write code. I couldn’t censor anyone or any piece of content even if I wanted to across the internet, no matter how depraved. I don’t have the skills to do that.

I’m here to start a conversation. Freedom comes at a cost. You must always fight for and protect your freedom. I can’t speak about protecting yourself from all of the Four Horsemen because I simply don’t know the topics well enough, but I can speak about this one topic.

If there was a shortcut to ending online child sexual exploitation, I would have found it by now. There isn’t one right now. I believe that education is the only pathway forward to preventing the crime of online child sexual exploitation for future generations.

I propose a yearly education course for every child of all school ages, taught as a standard part of the curriculum. Ideally, parents/caregivers would be involved in the education/learning process.

Course: - The creation of the internet and computers - The fight for cryptography - The tech supply chain from the ground up (example: human rights violations in the supply chain) - Corporate tech - Freedom tech - Data privacy - Digital privacy rights - AI (history-current) - Online safety (predators, scams, catfishing, extortion) - Bitcoin - Laws - How to deal with online hate and harassment - Information on who to contact if you are being abused online or offline - Algorithms - How to seek out the truth about news, etc., online

The parents/caregivers, homeschoolers, unschoolers, and those working to create decentralized parallel societies have been an inspiration while writing this, but my hope is that all children would learn this course, even in government ran schools. Ideally, parents would teach this to their own children.

The decentralized space doesn’t want child sexual exploitation to thrive. Here’s the deal: there has to be a strong prevention effort in order to protect the next generation. The internet isn’t going anywhere, predators aren’t going anywhere, and I’m not down to let anyone have the opportunity to prove that there is a need for more government. I don’t believe that the government should act as parents. The governments have had a chance to attempt to stop online child sexual exploitation, and they didn’t do it. Can we try a different pathway forward?

I’d like to put myself out of a job. I don’t want to ever hear another story like John Doe #1 ever again. This will require work. I’ve often called online child sexual exploitation the lynchpin for the internet. It’s time to arm generations of children with knowledge and tools. I can’t do this alone.

Individuals have fought so that I could have freedom online. I want to fight to protect it. I don’t want child predators to give the government any opportunity to take away freedom. Decentralized spaces are as close to a reset as we’ll get with the opportunity to do it right from the start. Start the youth off correctly by preventing potential hazards to the best of your ability.

The good news is anyone can work on this! I’d encourage you to take it and run with it. I added the additional education about the history of the internet to make the course more educational and fun. Instead of cleaning up generations of destroyed lives due to online sexual exploitation, perhaps this could inspire generations of those who will build our futures. Perhaps if the youth is armed with knowledge, they can create more tools to prevent the crime.

This one solution that I’m suggesting can be done on an individual level or on a larger scale. It should be adjusted depending on age, learning style, etc. It should be fun and playful.

This solution does not address abuse in the home or some of the root causes of offline child sexual exploitation. My hope is that it could lead to some survivors experiencing abuse in the home an opportunity to disclose with a trusted adult. The purpose for this solution is to prevent the crime of online child sexual exploitation before it occurs and to arm the youth with the tools to contact safe adults if and when it happens.

In closing, I went to hell a few times so that you didn’t have to. I spoke to the mothers of survivors of minors sexually exploited online—their tears could fill rivers. I’ve spoken with political dissidents who yearned to be free from authoritarian surveillance states. The only balance that I’ve found is freedom online for citizens around the globe and prevention from the dangers of that for the youth. Don’t slow down innovation and freedom. Educate, prepare, adapt, and look for solutions.

I’m not perfect and I’m sure that there are errors in this piece. I hope that you find them and it starts a conversation.

@ ec42c765:328c0600

カスタム絵文字とは

任意のオリジナル画像を絵文字のように文中に挿入できる機能です。
また、リアクション（Twitterの いいね のような機能）にもカスタム絵文字を使えます。

カスタム絵文字の対応状況（2025/02/06）

カスタム絵文字を使うためにはカスタム絵文字に対応したクライアントを使う必要があります。

※表は一例です。クライアントは他にもたくさんあります。

使っているクライアントが対応していない場合は、クライアントを変更する、対応するまで待つ、開発者に要望を送る（または自分で実装する）などしましょう。

対応クライアント

• Amethyst
• FreeFrom
• nostter
• Rabbit
• Lumilumi
• Nos Haiku
• Snort
• noStrudel

ここではnostterを使って説明していきます。

準備

カスタム絵文字を使うための準備です。

• Nostrエクステンション（NIP-07）を導入する
• 使いたいカスタム絵文字をリストに登録する

Nostrエクステンション（NIP-07）を導入する

Nostrエクステンションは使いたいカスタム絵文字を登録する時に必要になります。

また、環境（パソコン、iPhone、androidなど）によって導入方法が違います。

Nostrエクステンションを導入する端末は、実際にNostrを閲覧する端末と違っても構いません（リスト登録はPC、Nostr閲覧はiPhoneなど）。

Nostrエクステンション（NIP-07）の導入方法は以下のページを参照してください。

ログイン拡張機能 (NIP-07)を使ってみよう | Welcome to Nostr! ～ Nostrをはじめよう！ ～

少し面倒ですが、これを導入しておくとNostr上の様々な場面で役立つのでより快適になります。

使いたいカスタム絵文字をリストに登録する

以下のサイトで行います。

emojito

右上のGet startedからNostrエクステンションでログインしてください。

例として以下のカスタム絵文字を導入してみます。

実際より絵文字が少なく表示されることがありますが、古い状態のデータを取得してしまっているためです。その場合はブラウザの更新ボタンを押してください。

generalJP | カスタム絵文字

• 右側のOptionsからBookmarkを選択

これでカスタム絵文字を使用するためのリストに登録できます。

カスタム絵文字を使用する

例としてブラウザから使えるクライアント nostter から使用してみます。

nostter

nostterにNostrエクステンションでログイン、もしくは秘密鍵を入れてログインしてください。

文章中に使用

1. 投稿ボタンを押して投稿ウィンドウを表示
2. 顔😀のボタンを押し、絵文字ウィンドウを表示
3. ＊タブを押し、カスタム絵文字一覧を表示
4. カスタム絵文字を選択
5. : 記号に挟まれたアルファベットのショートコードとして挿入される

この状態で投稿するとカスタム絵文字として表示されます。

カスタム絵文字対応クライアントを使っている他ユーザーにもカスタム絵文字として表示されます。

対応していないクライアントの場合、ショートコードのまま表示されます。

ショートコードを直接入力することでカスタム絵文字の候補が表示されるのでそこから選択することもできます。

リアクションに使用

1. 任意の投稿の顔😀のボタンを押し、絵文字ウィンドウを表示
2. ＊タブを押し、カスタム絵文字一覧を表示
3. カスタム絵文字を選択

カスタム絵文字リアクションを送ることができます。

カスタム絵文字を探す

先述したemojitoからカスタム絵文字を探せます。

例えば任意のユーザーのページ emojito ロクヨウ から探したり、 emojito Browse all からnostr全体で最近作成、更新された絵文字を見たりできます。

また、以下のリンクは日本語圏ユーザーが作ったカスタム絵文字を集めたリストです（2025/02/06）

※漏れがあるかもしれません

日本ユーザー作 カスタム絵文字

各絵文字セットにあるOpen in emojitoのリンクからemojitoに飛び、使用リストに追加できます。

---

以上です。

次：Nostrのカスタム絵文字の作り方

Yakihonneリンク Nostrのカスタム絵文字の作り方

Nostrリンク nostr:naddr1qqxnzdesxuunzv358ycrgveeqgswcsk8v4qck0deepdtluag3a9rh0jh2d0wh0w9g53qg8a9x2xqvqqrqsqqqa28r5psx3

---

仕様

NIP-30 Custom Emoji

NIP-30 カスタム絵文字（和訳）

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Assumptions

| Factor | Assumption | |--------|------------| | CO₂ | Not considered a pollutant or is captured/stored later | | Water Use | Regulated across all sources; cooling towers or dry cooling required | | Compliance Cost | Nuclear no longer burdened by long licensing and construction delays | | Coal Waste | Treated as valuable raw material (e.g., fly ash for cement, gypsum from scrubbers) | | Nuclear Tech | Gen IV SMRs in widespread use (e.g., 50–300 MWe units, modular build, passive safety) | | Grid Role | All three provide baseload or load-following power | | Fuel Pricing | Moderate and stable (no energy crisis or supply chain disruptions) |

---

Performance Comparison

| Category | Coal (IGCC + Scrubbers) | Natural Gas (CCGT) | Nuclear (Gen IV SMRs) | |---------|-----------------------------|------------------------|--------------------------| | Thermal Efficiency | 40–45% | 55–62% | 30–35% | | CAPEX ($/kW) | $3,500–5,000 | $900–1,300 | $4,000–7,000 (modularized) | | O&M Cost ($/MWh) | $30–50 | $10–20 | $10–25 | | Fuel Cost ($/MWh) | $15–25 | $25–35 | $6–10 | | Water Use (gal/MWh) | 300–500 (with cooling towers) | 100–250 | 300–600 | | Air Emissions | Very low (excluding CO₂) | Very low | None | | Waste | Usable (fly ash, FGD gypsum, slag) | Minimal | Compact, long-term storage required | | Ramp/Flexibility | Slow ramp (newer designs better) | Fast ramp | Medium (SMRs better than traditional) | | Footprint (Land & Supply) | Large (mining, transport) | Medium | Small | | Energy Density | Medium | Medium-high | Very high | | Build Time | 4–7 years | 2–4 years | 2–5 years (with factory builds) | | Lifecycle (years) | 40+ | 30+ | 60+ | | Grid Resilience | High | High | Very High (passive safety, long refuel) |

---

Strategic Role Summary

1. Coal (Clean & Integrated)

• Strengths: Long-term fuel security; byproduct reuse; high reliability; domestic resource.
• Drawbacks: Still low flexibility; moderate efficiency; large physical/logistical footprint.
• Strategic Role: Best suited for regions with abundant coal and industrial reuse markets.

2. Natural Gas (CCGT)

• Strengths: High efficiency, low CAPEX, grid agility, low emissions.
• Drawbacks: Still fossil-based; dependent on well infrastructure; less long-lived.
• Strategic Role: Excellent transitional and peaking solution; strong complement to renewables.

3. Nuclear (Gen IV SMRs)

• Strengths: Highest energy density; no air emissions or CO₂; long lifespan; modular & scalable.
• Drawbacks: Still needs safe waste handling; high upfront cost; novel tech in deployment stage.
• Strategic Role: Ideal for low-carbon baseload, remote areas, and national strategic assets.

---

Adjusted Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE)

| Source | LCOE ($/MWh) | Notes | |--------|------------------|-------| | Coal (IGCC w/scrubbers) | ~$75–95 | Lower with valuable waste | | Natural Gas (CCGT) | ~$45–70 | Highly competitive if fuel costs are stable | | Gen IV SMRs | ~$65–85 | Assuming factory production and streamlined permitting |

---

Final Verdict (Under Optimized Assumptions)

• Most Economical Short-Term: Natural Gas
• Most Strategic Long-Term: Gen IV SMRs
• Most Viable if Industrial Ecosystem Exists: Clean Coal

All three could coexist in a diversified, stable energy grid: - Coal filling a regional or industrial niche, - Gas providing flexibility and economy, - SMRs ensuring long-term sustainability and energy security.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

A follow-up to nostr:naddr1qqgxxwtyxe3kvc3jvvuxywtyxs6rjq3qc856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsxpqqqp65wuaydz8

This whitepaper, a comparison of baseload power options, explores a strategic policy framework to reduce the cost of next-generation nuclear power by aligning Gen IV Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) with national security objectives, public utility management, and a competitive manufacturing ecosystem modeled after the aerospace industry. Under this approach, SMRs could deliver stable, carbon-free power at $40–55/MWh, rivaling the economics of natural gas and renewables.

---

1. Context and Strategic Opportunity

Current Nuclear Cost Challenges

• High capital expenditure ($4,000–$12,000/kW)
• Lengthy permitting and construction timelines (10–15 years)
• Regulatory delays and public opposition
• Customized, one-off reactor designs with no economies of scale

The Promise of SMRs

• Factory-built, modular units
• Lower absolute cost and shorter build time
• Enhanced passive safety
• Scalable deployment

---

2. National Security as a Catalyst

Strategic Benefits

• Energy resilience for critical defense infrastructure
• Off-grid operation and EMP/cyber threat mitigation
• Long-duration fuel cycles reduce logistical risk

Policy Implications

• Streamlined permitting and site access under national defense exemptions
• Budget support via Department of Defense and Department of Energy
• Co-location on military bases and federal sites

---

3. Publicly Chartered Utilities: A New Operating Model

Utility Framework

• Federally chartered, low-margin operator (like TVA or USPS)
• Financially self-sustaining through long-term PPAs
• Focus on reliability, security, and public service over profit

Cost Advantages

• Lower cost of capital through public backing
• Predictable revenue models
• Community trust and stakeholder alignment

---

4. Competitive Manufacturing: The Aviation Analogy

Model Characteristics

• Multiple certified vendors, competing under common safety frameworks
• Factory-scale production and supply chain specialization
• Domestic sourcing for critical components and fuel

Benefits

• Cost reductions from repetition and volume
• Innovation through competition
• Export potential and industrial job creation

---

5. Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) Impact

| Cost Lever | Estimated LCOE Reduction | |------------|--------------------------| | Streamlined regulation | -10 to -20% | | Public-charter operation | -5 to -15% | | Factory-built SMRs | -15 to -30% | | Defense market anchor | -10% |

Estimated Resulting LCOE: $40–55/MWh

---

6. Strategic Outcomes

• Nuclear cost competitiveness with gas and renewables
• Decarbonization without reliability sacrifice
• Strengthened national energy resilience
• Industrial and workforce revitalization
• U.S. global leadership in clean, secure nuclear energy

---

7. Recommendations

• Create a public-private chartered SMR utility
• Deploy initial reactors on military and federal lands
• Incentivize competitive SMR manufacturing consortia
• Establish fast-track licensing for Gen IV designs
• Align DoD/DOE energy procurement to SMR adoption

---

Conclusion

This strategy would transform nuclear power from a high-cost, high-risk sector into a mission-driven, economically viable backbone of American energy and defense infrastructure. By treating SMRs as strategic assets, not just energy projects, the U.S. can unlock affordable, scalable, and secure nuclear power for generations to come.

@ b7274d28:c99628cb

For anyone interested in the list of essential essays from nostr:npub14hn6p34vegy4ckeklz8jq93mendym9asw8z2ej87x2wuwf8werasc6a32x (@anilsaidso) on Twitter that nostr:npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpev mentioned on Read 856, here it is. I have compiled it with as many of the essays as I could find, along with the audio versions, when available. Additionally, if the author is on #Nostr, I have tagged their npub so you can thank them by zapping them some sats.

All credit for this list and the graphics accompanying each entry goes to nostr:npub14hn6p34vegy4ckeklz8jq93mendym9asw8z2ej87x2wuwf8werasc6a32x, whose original thread can be found here: Anil's Essential Essays Thread

1.

History shows us that the corruption of monetary systems leads to moral decay, social collapse, and slavery.

Essay: https://breedlove22.medium.com/masters-and-slaves-of-money-255ecc93404f

Audio: https://fountain.fm/episode/RI0iCGRCCYdhnMXIN3L6

2.

The 21st century emergence of Bitcoin, encryption, the internet, and millennials are more than just trends; they herald a wave of change that exhibits similar dynamics as the 16-17th century revolution that took place in Europe.

Author: nostr:npub13l3lyslfzyscrqg8saw4r09y70702s6r025hz52sajqrvdvf88zskh8xc2

Essay: https://casebitcoin.com/docs/TheBitcoinReformation_TuurDemeester.pdf

Audio: https://fountain.fm/episode/uLgBG2tyCLMlOp3g50EL

3.

There are many men out there who will parrot the "debt is money WE owe OURSELVES" without acknowledging that "WE" isn't a static entity, but a collection of individuals at different points in their lives.

Author: nostr:npub1guh5grefa7vkay4ps6udxg8lrqxg2kgr3qh9n4gduxut64nfxq0q9y6hjy

Essay: https://www.tftc.io/issue-754-ludwig-von-mises-human-action/

Audio: https://fountain.fm/episode/UXacM2rkdcyjG9xp9O2l

4.

If Bitcoin exists for 20 years, there will be near-universal confidence that it will be available forever, much as people believe the Internet is a permanent feature of the modern world.

Essay: https://vijayboyapati.medium.com/the-bullish-case-for-bitcoin-6ecc8bdecc1

Audio: https://fountain.fm/episode/jC3KbxTkXVzXO4vR7X3W

As you are surely aware, Vijay has expanded this into a book available here: The Bullish Case for Bitcoin Book

There is also an audio book version available here: The Bullish Case for Bitcoin Audio Book

5.

This realignment would not be traditional right vs left, but rather land vs cloud, state vs network, centralized vs decentralized, new money vs old, internationalist/capitalist vs nationalist/socialist, MMT vs BTC,...Hamilton vs Satoshi.

Essay: https://nakamoto.com/bitcoin-becomes-the-flag-of-technology/

Audio: https://fountain.fm/episode/tFJKjYLKhiFY8voDssZc

6.

Gradually, Then Suddenly

I became convinced that, whether bitcoin survives or not, the existing financial system is working on borrowed time.

Essay: https://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/gradually-then-suddenly/

Audio: https://fountain.fm/episode/Mf6hgTFUNESqvdxEIOGZ

Parker Lewis went on to release several more articles in the Gradually, Then Suddenly series. They can be found here: Gradually, Then Suddenly Series

nostr:npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpev has, of course, read all of them for us. Listing them all here is beyond the scope of this article, but you can find them by searching the podcast feed here: Bitcoin Audible Feed

Finally, Parker Lewis has refined these articles and released them as a book, which is available here: Gradually, Then Suddenly Book

7.

Bitcoin is a beautifully-constructed protocol. Genius is apparent in its design to most people who study it in depth, in terms of the way it blends math, computer science, cyber security, monetary economics, and game theory.

Author: nostr:npub1a2cww4kn9wqte4ry70vyfwqyqvpswksna27rtxd8vty6c74era8sdcw83a

Essay: https://www.lynalden.com/invest-in-bitcoin/

Audio: https://fountain.fm/episode/axeqKBvYCSP1s9aJIGSe

8.

Bitcoin offers a sweeping vista of opportunity to re-imagine how the financial system can and should work in the Internet era..

Essay: https://archive.nytimes.com/dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/

9.

Using Bitcoin for consumer purchases is akin to driving a Concorde jet down the street to pick up groceries: a ridiculously expensive waste of an astonishing tool.

Author: nostr:npub1gdu7w6l6w65qhrdeaf6eyywepwe7v7ezqtugsrxy7hl7ypjsvxksd76nak

Essay: https://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/economics-of-bitcoin-as-a-settlement-network/

Audio: https://fountain.fm/episode/JoSpRFWJtoogn3lvTYlz

10.

The Internet is a dumb network, which is its defining and most valuable feature. The Internet’s protocol (..) doesn’t offer “services.” It doesn’t make decisions about content. It doesn’t distinguish between photos, text, video and audio.

Essay: https://fee.org/articles/decentralization-why-dumb-networks-are-better/

Audio: https://fountain.fm/episode/b7gOEqmWxn8RiDziffXf

11.

Most people are only familiar with (b)itcoin the electronic currency, but more important is (B)itcoin, with a capital B, the underlying protocol, which encapsulates and distributes the functions of contract law.

I was unable to find this essay or any audio version. Clicking on Anil's original link took me to Naval's blog, but that particular entry seems to have been removed.

12.

Bitcoin can approximate unofficial exchange rates which, in turn, can be used to detect both the existence and the magnitude of the distortion caused by capital controls & exchange rate manipulations.

Essay: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2714921

13.

You can create something which looks cosmetically similar to Bitcoin, but you cannot replicate the settlement assurances which derive from the costliness of the ledger.

Essay: https://medium.com/@nic__carter/its-the-settlement-assurances-stupid-5dcd1c3f4e41

Audio: https://fountain.fm/episode/5NoPoiRU4NtF2YQN5QI1

14.

When we can secure the most important functionality of a financial network by computer science... we go from a system that is manual, local, and of inconsistent security to one that is automated, global, and much more secure.

Essay: https://nakamotoinstitute.org/library/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability/

Audio: https://fountain.fm/episode/VMH9YmGVCF8c3I5zYkrc

15.

The BCB enforces the strictest deposit regulations in the world by requiring full reserves for all accounts. ..money is not destroyed when bank debts are repaid, so increased money hoarding does not cause liquidity traps..

Author: nostr:npub1hxwmegqcfgevu4vsfjex0v3wgdyz8jtlgx8ndkh46t0lphtmtsnsuf40pf

Essay: https://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/the-bitcoin-central-banks-perfect-monetary-policy/

Audio: https://fountain.fm/episode/ralOokFfhFfeZpYnGAsD

16.

When Satoshi announced Bitcoin on the cryptography mailing list, he got a skeptical reception at best. Cryptographers have seen too many grand schemes by clueless noobs. They tend to have a knee jerk reaction.

Essay: https://nakamotoinstitute.org/library/bitcoin-and-me/

Audio: https://fountain.fm/episode/Vx8hKhLZkkI4cq97qS4Z

17.

No matter who you are, or how big your company is, 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙨𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙤𝙣’𝙩 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙖𝙜𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙞𝙛 𝙞𝙩’𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙫𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙙.

Essay: https://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/bitcoin-miners-beware-invalid-blocks-need-not-apply/

Audio: https://fountain.fm/episode/bcSuBGmOGY2TecSov4rC

18.

Just like a company trying to protect itself from being destroyed by a new competitor, the actions and reactions of central banks and policy makers to protect the system that they know, are quite predictable.

Author: nostr:npub1s05p3ha7en49dv8429tkk07nnfa9pcwczkf5x5qrdraqshxdje9sq6eyhe

Essay: https://medium.com/the-bitcoin-times/the-greatest-game-b787ac3242b2

Audio Part 1: https://fountain.fm/episode/5bYyGRmNATKaxminlvco

Audio Part 2: https://fountain.fm/episode/92eU3h6gqbzng84zqQPZ

19.

Technology, industry, and society have advanced immeasurably since, and yet we still live by Venetian financial customs and have no idea why. Modern banking is the legacy of a problem that technology has since solved.

Author: nostr:npub1sfhflz2msx45rfzjyf5tyj0x35pv4qtq3hh4v2jf8nhrtl79cavsl2ymqt

Essay: https://allenfarrington.medium.com/bitcoin-is-venice-8414dda42070

Audio: https://fountain.fm/episode/s6Fu2VowAddRACCCIxQh

Allen Farrington and Sacha Meyers have gone on to expand this into a book, as well. You can get the book here: Bitcoin is Venice Book

And wouldn't you know it, Guy Swann has narrated the audio book available here: Bitcoin is Venice Audio Book

20.

The rich and powerful will always design systems that benefit them before everyone else. The genius of Bitcoin is to take advantage of that very base reality and force them to get involved and help run the system, instead of attacking it.

Author: nostr:npub1trr5r2nrpsk6xkjk5a7p6pfcryyt6yzsflwjmz6r7uj7lfkjxxtq78hdpu

Essay: https://quillette.com/2021/02/21/can-governments-stop-bitcoin/

Audio: https://fountain.fm/episode/jeZ21IWIlbuC1OGnssy8

21.

In the realm of infor­ma­tion, there is no coin-stamping without time-stamping. The relent­less beating of this clock is what gives rise to all the magical proper­ties of Bitcoin.

Author: nostr:npub1dergggklka99wwrs92yz8wdjs952h2ux2ha2ed598ngwu9w7a6fsh9xzpc

Essay: https://dergigi.com/2021/01/14/bitcoin-is-time/

Audio: https://fountain.fm/episode/pTevCY2vwanNsIso6F6X

22.

You can stay on the Fiat Standard, in which some people get to produce unlimited new units of money for free, just not you. Or opt in to the Bitcoin Standard, in which no one gets to do that, including you.

Essay: https://casebitcoin.com/docs/StoneRidge_2020_Shareholder_Letter.pdf

Audio: https://fountain.fm/episode/PhBTa39qwbkwAtRnO38W

23.

Long term investors should use Bitcoin as their unit of account and every single investment should be compared to the expected returns of Bitcoin.

Essay: https://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/everyones-a-scammer/

Audio: https://fountain.fm/episode/vyR2GUNfXtKRK8qwznki

24.

When you’re in the ivory tower, you think the term “ivory tower” is a silly misrepresentation of your very normal life; when you’re no longer in the ivory tower, you realize how willfully out of touch you were with the world.

Essay: https://www.citadel21.com/why-the-yuppie-elite-dismiss-bitcoin

Audio: https://fountain.fm/episode/7do5K4pPNljOf2W3rR2V

You might notice that many of the above essays are available from the Satoshi Nakamoto Institute. It is a veritable treasure trove of excellent writing on subjects surrounding #Bitcoin and #AustrianEconomics. If you find value in them keeping these written works online for the next wave of new Bitcoiners to have an excellent source of education, please consider donating to the cause.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Nostr: a quick introduction, attempt #1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

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

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Warning: This piece contains a conversation about difficult topics. Please proceed with caution.

TL;DR please educate your children about online safety.

Julian Assange wrote in his 2012 book Cypherpunks, “This book is not a manifesto. There isn’t time for that. This book is a warning.” I read it a few times over the past summer. Those opening lines definitely stood out to me. I wish we had listened back then. He saw something about the internet that few had the ability to see. There are some individuals who are so close to a topic that when they speak, it’s difficult for others who aren’t steeped in it to visualize what they’re talking about. I didn’t read the book until more recently. If I had read it when it came out, it probably would have sounded like an unknown foreign language to me. Today it makes more sense.

This isn’t a manifesto. This isn’t a book. There is no time for that. It’s a warning and a possible solution from a desperate and determined survivor advocate who has been pulling and unraveling a thread for a few years. At times, I feel too close to this topic to make any sense trying to convey my pathway to my conclusions or thoughts to the general public. My hope is that if nothing else, I can convey my sense of urgency while writing this. This piece is a watchman’s warning.

When a child steps online, they are walking into a new world. A new reality. When you hand a child the internet, you are handing them possibilities—good, bad, and ugly. This is a conversation about lowering the potential of negative outcomes of stepping into that new world and how I came to these conclusions. I constantly compare the internet to the road. You wouldn’t let a young child run out into the road with no guidance or safety precautions. When you hand a child the internet without any type of guidance or safety measures, you are allowing them to play in rush hour, oncoming traffic. “Look left, look right for cars before crossing.” We almost all have been taught that as children. What are we taught as humans about safety before stepping into a completely different reality like the internet? Very little.

I could never really figure out why many folks in tech, privacy rights activists, and hackers seemed so cold to me while talking about online child sexual exploitation. I always figured that as a survivor advocate for those affected by these crimes, that specific, skilled group of individuals would be very welcoming and easy to talk to about such serious topics. I actually had one hacker laugh in my face when I brought it up while I was looking for answers. I thought maybe this individual thought I was accusing them of something I wasn’t, so I felt bad for asking. I was constantly extremely disappointed and would ask myself, “Why don’t they care? What could I say to make them care more? What could I say to make them understand the crisis and the level of suffering that happens as a result of the problem?”

I have been serving minor survivors of online child sexual exploitation for years. My first case serving a survivor of this specific crime was in 2018—a 13-year-old girl sexually exploited by a serial predator on Snapchat. That was my first glimpse into this side of the internet. I won a national award for serving the minor survivors of Twitter in 2023, but I had been working on that specific project for a few years. I was nominated by a lawyer representing two survivors in a legal battle against the platform. I’ve never really spoken about this before, but at the time it was a choice for me between fighting Snapchat or Twitter. I chose Twitter—or rather, Twitter chose me. I heard about the story of John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, and I was so unbelievably broken over it that I went to war for multiple years. I was and still am royally pissed about that case. As far as I was concerned, the John Doe #1 case proved that whatever was going on with corporate tech social media was so out of control that I didn’t have time to wait, so I got to work. It was reading the messages that John Doe #1 sent to Twitter begging them to remove his sexual exploitation that broke me. He was a child begging adults to do something. A passion for justice and protecting kids makes you do wild things. I was desperate to find answers about what happened and searched for solutions. In the end, the platform Twitter was purchased. During the acquisition, I just asked Mr. Musk nicely to prioritize the issue of detection and removal of child sexual exploitation without violating digital privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption. Elon thanked me multiple times during the acquisition, made some changes, and I was thanked by others on the survivors’ side as well.

I still feel that even with the progress made, I really just scratched the surface with Twitter, now X. I left that passion project when I did for a few reasons. I wanted to give new leadership time to tackle the issue. Elon Musk made big promises that I knew would take a while to fulfill, but mostly I had been watching global legislation transpire around the issue, and frankly, the governments are willing to go much further with X and the rest of corporate tech than I ever would. My work begging Twitter to make changes with easier reporting of content, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation material—without violating privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption—and advocating for the minor survivors of the platform went as far as my principles would have allowed. I’m grateful for that experience. I was still left with a nagging question: “How did things get so bad with Twitter where the John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 case was able to happen in the first place?” I decided to keep looking for answers. I decided to keep pulling the thread.

I never worked for Twitter. This is often confusing for folks. I will say that despite being disappointed in the platform’s leadership at times, I loved Twitter. I saw and still see its value. I definitely love the survivors of the platform, but I also loved the platform. I was a champion of the platform’s ability to give folks from virtually around the globe an opportunity to speak and be heard.

I want to be clear that John Doe #1 really is my why. He is the inspiration. I am writing this because of him. He represents so many globally, and I’m still inspired by his bravery. One child’s voice begging adults to do something—I’m an adult, I heard him. I’d go to war a thousand more lifetimes for that young man, and I don’t even know his name. Fighting has been personally dark at times; I’m not even going to try to sugarcoat it, but it has been worth it.

The data surrounding the very real crime of online child sexual exploitation is available to the public online at any time for anyone to see. I’d encourage you to go look at the data for yourself. I believe in encouraging folks to check multiple sources so that you understand the full picture. If you are uncomfortable just searching around the internet for information about this topic, use the terms “CSAM,” “CSEM,” “SG-CSEM,” or “AI Generated CSAM.” The numbers don’t lie—it’s a nightmare that’s out of control. It’s a big business. The demand is high, and unfortunately, business is booming. Organizations collect the data, tech companies often post their data, governments report frequently, and the corporate press has covered a decent portion of the conversation, so I’m sure you can find a source that you trust.

Technology is changing rapidly, which is great for innovation as a whole but horrible for the crime of online child sexual exploitation. Those wishing to exploit the vulnerable seem to be adapting to each technological change with ease. The governments are so far behind with tackling these issues that as I’m typing this, it’s borderline irrelevant to even include them while speaking about the crime or potential solutions. Technology is changing too rapidly, and their old, broken systems can’t even dare to keep up. Think of it like the governments’ “War on Drugs.” Drugs won. In this case as well, the governments are not winning. The governments are talking about maybe having a meeting on potentially maybe having legislation around the crimes. The time to have that meeting would have been many years ago. I’m not advocating for governments to legislate our way out of this. I’m on the side of educating and innovating our way out of this.

I have been clear while advocating for the minor survivors of corporate tech platforms that I would not advocate for any solution to the crime that would violate digital privacy rights or erode end-to-end encryption. That has been a personal moral position that I was unwilling to budge on. This is an extremely unpopular and borderline nonexistent position in the anti-human trafficking movement and online child protection space. I’m often fearful that I’m wrong about this. I have always thought that a better pathway forward would have been to incentivize innovation for detection and removal of content. I had no previous exposure to privacy rights activists or Cypherpunks—actually, I came to that conclusion by listening to the voices of MENA region political dissidents and human rights activists. After developing relationships with human rights activists from around the globe, I realized how important privacy rights and encryption are for those who need it most globally. I was simply unwilling to give more power, control, and opportunities for mass surveillance to big abusers like governments wishing to enslave entire nations and untrustworthy corporate tech companies to potentially end some portion of abuses online. On top of all of it, it has been clear to me for years that all potential solutions outside of violating digital privacy rights to detect and remove child sexual exploitation online have not yet been explored aggressively. I’ve been disappointed that there hasn’t been more of a conversation around preventing the crime from happening in the first place.

What has been tried is mass surveillance. In China, they are currently under mass surveillance both online and offline, and their behaviors are attached to a social credit score. Unfortunately, even on state-run and controlled social media platforms, they still have child sexual exploitation and abuse imagery pop up along with other crimes and human rights violations. They also have a thriving black market online due to the oppression from the state. In other words, even an entire loss of freedom and privacy cannot end the sexual exploitation of children online. It’s been tried. There is no reason to repeat this method.

It took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out why I always felt a slight coldness from those in tech and privacy-minded individuals about the topic of child sexual exploitation online. I didn’t have any clue about the “Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse.” This is a term coined by Timothy C. May in 1988. I would have been a child myself when he first said it. I actually laughed at myself when I heard the phrase for the first time. I finally got it. The Cypherpunks weren’t wrong about that topic. They were so spot on that it is borderline uncomfortable. I was mad at first that they knew that early during the birth of the internet that this issue would arise and didn’t address it. Then I got over it because I realized that it wasn’t their job. Their job was—is—to write code. Their job wasn’t to be involved and loving parents or survivor advocates. Their job wasn’t to educate children on internet safety or raise awareness; their job was to write code.

They knew that child sexual abuse material would be shared on the internet. They said what would happen—not in a gleeful way, but a prediction. Then it happened.

I equate it now to a concrete company laying down a road. As you’re pouring the concrete, you can say to yourself, “A terrorist might travel down this road to go kill many, and on the flip side, a beautiful child can be born in an ambulance on this road.” Who or what travels down the road is not their responsibility—they are just supposed to lay the concrete. I’d never go to a concrete pourer and ask them to solve terrorism that travels down roads. Under the current system, law enforcement should stop terrorists before they even make it to the road. The solution to this specific problem is not to treat everyone on the road like a terrorist or to not build the road.

So I understand the perceived coldness from those in tech. Not only was it not their job, but bringing up the topic was seen as the equivalent of asking a free person if they wanted to discuss one of the four topics—child abusers, terrorists, drug dealers, intellectual property pirates, etc.—that would usher in digital authoritarianism for all who are online globally.

Privacy rights advocates and groups have put up a good fight. They stood by their principles. Unfortunately, when it comes to corporate tech, I believe that the issue of privacy is almost a complete lost cause at this point. It’s still worth pushing back, but ultimately, it is a losing battle—a ticking time bomb.

I do think that corporate tech providers could have slowed down the inevitable loss of privacy at the hands of the state by prioritizing the detection and removal of CSAM when they all started online. I believe it would have bought some time, fewer would have been traumatized by that specific crime, and I do believe that it could have slowed down the demand for content. If I think too much about that, I’ll go insane, so I try to push the “if maybes” aside, but never knowing if it could have been handled differently will forever haunt me. At night when it’s quiet, I wonder what I would have done differently if given the opportunity. I’ll probably never know how much corporate tech knew and ignored in the hopes that it would go away while the problem continued to get worse. They had different priorities. The most voiceless and vulnerable exploited on corporate tech never had much of a voice, so corporate tech providers didn’t receive very much pushback.

Now I’m about to say something really wild, and you can call me whatever you want to call me, but I’m going to say what I believe to be true. I believe that the governments are either so incompetent that they allowed the proliferation of CSAM online, or they knowingly allowed the problem to fester long enough to have an excuse to violate privacy rights and erode end-to-end encryption. The US government could have seized the corporate tech providers over CSAM, but I believe that they were so useful as a propaganda arm for the regimes that they allowed them to continue virtually unscathed.

That season is done now, and the governments are making the issue a priority. It will come at a high cost. Privacy on corporate tech providers is virtually done as I’m typing this. It feels like a death rattle. I’m not particularly sure that we had much digital privacy to begin with, but the illusion of a veil of privacy feels gone.

To make matters slightly more complex, it would be hard to convince me that once AI really gets going, digital privacy will exist at all.

I believe that there should be a conversation shift to preserving freedoms and human rights in a post-privacy society.

I don’t want to get locked up because AI predicted a nasty post online from me about the government. I’m not a doomer about AI—I’m just going to roll with it personally. I’m looking forward to the positive changes that will be brought forth by AI. I see it as inevitable. A bit of privacy was helpful while it lasted. Please keep fighting to preserve what is left of privacy either way because I could be wrong about all of this.

On the topic of AI, the addition of AI to the horrific crime of child sexual abuse material and child sexual exploitation in multiple ways so far has been devastating. It’s currently out of control. The genie is out of the bottle. I am hopeful that innovation will get us humans out of this, but I’m not sure how or how long it will take. We must be extremely cautious around AI legislation. It should not be illegal to innovate even if some bad comes with the good. I don’t trust that the governments are equipped to decide the best pathway forward for AI. Source: the entire history of the government.

I have been personally negatively impacted by AI-generated content. Every few days, I get another alert that I’m featured again in what’s called “deep fake pornography” without my consent. I’m not happy about it, but what pains me the most is the thought that for a period of time down the road, many globally will experience what myself and others are experiencing now by being digitally sexually abused in this way. If you have ever had your picture taken and posted online, you are also at risk of being exploited in this way. Your child’s image can be used as well, unfortunately, and this is just the beginning of this particular nightmare. It will move to more realistic interpretations of sexual behaviors as technology improves. I have no brave words of wisdom about how to deal with that emotionally. I do have hope that innovation will save the day around this specific issue. I’m nervous that everyone online will have to ID verify due to this issue. I see that as one possible outcome that could help to prevent one problem but inadvertently cause more problems, especially for those living under authoritarian regimes or anyone who needs to remain anonymous online. A zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) would probably be the best solution to these issues. There are some survivors of violence and/or sexual trauma who need to remain anonymous online for various reasons. There are survivor stories available online of those who have been abused in this way. I’d encourage you seek out and listen to their stories.

There have been periods of time recently where I hesitate to say anything at all because more than likely AI will cover most of my concerns about education, awareness, prevention, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation online, etc.

Unfortunately, some of the most pressing issues we’ve seen online over the last few years come in the form of “sextortion.” Self-generated child sexual exploitation (SG-CSEM) numbers are continuing to be terrifying. I’d strongly encourage that you look into sextortion data. AI + sextortion is also a huge concern. The perpetrators are using the non-sexually explicit images of children and putting their likeness on AI-generated child sexual exploitation content and extorting money, more imagery, or both from minors online. It’s like a million nightmares wrapped into one. The wild part is that these issues will only get more pervasive because technology is harnessed to perpetuate horror at a scale unimaginable to a human mind.

Even if you banned phones and the internet or tried to prevent children from accessing the internet, it wouldn’t solve it. Child sexual exploitation will still be with us until as a society we start to prevent the crime before it happens. That is the only human way out right now.

There is no reset button on the internet, but if I could go back, I’d tell survivor advocates to heed the warnings of the early internet builders and to start education and awareness campaigns designed to prevent as much online child sexual exploitation as possible. The internet and technology moved quickly, and I don’t believe that society ever really caught up. We live in a world where a child can be groomed by a predator in their own home while sitting on a couch next to their parents watching TV. We weren’t ready as a species to tackle the fast-paced algorithms and dangers online. It happened too quickly for parents to catch up. How can you parent for the ever-changing digital world unless you are constantly aware of the dangers?

I don’t think that the internet is inherently bad. I believe that it can be a powerful tool for freedom and resistance. I’ve spoken a lot about the bad online, but there is beauty as well. We often discuss how victims and survivors are abused online; we rarely discuss the fact that countless survivors around the globe have been able to share their experiences, strength, hope, as well as provide resources to the vulnerable. I do question if giving any government or tech company access to censorship, surveillance, etc., online in the name of serving survivors might not actually impact a portion of survivors negatively. There are a fair amount of survivors with powerful abusers protected by governments and the corporate press. If a survivor cannot speak to the press about their abuse, the only place they can go is online, directly or indirectly through an independent journalist who also risks being censored. This scenario isn’t hard to imagine—it already happened in China. During #MeToo, a survivor in China wanted to post their story. The government censored the post, so the survivor put their story on the blockchain. I’m excited that the survivor was creative and brave, but it’s terrifying to think that we live in a world where that situation is a necessity.

I believe that the future for many survivors sharing their stories globally will be on completely censorship-resistant and decentralized protocols. This thought in particular gives me hope. When we listen to the experiences of a diverse group of survivors, we can start to understand potential solutions to preventing the crimes from happening in the first place.

My heart is broken over the gut-wrenching stories of survivors sexually exploited online. Every time I hear the story of a survivor, I do think to myself quietly, “What could have prevented this from happening in the first place?” My heart is with survivors.

My head, on the other hand, is full of the understanding that the internet should remain free. The free flow of information should not be stopped. My mind is with the innocent citizens around the globe that deserve freedom both online and offline.

The problem is that governments don’t only want to censor illegal content that violates human rights—they create legislation that is so broad that it can impact speech and privacy of all. “Don’t you care about the kids?” Yes, I do. I do so much that I’m invested in finding solutions. I also care about all citizens around the globe that deserve an opportunity to live free from a mass surveillance society. If terrorism happens online, I should not be punished by losing my freedom. If drugs are sold online, I should not be punished. I’m not an abuser, I’m not a terrorist, and I don’t engage in illegal behaviors. I refuse to lose freedom because of others’ bad behaviors online.

I want to be clear that on a long enough timeline, the governments will decide that they can be better parents/caregivers than you can if something isn’t done to stop minors from being sexually exploited online. The price will be a complete loss of anonymity, privacy, free speech, and freedom of religion online. I find it rather insulting that governments think they’re better equipped to raise children than parents and caretakers.

So we can’t go backwards—all that we can do is go forward. Those who want to have freedom will find technology to facilitate their liberation. This will lead many over time to decentralized and open protocols. So as far as I’m concerned, this does solve a few of my worries—those who need, want, and deserve to speak freely online will have the opportunity in most countries—but what about online child sexual exploitation?

When I popped up around the decentralized space, I was met with the fear of censorship. I’m not here to censor you. I don’t write code. I couldn’t censor anyone or any piece of content even if I wanted to across the internet, no matter how depraved. I don’t have the skills to do that.

I’m here to start a conversation. Freedom comes at a cost. You must always fight for and protect your freedom. I can’t speak about protecting yourself from all of the Four Horsemen because I simply don’t know the topics well enough, but I can speak about this one topic.

If there was a shortcut to ending online child sexual exploitation, I would have found it by now. There isn’t one right now. I believe that education is the only pathway forward to preventing the crime of online child sexual exploitation for future generations.

I propose a yearly education course for every child of all school ages, taught as a standard part of the curriculum. Ideally, parents/caregivers would be involved in the education/learning process.

Course: - The creation of the internet and computers - The fight for cryptography - The tech supply chain from the ground up (example: human rights violations in the supply chain) - Corporate tech - Freedom tech - Data privacy - Digital privacy rights - AI (history-current) - Online safety (predators, scams, catfishing, extortion) - Bitcoin - Laws - How to deal with online hate and harassment - Information on who to contact if you are being abused online or offline - Algorithms - How to seek out the truth about news, etc., online

The parents/caregivers, homeschoolers, unschoolers, and those working to create decentralized parallel societies have been an inspiration while writing this, but my hope is that all children would learn this course, even in government ran schools. Ideally, parents would teach this to their own children.

The decentralized space doesn’t want child sexual exploitation to thrive. Here’s the deal: there has to be a strong prevention effort in order to protect the next generation. The internet isn’t going anywhere, predators aren’t going anywhere, and I’m not down to let anyone have the opportunity to prove that there is a need for more government. I don’t believe that the government should act as parents. The governments have had a chance to attempt to stop online child sexual exploitation, and they didn’t do it. Can we try a different pathway forward?

I’d like to put myself out of a job. I don’t want to ever hear another story like John Doe #1 ever again. This will require work. I’ve often called online child sexual exploitation the lynchpin for the internet. It’s time to arm generations of children with knowledge and tools. I can’t do this alone.

Individuals have fought so that I could have freedom online. I want to fight to protect it. I don’t want child predators to give the government any opportunity to take away freedom. Decentralized spaces are as close to a reset as we’ll get with the opportunity to do it right from the start. Start the youth off correctly by preventing potential hazards to the best of your ability.

The good news is anyone can work on this! I’d encourage you to take it and run with it. I added the additional education about the history of the internet to make the course more educational and fun. Instead of cleaning up generations of destroyed lives due to online sexual exploitation, perhaps this could inspire generations of those who will build our futures. Perhaps if the youth is armed with knowledge, they can create more tools to prevent the crime.

This one solution that I’m suggesting can be done on an individual level or on a larger scale. It should be adjusted depending on age, learning style, etc. It should be fun and playful.

This solution does not address abuse in the home or some of the root causes of offline child sexual exploitation. My hope is that it could lead to some survivors experiencing abuse in the home an opportunity to disclose with a trusted adult. The purpose for this solution is to prevent the crime of online child sexual exploitation before it occurs and to arm the youth with the tools to contact safe adults if and when it happens.

In closing, I went to hell a few times so that you didn’t have to. I spoke to the mothers of survivors of minors sexually exploited online—their tears could fill rivers. I’ve spoken with political dissidents who yearned to be free from authoritarian surveillance states. The only balance that I’ve found is freedom online for citizens around the globe and prevention from the dangers of that for the youth. Don’t slow down innovation and freedom. Educate, prepare, adapt, and look for solutions.

I’m not perfect and I’m sure that there are errors in this piece. I hope that you find them and it starts a conversation.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

The United States is on the cusp of a historic technological renaissance, often referred to as the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Artificial intelligence, automation, advanced robotics, quantum computing, biotechnology, and clean manufacturing are converging into a seismic shift that will redefine how we live, work, and relate to one another. But there's a critical catch: this transformation depends entirely on the availability of stable, abundant, and inexpensive electricity.

Why Electricity is the Keystone of Innovation

Let’s start with something basic but often overlooked. Every industrial revolution has had an energy driver:

• The First rode the steam engine, powered by coal.
• The Second was electrified through centralized power plants.
• The Third harnessed computing and the internet.
• The Fourth will demand energy on a scale and reliability never seen before.

Imagine a city where thousands of small factories run 24/7 with robotics and AI doing precision manufacturing. Imagine a national network of autonomous vehicles, delivery drones, urban vertical farms, and high-bandwidth communication systems. All of this requires uninterrupted and inexpensive power.

Without it? Costs balloon. Innovation stalls. Investment leaves. And America risks becoming a second-tier economic power in a multipolar world.

So here’s the thesis: If we want to lead the Fourth Industrial Revolution, we must first lead in energy. And nuclear — specifically Gen IV Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) — must be part of that leadership.

---

The Nuclear Case: Clean, Scalable, Strategic

Let’s debunk the myth: nuclear is not the boogeyman of the 1970s. It’s one of the safest, cleanest, and most energy-dense sources we have.

But traditional nuclear has problems:

• Too expensive to build.
• Too long to license.
• Too bespoke and complex.

Enter Gen IV SMRs:

• Factory-built and transportable.
• Passively safe with walk-away safety designs.
• Scalable in 50–300 MWe increments.
• Ideal for remote areas, industrial parks, and military bases.

But even SMRs will struggle under the current regulatory, economic, and manufacturing ecosystem. To unlock their potential, we need a new national approach.

---

The Argument for National Strategy

Let’s paint a vision:

SMRs deployed at military bases across the country, secured by trained personnel, powering critical infrastructure, and feeding clean, carbon-free power back into surrounding communities.

SMRs operated by public chartered utilities—not for Wall Street profits, but for stability, security, and public good.

SMRs manufactured by a competitive ecosystem of certified vendors, just like aircraft or medical devices, with standard parts and rapid regulatory approval.

This isn't science fiction. It's a plausible, powerful model. Here’s how we do it.

---

Step 1: Treat SMRs as a National Security Asset

Why does the Department of Defense spend billions to secure oil convoys and build fuel depots across the world, but not invest in nuclear microgrids that would make forward bases self-sufficient for decades?

Nuclear power is inherently a strategic asset:

• Immune to price shocks.
• Hard to sabotage.
• Decades of stable power from a small footprint.

It’s time to reframe SMRs from an energy project to a national security platform. That changes everything.

---

Step 2: Create Public-Chartered Operating Companies

We don’t need another corporate monopoly or Wall Street scheme. Instead, let’s charter SMR utilities the way we chartered the TVA or the Postal Service:

• Low-margin, mission-oriented.
• Publicly accountable.
• Able to sign long-term contracts with DOD, DOE, or regional utilities.

These organizations won’t chase quarterly profits. They’ll chase uptime, grid stability, and national resilience.

---

Step 3: Build a Competitive SMR Industry Like Aerospace

Imagine multiple manufacturers building SMRs to common, certified standards. Components sourced from a wide supplier base. Designs evolving year over year, with upgrades like software and avionics do.

This is how we build:

• Safer reactors
• Cheaper units
• Modular designs
• A real export industry

Airplanes are safe, affordable, and efficient because of scale and standardization. We can do the same with reactors.

---

Step 4: Anchor SMRs to the Coming Fourth Industrial Revolution

AI, robotics, and distributed manufacturing don’t need fossil fuels. They need cheap, clean, continuous electricity.

• AI datacenters
• Robotic agriculture
• Carbon-free steel and cement
• Direct air capture
• Electric industrial transport

SMRs enable this future. And they decentralize power, both literally and economically. That means jobs in every region, not just coastal tech hubs.

---

Step 5: Pair Energy Sovereignty with Economic Reform

Here’s the big leap: what if this new energy architecture was tied to a transparent, auditable, and sovereign monetary system?

• Public utilities priced in a new digital dollar.
• Trade policy balanced by low-carbon energy exports.
• Public accounting verified with open ledgers.

This is not just national security. It’s monetary resilience.

The world is moving to multi-polar trade systems. Energy exports and energy reliability will define economic influence. If America leads with SMRs, we lead the conversation.

---

Conclusion: A Moral and Strategic Imperative

We can either:

• Let outdated fears and bureaucracy stall the future, or...
• Build the infrastructure for clean, secure, and sovereign prosperity.

We have the designs.
We have the talent.
We have the need.

What we need now is will.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution will either be powered by us—or by someone else. Let’s make sure America leads. And let’s do it with SMRs, public charter, competitive industry, and national purpose.

It’s time.

---

This is a call to engineers, legislators, veterans, economists, and every American who believes in building again. SMRs are not just about power. They are about sovereignty, security, and shared prosperity.

---

Further reading:

nostr:naddr1qqgrjv33xenx2drpve3kxvrp8quxgqgcwaehxw309anxjmr5v4ezumn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tczyrq7n2e62632km9yh6l5f6nykt76gzkxxy0gs6agddr9y95uk445xqcyqqq823cdzc99s

@ 0d97beae:c5274a14

This article hopes to complement the article by Lyn Alden on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk_HWmmwiAs

The reason why we have broken money

Before the invention of key technologies such as the printing press and electronic communications, even such as those as early as morse code transmitters, gold had won the competition for best medium of money around the world.

In fact, it was not just gold by itself that became money, rulers and world leaders developed coins in order to help the economy grow. Gold nuggets were not as easy to transact with as coins with specific imprints and denominated sizes.

However, these modern technologies created massive efficiencies that allowed us to communicate and perform services more efficiently and much faster, yet the medium of money could not benefit from these advancements. Gold was heavy, slow and expensive to move globally, even though requesting and performing services globally did not have this limitation anymore.

Banks took initiative and created derivatives of gold: paper and electronic money; these new currencies allowed the economy to continue to grow and evolve, but it was not without its dark side. Today, no currency is denominated in gold at all, money is backed by nothing and its inherent value, the paper it is printed on, is worthless too.

Banks and governments eventually transitioned from a money derivative to a system of debt that could be co-opted and controlled for political and personal reasons. Our money today is broken and is the cause of more expensive, poorer quality goods in the economy, a larger and ever growing wealth gap, and many of the follow-on problems that have come with it.

Bitcoin overcomes the "transfer of hard money" problem

Just like gold coins were created by man, Bitcoin too is a technology created by man. Bitcoin, however is a much more profound invention, possibly more of a discovery than an invention in fact. Bitcoin has proven to be unbreakable, incorruptible and has upheld its ability to keep its units scarce, inalienable and counterfeit proof through the nature of its own design.

Since Bitcoin is a digital technology, it can be transferred across international borders almost as quickly as information itself. It therefore severely reduces the need for a derivative to be used to represent money to facilitate digital trade. This means that as the currency we use today continues to fare poorly for many people, bitcoin will continue to stand out as hard money, that just so happens to work as well, functionally, along side it.

Bitcoin will also always be available to anyone who wishes to earn it directly; even China is unable to restrict its citizens from accessing it. The dollar has traditionally become the currency for people who discover that their local currency is unsustainable. Even when the dollar has become illegal to use, it is simply used privately and unofficially. However, because bitcoin does not require you to trade it at a bank in order to use it across borders and across the web, Bitcoin will continue to be a viable escape hatch until we one day hit some critical mass where the world has simply adopted Bitcoin globally and everyone else must adopt it to survive.

Bitcoin has not yet proven that it can support the world at scale. However it can only be tested through real adoption, and just as gold coins were developed to help gold scale, tools will be developed to help overcome problems as they arise; ideally without the need for another derivative, but if necessary, hopefully with one that is more neutral and less corruptible than the derivatives used to represent gold.

Bitcoin blurs the line between commodity and technology

Bitcoin is a technology, it is a tool that requires human involvement to function, however it surprisingly does not allow for any concentration of power. Anyone can help to facilitate Bitcoin's operations, but no one can take control of its behaviour, its reach, or its prioritisation, as it operates autonomously based on a pre-determined, neutral set of rules.

At the same time, its built-in incentive mechanism ensures that people do not have to operate bitcoin out of the good of their heart. Even though the system cannot be co-opted holistically, It will not stop operating while there are people motivated to trade their time and resources to keep it running and earn from others' transaction fees. Although it requires humans to operate it, it remains both neutral and sustainable.

Never before have we developed or discovered a technology that could not be co-opted and used by one person or faction against another. Due to this nature, Bitcoin's units are often described as a commodity; they cannot be usurped or virtually cloned, and they cannot be affected by political biases.

The dangers of derivatives

A derivative is something created, designed or developed to represent another thing in order to solve a particular complication or problem. For example, paper and electronic money was once a derivative of gold.

In the case of Bitcoin, if you cannot link your units of bitcoin to an "address" that you personally hold a cryptographically secure key to, then you very likely have a derivative of bitcoin, not bitcoin itself. If you buy bitcoin on an online exchange and do not withdraw the bitcoin to a wallet that you control, then you legally own an electronic derivative of bitcoin.

Bitcoin is a new technology. It will have a learning curve and it will take time for humanity to learn how to comprehend, authenticate and take control of bitcoin collectively. Having said that, many people all over the world are already using and relying on Bitcoin natively. For many, it will require for people to find the need or a desire for a neutral money like bitcoin, and to have been burned by derivatives of it, before they start to understand the difference between the two. Eventually, it will become an essential part of what we regard as common sense.

Learn for yourself

If you wish to learn more about how to handle bitcoin and avoid derivatives, you can start by searching online for tutorials about "Bitcoin self custody".

There are many options available, some more practical for you, and some more practical for others. Don't spend too much time trying to find the perfect solution; practice and learn. You may make mistakes along the way, so be careful not to experiment with large amounts of your bitcoin as you explore new ideas and technologies along the way. This is similar to learning anything, like riding a bicycle; you are sure to fall a few times, scuff the frame, so don't buy a high performance racing bike while you're still learning to balance.

@ ee6ea13a:959b6e74

Chef's notes

You can cook this in one pan on the stove. I use a cast iron pan, but you can make it in a wok or any deep pan.

I serve mine over rice, which I make in a rice cooker. If you have a fancy one, you might have a setting for sticky or scorched rice, so give one of those a try.

To plate this, I scoop rice into a bowl, and then turn it upside-down to give it a dome shape, then spoon the curry on top of it.

Serve with chopped cilantro and lime wedges.

Details

• ⏲️ Prep time: 20
• 🍳 Cook time: 20
• 🍽️ Servings: 4

Ingredients

• 1 ½ pounds boneless skinless chicken breast, cut into 2" pieces
• 2 tablespoons coconut or avocado oil
• 1 cup white or yellow onion, finely diced
• 1 cup red bell pepper, sliced or diced
• 4 large garlic cloves, minced
• 1 small (4oz) jar of Thai red curry paste
• 1 can (13oz) unsweetened coconut milk
• 1 teaspoon ground ginger
• 1 teaspoon ground coriander
• 1 tablespoon soy sauce
• 1 tablespoon brown sugar
• 1 cup carrots, shredded or julienned
• 1 lime, zest and juice
• ¼ cup fresh cilantro, chopped for garnish

Directions

1. Heat oil in a large skillet over medium-high. Once hot, add onions and ½ teaspoon salt. Cook 3 minutes, or until onions are softened, stirring often.
2. Add the red curry paste, garlic, ginger, and coriander. Cook about 1 minute, or until fragrant, stirring often.
3. Add coconut milk, brown sugar, soy sauce, and chicken. Stir, bring to a simmer, then reduce heat to medium. Simmer uncovered for 7 minutes, occasionally stirring.
4. Add carrots and red bell peppers, and simmer 5-7 more minutes, until sauce slightly thickens and chicken is cooked through.
5. Remove from heat, and stir in the lime zest, and half of the lime juice.
6. Serve over rice, topped with cilantro, and add more lime juice if you like extra citrus.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

I want to see Nostr succeed. If you can think of a way I can help make that happen, I’m open to it. I’d like your suggestions.

My schedule’s shifting soon, and I could volunteer a few hours a week to a Nostr project. I won’t have more total time, but how I use it will change.

Why help? I care about freedom. Nostr’s one of the most powerful freedom tools I’ve seen in my lifetime. If I believe that, I should act on it.

I don’t care about money or sats. I’m not rich, I don’t have extra cash. That doesn’t drive me—freedom does. I’m volunteering, not asking for pay.

I’m not here for clout. I’ve had enough spotlight in my life; it doesn’t move me. If I wanted clout, I’d be on Twitter dropping basic takes. Clout’s easy. Freedom’s hard. I’d rather help anonymously. No speaking at events—small meetups are cool for the vibe, but big conferences? Not my thing. I’ll never hit a huge Bitcoin conference. It’s just not my scene.

That said, I could be convinced to step up if it’d really boost Nostr—as long as it’s legal and gets results.

In this space, I’d watch for social engineering. I watch out for it. I’m not here to make friends, just to help. No shade—you all seem great—but I’ve got a full life and awesome friends irl. I don’t need your crew or to be online cool. Connect anonymously if you want; I’d encourage it.

I’m sick of watching other social media alternatives grow while Nostr kinda stalls. I could trash-talk, but I’d rather do something useful.

Skills? I’m good at spotting social media problems and finding possible solutions. I won’t overhype myself—that’s weird—but if you’re responding, you probably see something in me. Perhaps you see something that I don’t see in myself.

If you need help now or later with Nostr projects, reach out. Nostr only—nothing else. Anonymous contact’s fine. Even just a suggestion on how I can pitch in, no project attached, works too. 💜

Creeps or harassment will get blocked or I’ll nuke my simplex code if it becomes a problem.

https://simplex.chat/contact#/?v=2-4&smp=smp%3A%2F%2FSkIkI6EPd2D63F4xFKfHk7I1UGZVNn6k1QWZ5rcyr6w%3D%40smp9.simplex.im%2FbI99B3KuYduH8jDr9ZwyhcSxm2UuR7j0%23%2F%3Fv%3D1-2%26dh%3DMCowBQYDK2VuAyEAS9C-zPzqW41PKySfPCEizcXb1QCus6AyDkTTjfyMIRM%253D%26srv%3Djssqzccmrcws6bhmn77vgmhfjmhwlyr3u7puw4erkyoosywgl67slqqd.onion

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Drivechain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does the above procedure mean?

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

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

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

What? 6 months to get my money back?

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

Why bother with this at all?

Drivechains solve many different problems:

It enables experimentation and new use cases for Bitcoin

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

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

It solves conflicts and infighting

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

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

It solves "scaling"

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

Use your imagination.

It solves the blockchain security budget issue

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

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

It keeps Bitcoin decentralized

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

Can miners steal?

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

Will miners steal?

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

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

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

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

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

What do we do if miners steal?

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

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

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

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

Because it is impossible.

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

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

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

What about the Blockstream sidechains whitepaper?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also

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

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

Markdown: Syntax

• Overview
  • Philosophy
  • Inline HTML
  • Automatic Escaping for Special Characters
• Block Elements
  • Paragraphs and Line Breaks
  • Headers
  • Blockquotes
  • Lists
  • Code Blocks
  • Horizontal Rules
• Span Elements
  • Links
  • Emphasis
  • Code
  • Images
• Miscellaneous
  • Backslash Escapes
  • Automatic Links

Note: This document is itself written using Markdown; you can see the source for it by adding '.text' to the URL.

---

Overview

Philosophy

Markdown is intended to be as easy-to-read and easy-to-write as is feasible.

Readability, however, is emphasized above all else. A Markdown-formatted document should be publishable as-is, as plain text, without looking like it's been marked up with tags or formatting instructions. While Markdown's syntax has been influenced by several existing text-to-HTML filters -- including Setext, atx, Textile, reStructuredText, Grutatext, and EtText -- the single biggest source of inspiration for Markdown's syntax is the format of plain text email.

Block Elements

Paragraphs and Line Breaks

A paragraph is simply one or more consecutive lines of text, separated by one or more blank lines. (A blank line is any line that looks like a blank line -- a line containing nothing but spaces or tabs is considered blank.) Normal paragraphs should not be indented with spaces or tabs.

The implication of the "one or more consecutive lines of text" rule is that Markdown supports "hard-wrapped" text paragraphs. This differs significantly from most other text-to-HTML formatters (including Movable Type's "Convert Line Breaks" option) which translate every line break character in a paragraph into a <br /> tag.

When you do want to insert a <br /> break tag using Markdown, you end a line with two or more spaces, then type return.

Headers

Markdown supports two styles of headers, [Setext] [1] and [atx] [2].

Optionally, you may "close" atx-style headers. This is purely cosmetic -- you can use this if you think it looks better. The closing hashes don't even need to match the number of hashes used to open the header. (The number of opening hashes determines the header level.)

Blockquotes

Markdown uses email-style > characters for blockquoting. If you're familiar with quoting passages of text in an email message, then you know how to create a blockquote in Markdown. It looks best if you hard wrap the text and put a > before every line:

This is a blockquote with two paragraphs. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aliquam hendrerit mi posuere lectus. Vestibulum enim wisi, viverra nec, fringilla in, laoreet vitae, risus.

Donec sit amet nisl. Aliquam semper ipsum sit amet velit. Suspendisse id sem consectetuer libero luctus adipiscing.

Markdown allows you to be lazy and only put the > before the first line of a hard-wrapped paragraph:

This is a blockquote with two paragraphs. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aliquam hendrerit mi posuere lectus. Vestibulum enim wisi, viverra nec, fringilla in, laoreet vitae, risus.

Donec sit amet nisl. Aliquam semper ipsum sit amet velit. Suspendisse id sem consectetuer libero luctus adipiscing.

Blockquotes can be nested (i.e. a blockquote-in-a-blockquote) by adding additional levels of >:

This is the first level of quoting.

This is nested blockquote.

Back to the first level.

Blockquotes can contain other Markdown elements, including headers, lists, and code blocks:

This is a header.

1. This is the first list item.
2. This is the second list item.

Here's some example code:

return shell_exec("echo $input | $markdown_script");

Any decent text editor should make email-style quoting easy. For example, with BBEdit, you can make a selection and choose Increase Quote Level from the Text menu.

Lists

Markdown supports ordered (numbered) and unordered (bulleted) lists.

Unordered lists use asterisks, pluses, and hyphens -- interchangably -- as list markers:

• Red
• Green
• Blue

is equivalent to:

• Red
• Green
• Blue

and:

• Red
• Green
• Blue

Ordered lists use numbers followed by periods:

1. Bird
2. McHale
3. Parish

It's important to note that the actual numbers you use to mark the list have no effect on the HTML output Markdown produces. The HTML Markdown produces from the above list is:

If you instead wrote the list in Markdown like this:

1. Bird
2. McHale
3. Parish

or even:

1. Bird
2. McHale
3. Parish

you'd get the exact same HTML output. The point is, if you want to, you can use ordinal numbers in your ordered Markdown lists, so that the numbers in your source match the numbers in your published HTML. But if you want to be lazy, you don't have to.

To make lists look nice, you can wrap items with hanging indents:

• Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aliquam hendrerit mi posuere lectus. Vestibulum enim wisi, viverra nec, fringilla in, laoreet vitae, risus.
• Donec sit amet nisl. Aliquam semper ipsum sit amet velit. Suspendisse id sem consectetuer libero luctus adipiscing.

But if you want to be lazy, you don't have to:

• Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aliquam hendrerit mi posuere lectus. Vestibulum enim wisi, viverra nec, fringilla in, laoreet vitae, risus.
• Donec sit amet nisl. Aliquam semper ipsum sit amet velit. Suspendisse id sem consectetuer libero luctus adipiscing.

List items may consist of multiple paragraphs. Each subsequent paragraph in a list item must be indented by either 4 spaces or one tab:

1. This is a list item with two paragraphs. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aliquam hendrerit mi posuere lectus.

   Vestibulum enim wisi, viverra nec, fringilla in, laoreet vitae, risus. Donec sit amet nisl. Aliquam semper ipsum sit amet velit.

2. Suspendisse id sem consectetuer libero luctus adipiscing.

It looks nice if you indent every line of the subsequent paragraphs, but here again, Markdown will allow you to be lazy:

• This is a list item with two paragraphs.

  This is the second paragraph in the list item. You're only required to indent the first line. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.

• Another item in the same list.

To put a blockquote within a list item, the blockquote's > delimiters need to be indented:

• A list item with a blockquote:

  This is a blockquote inside a list item.

To put a code block within a list item, the code block needs to be indented twice -- 8 spaces or two tabs:

• A list item with a code block:

  <code goes here>
  

Code Blocks

Pre-formatted code blocks are used for writing about programming or markup source code. Rather than forming normal paragraphs, the lines of a code block are interpreted literally. Markdown wraps a code block in both <pre> and <code> tags.

To produce a code block in Markdown, simply indent every line of the block by at least 4 spaces or 1 tab.

This is a normal paragraph:

This is a code block.

Here is an example of AppleScript:

tell application "Foo"
    beep
end tell

A code block continues until it reaches a line that is not indented (or the end of the article).

Within a code block, ampersands (&) and angle brackets (< and >) are automatically converted into HTML entities. This makes it very easy to include example HTML source code using Markdown -- just paste it and indent it, and Markdown will handle the hassle of encoding the ampersands and angle brackets. For example, this:

<div class="footer">
    &copy; 2004 Foo Corporation
</div>

Regular Markdown syntax is not processed within code blocks. E.g., asterisks are just literal asterisks within a code block. This means it's also easy to use Markdown to write about Markdown's own syntax.

tell application "Foo" beep end tell

Span Elements

Links

Markdown supports two style of links: inline and reference.

In both styles, the link text is delimited by [square brackets].

To create an inline link, use a set of regular parentheses immediately after the link text's closing square bracket. Inside the parentheses, put the URL where you want the link to point, along with an optional title for the link, surrounded in quotes. For example:

This is an example inline link.

This link has no title attribute.

Emphasis

Markdown treats asterisks (*) and underscores (_) as indicators of emphasis. Text wrapped with one * or _ will be wrapped with an HTML <em> tag; double *'s or _'s will be wrapped with an HTML <strong> tag. E.g., this input:

single asterisks

single underscores

double asterisks

double underscores

Code

To indicate a span of code, wrap it with backtick quotes (`). Unlike a pre-formatted code block, a code span indicates code within a normal paragraph. For example:

Use the printf() function.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

In much of the world, it is incredibly difficult to access U.S. dollars. Local currencies are often poorly managed and riddled with corruption. Billions of people demand a more reliable alternative. While the dollar has its own issues of corruption and mismanagement, it is widely regarded as superior to the fiat currencies it competes with globally. As a result, Tether has found massive success providing low cost, low friction access to dollars. Tether claims 400 million total users, is on track to add 200 million more this year, processes 8.1 million transactions daily, and facilitates $29 billion in daily transfers. Furthermore, their estimates suggest nearly 40% of users rely on it as a savings tool rather than just a transactional currency.

Tether’s rise has made the company a financial juggernaut. Last year alone, Tether raked in over $13 billion in profit, with a lean team of less than 100 employees. Their business model is elegantly simple: hold U.S. Treasuries and collect the interest. With over $113 billion in Treasuries, Tether has turned a straightforward concept into a profit machine.

Tether’s success has resulted in many competitors eager to claim a piece of the pie. This has triggered a massive venture capital grift cycle in USD tokens, with countless projects vying to dethrone Tether. Due to Tether’s entrenched network effect, these challengers face an uphill battle with little realistic chance of success. Most educated participants in the space likely recognize this reality but seem content to perpetuate the grift, hoping to cash out by dumping their equity positions on unsuspecting buyers before they realize the reality of the situation.

Historically, Tether’s greatest vulnerability has been U.S. government intervention. For over a decade, the company operated offshore with few allies in the U.S. establishment, making it a major target for regulatory action. That dynamic has shifted recently and Tether has seized the opportunity. By actively courting U.S. government support, Tether has fortified their position. This strategic move will likely cement their status as the dominant USD token for years to come.

While undeniably a great tool for the millions of users that rely on it, Tether is not without flaws. As a centralized, trusted third party, it holds the power to freeze or seize funds at its discretion. Corporate mismanagement or deliberate malpractice could also lead to massive losses at scale. In their goal of mitigating regulatory risk, Tether has deepened ties with law enforcement, mirroring some of the concerns of potential central bank digital currencies. In practice, Tether operates as a corporate CBDC alternative, collaborating with authorities to surveil and seize funds. The company proudly touts partnerships with leading surveillance firms and its own data reveals cooperation in over 1,000 law enforcement cases, with more than $2.5 billion in funds frozen.

---

The global demand for Tether is undeniable and the company’s profitability reflects its unrivaled success. Tether is owned and operated by bitcoiners and will likely continue to push forward strategic goals that help the movement as a whole. Recent efforts to mitigate the threat of U.S. government enforcement will likely solidify their network effect and stifle meaningful adoption of rival USD tokens or CBDCs. Yet, for all their achievements, Tether is simply a worse form of money than bitcoin. Tether requires trust in a centralized entity, while bitcoin can be saved or spent without permission. Furthermore, Tether is tied to the value of the US Dollar which is designed to lose purchasing power over time, while bitcoin, as a truly scarce asset, is designed to increase in purchasing power with adoption. As people awaken to the risks of Tether’s control, and the benefits bitcoin provides, bitcoin adoption will likely surpass it.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Before I saw those X right-wing political “influencers” parading their Epstein binders in that PR stunt, I’d already posted this on Nostr, an open protocol. 

“Today, the world’s attention will likely fixate on Epstein, governmental failures in addressing horrific abuse cases, and the influential figures who perpetrate such acts—yet few will center the victims and survivors in the conversation. The survivors of Epstein went to law enforcement and very little happened. The survivors tried to speak to the corporate press and the corporate press knowingly covered for him. In situations like these social media can serve as one of the only ways for a survivor’s voice to be heard. 

It’s becoming increasingly evident that the line between centralized corporate social media and the state is razor-thin, if it exists at all. Time and again, the state shields powerful abusers when it’s politically expedient to do so. In this climate, a survivor attempting to expose someone like Epstein on a corporate tech platform faces an uphill battle—there’s no assurance their voice would even break through. Their story wouldn’t truly belong to them; it’d be at the mercy of the platform, subject to deletion at a whim. Nostr, though, offers a lifeline—a censorship-resistant space where survivors can share their truths, no matter how untouchable the abuser might seem. A survivor could remain anonymous here if they took enough steps. 

Nostr holds real promise for amplifying survivor voices. And if you’re here daily, tossing out memes, take heart: you’re helping build a foundation for those who desperately need to be heard.“

That post is untouchable—no CEO, company, employee, or government can delete it. Even if I wanted to, I couldn’t take it down myself. The post will outlive me on the protocol. 

The cozy alliance between the state and corporate social media hit me hard during that right-wing X “influencer” PR stunt. Elon owns X. Elon’s a special government employee. X pays those influencers to post. We don’t know who else pays them to post. Those influencers are spurred on by both the government and X to manage the Epstein case narrative. It wasn’t survivors standing there, grinning for photos—it was paid influencers, gatekeepers orchestrating yet another chance to re-exploit the already exploited.

The bond between the state and corporate social media is tight. If the other Epsteins out there are ever to be unmasked, I wouldn’t bet on a survivor’s story staying safe with a corporate tech platform, the government, any social media influencer, or mainstream journalist. Right now, only a protocol can hand survivors the power to truly own their narrative.

I don’t have anything against Elon—I’ve actually been a big supporter. I’m just stating it as I see it. X isn’t censorship resistant and they have an algorithm that they choose not the user. Corporate tech platforms like X can be a better fit for some survivors. X has safety tools and content moderation, making it a solid option for certain individuals. Grok can be a big help for survivors looking for resources or support! As a survivor, you know what works best for you, and safety should always come first—keep that front and center.

That said, a protocol is a game-changer for cases where the powerful are likely to censor. During China's # MeToo movement, survivors faced heavy censorship on social media platforms like Weibo and WeChat, where posts about sexual harassment were quickly removed, and hashtags like # MeToo or "woyeshi" were blocked by government and platform filters. To bypass this, activists turned to blockchain technology encoding their stories—like Yue Xin’s open letter about a Peking University case—into transaction metadata. This made the information tamper-proof and publicly accessible, resisting censorship since blockchain data can’t be easily altered or deleted.

I posted this on X 2/28/25. I wanted to try my first long post on a nostr client. The Epstein cover up is ongoing so it’s still relevant, unfortunately.

If you are a survivor or loved one who is reading this and needs support please reach out to: National Sexual Assault Hotline 24/7 https://rainn.org/

Hours: Available 24 hours

@ 37fe9853:bcd1b039

yoyoaa

@ 62033ff8:e4471203

收录的内容中 kind=1的部分，实话说 质量不高。 所以我增加了kind=30023 长文的article，但是更新的太少，多个relays 的服务器也没有多少长文。

所有搜索nostr如果需要产生价值，需要有高质量的文章和新闻。 而且现在有很多机器人的文章充满着浪费空间的作用，其他作用都用不上。

https://www.duozhutuan.com 目前放的是给搜索引擎提供搜索的原材料。没有做UI给人类浏览。所以看上去是粗糙的。 我并没有打算去做一个发microblog的 web客户端，那类的客户端太多了。

我觉得nostr社区需要解决的还是应用。如果仅仅是microblog 感觉有点够呛

幸运的是npub.pro 建站这样的，我觉得有点意思。

yakihonne 智能widget 也有意思

我做的TaskQ5 我自己在用了。分布式的任务系统，也挺好的。

@ c8adf82a:7265ee75

What is knowledge? Why do we need it?

Since we were small, our parents/guardian put us in school, worked their asses off to give us elective lessons, some get help until college, some even after college and after professional work. Why is this intelligence thing so sought after?

When you were born, you mostly just accepted what your parents said, they say go to school - you go to school, they say go learn the piano - you learn the piano. Of course with a lot of questions and denials, but you do it because you know your parents are doing it for your own good. You can feel the love so you disregard the 'why' and go on with faith

Everything starts with why, and for most people maybe the purpose of knowledge is to be smarter, to know more, just because. But for me this sounds utterly useless. One day I will die next to a man with half a brain and we would feel the same exact thing on the ground. Literally being smarter at the end does not matter at all

However, I am not saying to just be lazy and foolish. For me the purpose of knowledge is action. The more you learn, the more you know what to do, the more you can be sure you are doing the right thing, the more you can make progress on your own being, etc etc

Now, how can you properly learn? Imagine a water bottle. The water bottle's sole purpose is to contain water, but you cannot fill in the water bottle before you open the cap. To learn properly, make sure you open the cap and let all that water pour into you

If you are reading this, you are alive. Don't waste your time doing useless stuff and start to make a difference in your life

Seize the day

@ 0c469779:4b21d8b0

Sobre el amor

Mi percepción del amor cambió con el tiempo. Leer literatura rusa, principalmente a Dostoevsky, te cambia la perspectiva sobre el amor y la vida en general.

Por mucho tiempo mi visión sobre la vida es que la misma se basa en el sufrimiento: también la Biblia dice esto. El amor es igual, en el amor se sufre y se banca a la otra persona. El problema es que hay una distinción de sufrimientos que por mucho tiempo no tuve en cuenta. Está el sufrimiento del sacrificio y el sufrimiento masoquista. Para mí eran indistintos.

Para mí el ideal era Aliosha y Natasha de Humillados y Ofendidos: estar con alguien que me amase tanto como Natasha a Aliosha, un amor inclusive autodestructivo para Natasha, pero real. Tiene algo de épico, inalcanzable. Un sufrimiento extremo, redentor, es una vara altísima que en la vida cotidiana no se manifiesta. O el amor de Sonia a Raskolnikov, quien se fue hasta Siberia mientras estuvo en prisión para que no se quede solo en Crimen y Castigo.

Este es el tipo de amor que yo esperaba. Y como no me pasó nada tan extremo y las situaciones que llegan a ocurrir en mi vida están lejos de ser tan extremas, me parecía hasta poco lo que estaba pidiendo y que nadie pueda quedarse conmigo me parecía insuficiente.

Ahora pienso que el amor no tiene por qué ser así. Es un pensamiento nuevo que todavía estoy construyendo, y me di cuenta cuando fui a la iglesia, a pesar de que no soy cristiano. La filosofía cristiana me gusta. Va conmigo. Tiene un enfoque de humildad, superación y comunidad que me recuerda al estoicismo.

El amor se trata de resaltar lo mejor que hay en el otro. Se trata de ser un plus, de ayudar. Por eso si uno no está en su mejor etapa, si no se está cómodo con uno mismo, no se puede amar de verdad. El amor empieza en uno mismo.

Los libros son un espejo, no necesariamente vas a aprender de ellos, sino que te muestran quién sos. Resaltás lo que te importa. Por eso a pesar de saber los tipos de amores que hay en los trabajos de Dostoevsky, cometí los mismos errores varias veces.

Ser mejor depende de uno mismo y cada día se pone el granito de arena.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

bitcoind decentralization

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

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

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

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

The event has shown that:

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

Solution: bitcoind decentralization

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

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

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

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

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

Run Bitcoin Knots

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

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

---

See also:

• How to attack Bitcoin, Anthony Towns' take

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

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Bitcoin has always been rooted in freedom and resistance to authority. I get that many of you are conflicted about the US Government stacking but by design we cannot stop anyone from using bitcoin. Many have asked me for my thoughts on the matter, so let’s rip it.

Concern

One of the most glaring issues with the strategic bitcoin reserve is its foundation, built on stolen bitcoin. For those of us who value private property this is an obvious betrayal of our core principles. Rather than proof of work, the bitcoin that seeds this reserve has been taken by force. The US Government should return the bitcoin stolen from Bitfinex and the Silk Road.

Usually stolen bitcoin for the reserve creates a perverse incentive. If governments see a bitcoin as a valuable asset, they will ramp up efforts to confiscate more bitcoin. The precedent is a major concern, and I stand strongly against it, but it should be also noted that governments were already seizing coin before the reserve so this is not really a change in policy.

Ideally all seized bitcoin should be burned, by law. This would align incentives properly and make it less likely for the government to actively increase coin seizures. Due to the truly scarce properties of bitcoin, all burned bitcoin helps existing holders through increased purchasing power regardless. This change would be unlikely but those of us in policy circles should push for it regardless. It would be best case scenario for American bitcoiners and would create a strong foundation for the next century of American leadership.

Optimism

The entire point of bitcoin is that we can spend or save it without permission. That said, it is a massive benefit to not have one of the strongest governments in human history actively trying to ruin our lives.

Since the beginning, bitcoiners have faced horrible regulatory trends. KYC, surveillance, and legal cases have made using bitcoin and building bitcoin businesses incredibly difficult. It is incredibly important to note that over the past year that trend has reversed for the first time in a decade. A strategic bitcoin reserve is a key driver of this shift. By holding bitcoin, the strongest government in the world has signaled that it is not just a fringe technology but rather truly valuable, legitimate, and worth stacking.

This alignment of incentives changes everything. The US Government stacking proves bitcoin’s worth. The resulting purchasing power appreciation helps all of us who are holding coin and as bitcoin succeeds our government receives direct benefit. A beautiful positive feedback loop.

Realism

We are trending in the right direction. A strategic bitcoin reserve is a sign that the state sees bitcoin as an asset worth embracing rather than destroying. That said, there is a lot of work left to be done. We cannot be lulled into complacency, the time to push forward is now, and we cannot take our foot off the gas. We have a seat at the table for the first time ever. Let's make it worth it.

We must protect the right to free usage of bitcoin and other digital technologies. Freedom in the digital age must be taken and defended, through both technical and political avenues. Multiple privacy focused developers are facing long jail sentences for building tools that protect our freedom. These cases are not just legal battles. They are attacks on the soul of bitcoin. We need to rally behind them, fight for their freedom, and ensure the ethos of bitcoin survives this new era of government interest. The strategic reserve is a step in the right direction, but it is up to us to hold the line and shape the future.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

There is something quietly rebellious about stacking sats. In a world obsessed with instant gratification, choosing to patiently accumulate Bitcoin, one sat at a time, feels like a middle finger to the hype machine. But to do it right, you have got to stay humble. Stack too hard with your head in the clouds, and you will trip over your own ego before the next halving even hits.

Small Wins

Stacking sats is not glamorous. Discipline. Stacking every day, week, or month, no matter the price, and letting time do the heavy lifting. Humility lives in that consistency. You are not trying to outsmart the market or prove you are the next "crypto" prophet. Just a regular person, betting on a system you believe in, one humble stack at a time. Folks get rekt chasing the highs. They ape into some shitcoin pump, shout about it online, then go silent when they inevitably get rekt. The ones who last? They stack. Just keep showing up. Consistency. Humility in action. Know the game is long, and you are not bigger than it.

Ego is Volatile

Bitcoin’s swings can mess with your head. One day you are up 20%, feeling like a genius and the next down 30%, questioning everything. Ego will have you panic selling at the bottom or over leveraging the top. Staying humble means patience, a true bitcoin zen. Do not try to "beat” Bitcoin. Ride it. Stack what you can afford, live your life, and let compounding work its magic.

Simplicity

There is a beauty in how stacking sats forces you to rethink value. A sat is worth less than a penny today, but every time you grab a few thousand, you plant a seed. It is not about flaunting wealth but rather building it, quietly, without fanfare. That mindset spills over. Cut out the noise: the overpriced coffee, fancy watches, the status games that drain your wallet. Humility is good for your soul and your stack. I have a buddy who has been stacking since 2015. Never talks about it unless you ask. Lives in a decent place, drives an old truck, and just keeps stacking. He is not chasing clout, he is chasing freedom. That is the vibe: less ego, more sats, all grounded in life.

The Big Picture

Stack those sats. Do it quietly, do it consistently, and do not let the green days puff you up or the red days break you down. Humility is the secret sauce, it keeps you grounded while the world spins wild. In a decade, when you look back and smile, it will not be because you shouted the loudest. It will be because you stayed the course, one sat at a time. \ \ Stay Humble and Stack Sats. 🫡

@ 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.

---

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

I. Introduction

The phenomenon known as "speaking in tongues" has long been interpreted as either the miraculous ability to speak foreign languages or utter mysterious syllables by divine power. However, a re-examination of scriptural and apostolic texts suggests a deeper, spiritual interpretation: that "tongues" refers not to foreign speech but to the utterance of divine truths so profound that they are incomprehensible to most unless illuminated by the Spirit.

This treatise explores that interpretation in light of the writings of Paul, Peter, John, and the early Apostolic Fathers. We seek not to diminish the miraculous but to reveal the deeper purpose of spiritual utterance: the revelation of divine knowledge that transcends rational comprehension.

II. The Nature of Tongues as Spiritual Utterance

Tongues are best understood as Spirit-inspired expressions of divine truth—utterances that do not conform to human categories of knowledge or language. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 14:2, "He who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit."

Such mysteries are not unintelligible in a chaotic sense but are veiled truths that require spiritual discernment. The speaker becomes a vessel of revelation. Without interpretation, the truth remains hidden, just as a parable remains a riddle to those without ears to hear.

III. Paul and the Hidden Wisdom of God

In his epistles, Paul often distinguishes between surface knowledge and spiritual wisdom. In 1 Corinthians 2:6-7, he writes:

"We speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age... but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages."

Tongues, then, are one vehicle by which such hidden wisdom is spoken. The gift of interpretation is not mere translation but the Spirit-led unveiling of meaning. Hence, Paul prioritizes intelligibility not to invalidate tongues, but to encourage the edification that comes when deep truth is revealed and understood (1 Cor. 14:19).

IV. Peter at Pentecost: Many Tongues, One Spirit

At Pentecost (Acts 2), each listener hears the apostles speak "in his own language"—but what they hear are "the mighty works of God." Rather than focusing on the mechanics of speech, the emphasis is on understanding. It was not merely a linguistic miracle but a revelatory one: divine truth reaching every heart in a way that transcended cultural and rational barriers.

V. John and the Prophetic Language of Revelation

The apostle John writes in symbols, visions, and layered meanings. Revelation is full of "tongues" in this spiritual sense—utterances that reveal while concealing. His Gospel presents the Spirit as the "Spirit of truth" who "will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). This guiding is not logical deduction but illumination.

VI. The Apostolic Fathers on Inspired Speech

The Didache, an early Christian manual, warns that not everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit is truly inspired. This aligns with a view of tongues as spiritual utterance—deep truth that must be tested by its fruits and conformity to the ways of the Lord.

Polycarp and Ignatius do not emphasize miraculous speech, but their prayers and exhortations show a triadic awareness of Father, Son, and Spirit, and a reverence for spiritual knowledge passed through inspiration and faithful transmission.

VII. Interpretation: The Gift of Spiritual Discernment

In this model, the interpreter of tongues is not a linguist but a spiritual discerner. As Joseph interpreted dreams in Egypt, so the interpreter makes the spiritual intelligible. This gift is not external translation but inward revelation—an unveiling of what the Spirit has spoken.

VIII. Conclusion: Tongues as a Veil and a Revelation

The true gift of tongues lies not in speech but in meaning—in truth spoken from a higher realm that must be spiritually discerned. It is a veil that conceals the holy from the profane, and a revelation to those led by the Spirit of truth.

Thus, we do not reject the miraculous, but recognize that the greatest miracle is understanding—when divine mysteries, spoken in spiritual tongue, are made known to the heart by the Spirit.

"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." (Revelation 2:7)

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Introduction

Nutsax is a capability-based access control system for Nostr relays, designed to provide flexible, privacy-preserving rate limiting, permissioning, and operation-scoped token redemption.

At its core, Nutsax introduces:

• Blind-signed tokens, issued by relays, for specific operation types.
• Token redemption as part of Nostr event publishing or interactions.
• Encrypted token storage using existing Nostr direct message infrastructure, allowing portable, persistent, and private storage of these tokens — the Nutsax.

This mechanism augments the existing Nostr protocol without disrupting adoption, requiring no changes to NIP-01 for clients or relays that don’t opt into the system.

Motivation

Nostr relays currently have limited tools for abuse prevention and access control. Options like IP banning, whitelisting, or monetized access are coarse and often centralized.

Nutsax introduces:

• Fine-grained, operation-specific access control using cryptographic tokens.
• Blind signature protocols to issue tokens anonymously, preserving user privacy.
• A native way to store and recover tokens using Nostr’s encrypted event system.

This allows relays to offer:

• Optional access policies (e.g., “3 posts per hour unless you redeem a token”)
• Paid or invite-based features (e.g., long-term subscriptions, advanced filters)
• Temporary elevation of privileges (e.g., bypass slow mode for one message)

All without requiring accounts, emails, or linking identity beyond the user’s npub.

Core Components

1. Operation Tokens

Tokens are blind-signed blobs issued by the relay, scoped to a specific operation type (e.g., "write", "filter-subscribe", "broadcast").

• Issued anonymously: using a blind signature protocol.
• Validated on redemption: at message submission or interaction time.
• Optional and redeemable: the relay decides when to enforce token redemption.

Each token encodes:

• Operation type (string)
• Relay ID (to scope the token)
• Expiration (optional)
• Usage count or burn-on-use flag
• Random nonce (blindness)

Example (before blinding):

json { "relay": "wss://relay.example", "operation": "write", "expires": 1720000000, "nonce": "b2a8c3..." }

This is then blinded and signed by the relay.

2. Token Redemption

Clients include tokens when submitting events or requests to the relay.

Token included via event tag:

json ["token", "<base64-encoded-token>", "write"]

Redemption can happen:

• Inline with any event (kind 1, etc.)
• As a standalone event (e.g., ephemeral kind 20000)
• During session initiation (optional AUTH extension)

The relay validates the token:

• Is it well-formed?
• Is it valid for this relay and operation?
• Is it unexpired?
• Has it been used already? (for burn-on-use)

If valid, the relay accepts the event or upgrades the rate/permission scope.

3. Nutsax: Private Token Storage on Nostr

Tokens are stored securely in the client’s Nutsax, a persistent, private archive built on Nostr’s encrypted event system.

Each token is stored in a kind 4 or kind 44/24 event, encrypted with the client’s own npub.

Example:

json { "kind": 4, "tags": [ ["p", "<your npub>"], ["token-type", "write"], ["relay", "wss://relay.example"] ], "content": "<encrypted token blob>", "created_at": 1234567890 }

This allows clients to:

• Persist tokens across restarts or device changes.
• Restore tokens after reinstalling or reauthenticating.
• Port tokens between devices.

All without exposing the tokens to the public or requiring external storage infrastructure.

Client Lifecycle

1. Requesting Tokens

• Client authenticates to relay (e.g., via NIP-42).
• Requests blind-signed tokens:
• Sends blinded token requests.
• Receives blind signatures.
• Unblinds and verifies.

2. Storing Tokens

• Each token is encrypted to the user’s own npub.
• Stored as a DM (kind 4 or compatible encrypted event).
• Optional tagging for organization.

3. Redeeming Tokens

• When performing a token-gated operation (e.g., posting to a limited relay), client includes the appropriate token in the event.
• Relay validates and logs/consumes the token.

4. Restoring the Nutsax

• On device reinstallation or session reset, the client:
• Reconnects to relays.
• Scans encrypted DMs.
• Decrypts and reimports available tokens.

Privacy Model

• Relays issuing tokens do not know which tokens were redeemed (blind signing).
• Tokens do not encode sender identity unless the client opts to do so.
• Only the recipient (npub) can decrypt their Nutsax.
• Redemption is pseudonymous — tied to a key, not to external identity.

Optional Enhancements

• Token index tag: to allow fast search and categorization.
• Multiple token types: read, write, boost, subscribe, etc.
• Token delegation: future support for transferring tokens via encrypted DM to another npub.
• Token revocation: relays can publish blacklists or expiration feeds if needed.

Compatibility

• Fully compatible with NIP-01, NIP-04 (encrypted DMs), and NIP-42 (authentication).
• Non-disruptive: relays and clients can ignore tokens if not supported.
• Ideal for layering on top of existing infrastructure and monetization strategies.

Conclusion

Nutsax offers a privacy-respecting, decentralized way to manage access and rate limits in the Nostr ecosystem. With blind-signed, operation-specific tokens and encrypted, persistent storage using native Nostr mechanisms, it gives relays and clients new powers without sacrificing Nostr’s core principles: simplicity, openness, and cryptographic self-sovereignty.

@ 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.

@ b7cf9f42:ecb93e78

Der Verstand im Fluss der Information

Das Informationszeitalter ist wie ein monströser Fluss, der unseren Verstand umgibt

Fundament erbauen

Der Verstand kann sich eine Insel in diesem Fluss bauen. Dabei können wir eine eigene Insel erbauen oder eine bestehende insel anvisieren um stabilität zu finden

Je robuster das Baumaterial, desto standhafter unsere Insel. (Stärke der Argumente, Qualität des Informationsgehalts, Verständlichkeit der Information)

Je grossflächiger die Insel, desto mehr Menschen haben Platz (Reichweite).

Je höher wir die Insel bauen, desto sicherer ist sie bei einem Anstieg des Informationsflusses (Diversität der Interesse und Kompetenzen der Inselbewohner).

Robustes Baumaterial

Primäre Wahrnehmung (robuster):

Realität -> meine Sinne -> meine Meinung/Interpretation

Sekundäre Wahrnehmung (weniger Robust):

Realität -> Sinne eines anderen -> dessen Meinung/Interpretation -> dessen Kommunikation -> meine Sinne -> meine Meinung/Interpretation

Wie kann ich zur Insel beitragen?

Ich investiere meine Zeit, um zu lernen. Ich bin bestrebt, Ideen zu verstehen, um sicherzugehen, dass ich robustes Baumaterial verwende.

Ich teile vermehrt Informationen, welche ich verstehe, damit auch meine Mitbewohner der Insel mit robustem Material die Insel vergrössern können. So können wir mehr Platz schaffen, wo Treibende Halt finden können.

Was könnte diese Insel sein?

• Freie Wissenschaft
• Freie Software
• Regeln
• Funktionierende Justiz
• Werkzeug
• und vieles weiteres

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

This piece is the first in a series that will focus on things I think are a priority if your focus is similar to mine: building a strong family and safeguarding their future.

---

Choosing the ideal place to raise a family is one of the most significant decisions you will ever make. For simplicity sake I will break down my thought process into key factors: strong property rights, the ability to grow your own food, access to fresh water, the freedom to own and train with guns, and a dependable community.

A Jurisdiction with Strong Property Rights

Strong property rights are essential and allow you to build on a solid foundation that is less likely to break underneath you. Regions with a history of limited government and clear legal protections for landowners are ideal. Personally I think the US is the single best option globally, but within the US there is a wide difference between which state you choose. Choose carefully and thoughtfully, think long term. Obviously if you are not American this is not a realistic option for you, there are other solid options available especially if your family has mobility. I understand many do not have this capability to easily move, consider that your first priority, making movement and jurisdiction choice possible in the first place.

Abundant Access to Fresh Water

Water is life. I cannot overstate the importance of living somewhere with reliable, clean, and abundant freshwater. Some regions face water scarcity or heavy regulations on usage, so prioritizing a place where water is plentiful and your rights to it are protected is critical. Ideally you should have well access so you are not tied to municipal water supplies. In times of crisis or chaos well water cannot be easily shutoff or disrupted. If you live in an area that is drought prone, you are one drought away from societal chaos. Not enough people appreciate this simple fact.

Grow Your Own Food

A location with fertile soil, a favorable climate, and enough space for a small homestead or at the very least a garden is key. In stable times, a small homestead provides good food and important education for your family. In times of chaos your family being able to grow and raise healthy food provides a level of self sufficiency that many others will lack. Look for areas with minimal restrictions, good weather, and a culture that supports local farming.

Guns

The ability to defend your family is fundamental. A location where you can legally and easily own guns is a must. Look for places with a strong gun culture and a political history of protecting those rights. Owning one or two guns is not enough and without proper training they will be a liability rather than a benefit. Get comfortable and proficient. Never stop improving your skills. If the time comes that you must use a gun to defend your family, the skills must be instinct. Practice. Practice. Practice.

A Strong Community You Can Depend On

No one thrives alone. A ride or die community that rallies together in tough times is invaluable. Seek out a place where people know their neighbors, share similar values, and are quick to lend a hand. Lead by example and become a good neighbor, people will naturally respond in kind. Small towns are ideal, if possible, but living outside of a major city can be a solid balance in terms of work opportunities and family security.

---

Let me know if you found this helpful. My plan is to break down how I think about these five key subjects in future posts.

@ 3f770d65:7a745b24

New Year’s resolutions often feel boring and repetitive. Most revolve around getting in shape, eating healthier, or giving up alcohol. While the idea is interesting—using the start of a new calendar year as a catalyst for change—it also seems unnecessary. Why wait for a specific date to make a change? If you want to improve something in your life, you can just do it. You don’t need an excuse.

That’s why I’ve never been drawn to the idea of making a list of resolutions. If I wanted a change, I’d make it happen, without worrying about the calendar. At least, that’s how I felt until now—when, for once, the timing actually gave me a real reason to embrace the idea of New Year’s resolutions.

Enter Olas.

If you're a visual creator, you've likely experienced the relentless grind of building a following on platforms like Instagram—endless doomscrolling, ever-changing algorithms, and the constant pressure to stay relevant. But what if there was a better way? Olas is a Nostr-powered alternative to Instagram that prioritizes community, creativity, and value-for-value exchanges. It's a game changer.

Instagram’s failings are well-known. Its algorithm often dictates whose content gets seen, leaving creators frustrated and powerless. Monetization hurdles further alienate creators who are forced to meet arbitrary follower thresholds before earning anything. Additionally, the platform’s design fosters endless comparisons and exposure to negativity, which can take a significant toll on mental health.

Instagram’s algorithms are notorious for keeping users hooked, often at the cost of their mental health. I've spoken about this extensively, most recently at Nostr Valley, explaining how legacy social media is bad for you. You might find yourself scrolling through content that leaves you feeling anxious or drained. Olas takes a fresh approach, replacing "doomscrolling" with "bloomscrolling." This is a common theme across the Nostr ecosystem. The lack of addictive rage algorithms allows the focus to shift to uplifting, positive content that inspires rather than exhausts.

Monetization is another area where Olas will set itself apart. On Instagram, creators face arbitrary barriers to earning—needing thousands of followers and adhering to restrictive platform rules. Olas eliminates these hurdles by leveraging the Nostr protocol, enabling creators to earn directly through value-for-value exchanges. Fans can support their favorite artists instantly, with no delays or approvals required. The plan is to enable a brand new Olas account that can get paid instantly, with zero followers - that's wild.

Olas addresses these issues head-on. Operating on the open Nostr protocol, it removes centralized control over one's content’s reach or one's ability to monetize. With transparent, configurable algorithms, and a community that thrives on mutual support, Olas creates an environment where creators can grow and succeed without unnecessary barriers.

Join me on my New Year's resolution. Join me on Olas and take part in the #Olas365 challenge! It’s a simple yet exciting way to share your content. The challenge is straightforward: post at least one photo per day on Olas (though you’re welcome to share more!).

Download on iOS.

Download on Android or download via Zapstore.

Let's make waves together.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Token-Curated Registries

So you want to build a TCR?

TCRs (Token Curated Registries) are a construct for maintaining registries on Ethereum. Imagine you have lots of scissor brands and you want a list with only the good scissors. You want to make sure only the good scissors make into that list and not the bad scissors. For that, people will tell you, you can just create a TCR of the best scissors!

It works like this: some people have the token, let's call it Scissor Token. Some other person, let's say it's a scissor manufacturer, wants to put his scissor on the list, this guy must acquire some Scissor Tokens and "stake" it. Holders of the Scissor Tokens are allowed to vote on "yes" or "no". If "no", the manufactures loses his tokens to the holders, if "yes" then its tokens are kept in deposit, but his scissor brand gets accepted into the registry.

Such a simple process, they say, have strong incentives for being the best possible way of curating a registry of scissors: consumers have the incentive to consult the list because of its high quality; manufacturers have the incentive to buy tokens and apply to join the list because the list is so well-curated and consumers always consult it; token holders want the registry to accept good and reject bad scissors because that good decisions will make the list good for consumers and thus their tokens more valuable, bad decisions will do the contrary. It doesn't make sense, to reject everybody just to grab their tokens, because that would create an incentive against people trying to enter the list.

Amazing! How come such a simple system of voting has such enourmous features? Now we can have lists of everything so well-curated, and for that we just need Ethereum tokens!

Now let's imagine a different proposal, of my own creation: SPCR, Single-person curated registries.

Single-person Curated Registries are equal to TCR, except they don't use Ethereum tokens, it's just a list in a text file kept by a single person. People can apply to join, and they will have to give the single person some amount of money, the single person can reject or accept the proposal and so on.

Now let's look at the incentives of SPCR: people will want to consult the registry because it is so well curated; vendors will want to enter the registry because people are consulting it; the single person will want to accept the good and reject the bad applicants because these good decisions are what will make the list valuable.

Amazing! How such a single proposal has such enourmous features! SPCR are going to take over the internet!

What TCR enthusiasts get wrong?

TCR people think they can just list a set of incentives for something to work and assume that something will work. Mix that with Ethereum hype and they think theyve found something unique and revolutionary, while in fact they're just making a poor implementation of "democracy" systems that fail almost everywhere.

The life is not about listing a set of "incentives" and then considering the problems solved. Almost everybody on the Earth has the incentive for being rich: being rich has a lot of advantages over being poor, however not all people get rich! Why are the incentives failing?

Curating lists is a hard problem, it involves a lot of knowledge about the problem that just holding a token won't give you, it involves personal preferences, politics, it involves knowing where is the real limit between "good" and "bad". The Single Person list may have a good result if the single person doing the curation is knowledgeable and honest (yes, you can game the system to accept your uncle's scissors and not their competitor that is much better, for example, without losing the entire list reputation), same thing for TCRs, but it can also fail miserably, and it can appear to be good but be in fact not so good. In all cases, the list entries will reflect the preferences of people choosing and other things that aren't taken into the incentives equation of TCR enthusiasts.

We don't need lists

The most important point to be made, although unrelated to the incentive story, is that we don't need lists. Imagine you're looking for a scissor. You don't want someone to tell if scissor A or B are "good" or "bad", or if A is "better" than B. You want to know if, for your specific situation, or for a class of situations, A will serve well, and do that considering A's price and if A is being sold near you and all that.

Scissors are the worst example ever to make this point, but I hope you get it. If you don't, try imagining the same example with schools, doctors, plumbers, food, whatever.

Recommendation systems are badly needed in our world, and TCRs don't solve these at all.

@ 6389be64:ef439d32

GA, plebs. The latest episode of Bitcoin And is out, and, as always, the chicanery is running rampant. Let’s break down the biggest topics I covered, and if you want the full, unfiltered rant, make sure to listen to the episode linked below.

House Democrats’ MEME Act: A Bad Joke?

House Democrats are proposing a bill to ban presidential meme coins, clearly aimed at Trump’s and Melania’s ill-advised token launches. While grifters launching meme coins is bad, this bill is just as ridiculous. If this legislation moves forward, expect a retaliatory strike exposing how politicians like Pelosi and Warren mysteriously amassed their fortunes. Will it pass? Doubtful. But it’s another sign of the government’s obsession with regulating everything except itself.

Senate Banking’s First Digital Asset Hearing: The Real Target Is You

Cynthia Lummis chaired the first digital asset hearing, and—surprise!—it was all about control. The discussion centered on stablecoins, AML, and KYC regulations, with witnesses suggesting Orwellian measures like freezing stablecoin transactions unless pre-approved by authorities. What was barely mentioned? Bitcoin. They want full oversight of stablecoins, which is really about controlling financial freedom. Expect more nonsense targeting self-custody wallets under the guise of stopping “bad actors.”

Bank of America and PayPal Want In on Stablecoins

Bank of America’s CEO openly stated they’ll launch a stablecoin as soon as regulation allows. Meanwhile, PayPal’s CEO paid for a hat using Bitcoin—not their own stablecoin, Pi USD. Why wouldn’t he use his own product? Maybe he knows stablecoins aren’t what they’re hyped up to be. Either way, the legacy financial system is gearing up to flood the market with stablecoins, not because they love crypto, but because it’s a tool to extend U.S. dollar dominance.

MetaPlanet Buys the Dip

Japan’s MetaPlanet issued $13.4M in bonds to buy more Bitcoin, proving once again that institutions see the writing on the wall. Unlike U.S. regulators who obsess over stablecoins, some companies are actually stacking sats.

UK Expands Crypto Seizure Powers

Across the pond, the UK government is pushing legislation to make it easier to seize and destroy crypto linked to criminal activity. While they frame it as going after the bad guys, it’s another move toward centralized control and financial surveillance.

Bitcoin Tools & Tech: Arc, SatoChip, and Nunchuk

Some bullish Bitcoin developments: ARC v0.5 is making Bitcoin’s second layer more efficient, SatoChip now supports Taproot and Nostr, and Nunchuk launched a group wallet with chat, making multisig collaboration easier.

The Bottom Line

The state is coming for financial privacy and control, and stablecoins are their weapon of choice. Bitcoiners need to stay focused, keep their coins in self-custody, and build out parallel systems. Expect more regulatory attacks, but don’t let them distract you—just keep stacking and transacting in ways they can’t control.

🎧 Listen to the full episode here: https://fountain.fm/episode/PYITCo18AJnsEkKLz2Ks

💰 Support the show by boosting sats on Podcasting 2.0! and I will see you on the other side.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

idea: "numbeo" with satoshis

This site has a crowdsourced database of cost-of-living in many countries and cities: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/ and it sells the data people write there freely. It's wrong!

Could be an fruitful idea to pay satoshis for people to provide data.

@ dd664d5e:5633d319

Men tend to find women attractive, that remind them of the average women they already know, but with more-averaged features. The mid of mids is kween.👸

But, in contradiction to that, they won't consider her highly attractive, unless she has some spectacular, unusual feature. They'll sacrifice some averageness to acquire that novelty. This is why wealthy men (who tend to be highly intelligent -- and therefore particularly inclined to crave novelty because they are easily bored) -- are more likely to have striking-looking wives and girlfriends, rather than conventionally-attractive ones. They are also more-likely to cross ethnic and racial lines, when dating.

Men also seem to each be particularly attracted to specific facial expressions or mimics, which might be an intelligence-similarity test, as persons with higher intelligence tend to have a more-expressive mimic. So, people with similar expressions tend to be on the same wavelength. Facial expessions also give men some sense of perception into womens' inner life, which they otherwise find inscrutable.

Hair color is a big deal (logic says: always go blonde), as is breast-size (bigger is better), and WHR (smaller is better).

@ 8fb140b4:f948000c

As many of you know, https://nostr.build has recently launched a new compatibility layer for the Blossom protocol blossom.band. You can find all the details about what it supports and its limitations by visiting the URL.

I wanted to cover some of the technical details about how it works here. One key difference you may notice is that the service acts as a linker, redirecting requests for the media hash to the actual source of the media—specifically, the nostr.build URL. This allows us to maintain a unified CDN cache and ensure that your media is served as quickly as possible.

Another difference is that each uploaded media/blob is served under its own subdomain (e.g., npub1[...].blossom.band), ensuring that your association with the blob is controlled by you. If you decide to delete the media for any reason, we ensure that the link is broken, even if someone else has duplicated it using the same hash.

To comply with the Blossom protocol, we also link the same hash under the main (apex) domain (blossom.band) and collect all associations under it. This ensures that Blossom clients can fetch media based on users’ Blossom server settings. If you are the sole owner of the hash and there are no duplicates, deleting the media removes the link from the main domain as well.

Lastly, in line with our mission to protect users’ privacy, we reject any media that contains private metadata (such as GPS coordinates, user comments, or camera serial numbers) or strip it if you use the /media/ endpoint for upload.

As always, your feedback is welcome and appreciated. Thank you!

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Lightning and its fake HTLCs

Lightning is terrible but can be very good with two tweaks.

How Lightning would work without HTLCs

In a world in which HTLCs didn't exist, Lightning channels would consist only of balances. Each commitment transaction would have two outputs: one for peer A, the other for peer B, according to the current state of the channel.

When a payment was being attempted to go through the channel, peers would just trust each other to update the state when necessary. For example:

1. Channel AB's balances are A[10:10]B (in sats);
2. A sends a 3sat payment through B to C;
3. A asks B to route the payment. Channel AB doesn't change at all;
4. B sends the payment to C, C accepts it;
5. Channel BC changes from B[20:5]C to B[17:8]C;
6. B notifies A the payment was successful, A acknowledges that;
7. Channel AB changes from A[10:10]B to A[7:13]B.

This in the case of a success, everything is fine, no glitches, no dishonesty.

But notice that A could have refused to acknowledge that the payment went through, either because of a bug, or because it went offline forever, or because it is malicious. Then the channel AB would stay as A[10:10]B and B would have lost 3 satoshis.

How Lightning would work with HTLCs

HTLCs are introduced to remedy that situation. Now instead of commitment transactions having always only two outputs, one to each peer, now they can have HTLC outputs too. These HTLC outputs could go to either side dependending on the circumstance.

Specifically, the peer that is sending the payment can redeem the HTLC after a number of blocks have passed. The peer that is receiving the payment can redeem the HTLC if they are able to provide the preimage to the hash specified in the HTLC.

Now the flow is something like this:

1. Channel AB's balances are A[10:10]B;
2. A sends a 3sat payment through B to C:
3. A asks B to route the payment. Their channel changes to A[7:3:10]B (the middle number is the HTLC).
4. B offers a payment to C. Their channel changes from B[20:5]C to B[17:3:5]C.
5. C tells B the preimage for that HTLC. Their channel changes from B[17:3:5]C to B[17:8]C.
6. B tells A the preimage for that HTLC. Their channel changes from A[7:3:10]B to A[7:13]B.

Now if A wants to trick B and stop responding B doesn't lose money, because B knows the preimage, B just needs to publish the commitment transaction A[7:3:10]B, which gives him 10sat and then redeem the HTLC using the preimage he got from C, which gives him 3 sats more. B is fine now.

In the same way, if B stops responding for any reason, A won't lose the money it put in that HTLC, it can publish the commitment transaction, get 7 back, then redeem the HTLC after the certain number of blocks have passed and get the other 3 sats back.

How Lightning doesn't really work

The example above about how the HTLCs work is very elegant but has a fatal flaw on it: transaction fees. Each new HTLC added increases the size of the commitment transaction and it requires yet another transaction to be redeemed. If we consider fees of 10000 satoshis that means any HTLC below that is as if it didn't existed because we can't ever redeem it anyway. In fact the Lightning protocol explicitly dictates that if HTLC output amounts are below the fee necessary to redeem them they shouldn't be created.

What happens in these cases then? Nothing, the amounts that should be in HTLCs are moved to the commitment transaction miner fee instead.

So considering a transaction fee of 10000sat for these HTLCs if one is sending Lightning payments below 10000sat that means they operate according to the unsafe protocol described in the first section above.

It is actually worse, because consider what happens in the case a channel in the middle of a route has a glitch or one of the peers is unresponsive. The other node, thinking they are operating in the trustless protocol, will proceed to publish the commitment transaction, i.e. close the channel, so they can redeem the HTLC -- only then they find out they are actually in the unsafe protocol realm and there is no HTLC to be redeemed at all and they lose not only the money, but also the channel (which costed a lot of money to open and close, in overall transaction fees).

One of the biggest features of the trustless protocol are the payment proofs. Every payment is identified by a hash and whenever the payee releases the preimage relative to that hash that means the payment was complete. The incentives are in place so all nodes in the path pass the preimage back until it reaches the payer, which can then use it as the proof he has sent the payment and the payee has received it. This feature is also lost in the unsafe protocol: if a glitch happens or someone goes offline on the preimage's way back then there is no way the preimage will reach the payer because no HTLCs are published and redeemed on the chain. The payee may have received the money but the payer will not know -- but the payee will lose the money sent anyway.

The end of HTLCs

So considering the points above you may be sad because in some cases Lightning doesn't use these magic HTLCs that give meaning to it all. But the fact is that no matter what anyone thinks, HTLCs are destined to be used less and less as time passes.

The fact that over time Bitcoin transaction fees tend to rise, and also the fact that multipart payment (MPP) are increasedly being used on Lightning for good, we can expect that soon no HTLC will ever be big enough to be actually worth redeeming and we will be at a point in which not a single HTLC is real and they're all fake.

Another thing to note is that the current unsafe protocol kicks out whenever the HTLC amount is below the Bitcoin transaction fee would be to redeem it, but this is not a reasonable algorithm. It is not reasonable to lose a channel and then pay 10000sat in fees to redeem a 10001sat HTLC. At which point does it become reasonable to do it? Probably in an amount many times above that, so it would be reasonable to even increase the threshold above which real HTLCs are made -- thus making their existence more and more rare.

These are good things, because we don't actually need HTLCs to make a functional Lightning Network.

We must embrace the unsafe protocol and make it better

So the unsafe protocol is not necessarily very bad, but the way it is being done now is, because it suffers from two big problems:

1. Channels are lost all the time for no reason;
2. No guarantees of the proof-of-payment ever reaching the payer exist.

The first problem we fix by just stopping the current practice of closing channels when there are no real HTLCs in them.

That, however, creates a new problem -- or actually it exarcebates the second: now that we're not closing channels, what do we do with the expired payments in them? These payments should have either been canceled or fulfilled before some block x, now we're in block x+1, our peer has returned from its offline period and one of us will have to lose the money from that payment.

That's fine because it's only 3sat and it's better to just lose 3sat than to lose both the 3sat and the channel anyway, so either one would be happy to eat the loss. Maybe we'll even split it 50/50! No, that doesn't work, because it creates an attack vector with peers becoming unresponsive on purpose on one side of the route and actually failing/fulfilling the payment on the other side and making a profit with that.

So we actually need to know who is to blame on these payments, even if we are not going to act on that imediatelly: we need some kind of arbiter that both peers can trust, such that if one peer is trying to send the preimage or the cancellation to the other and the other is unresponsive, when the unresponsive peer comes back, the arbiter can tell them they are to blame, so they can willfully eat the loss and the channel can continue. Both peers are happy this way.

If the unresponsive peer doesn't accept what the arbiter says then the peer that was operating correctly can assume the unresponsive peer is malicious and close the channel, and then blacklist it and never again open a channel with a peer they know is malicious.

Again, the differences between this scheme and the current Lightning Network are that:

a. In the current Lightning we always close channels, in this scheme we only close channels in case someone is malicious or in other worst case scenarios (the arbiter is unresponsive, for example). b. In the current Lightning we close the channels without having any clue on who is to blame for that, then we just proceed to reopen a channel with that same peer even in the case they were actively trying to harm us before.

What is missing? An arbiter.

The Bitcoin blockchain is the ideal arbiter, it works in the best possible way if we follow the trustless protocol, but as we've seen we can't use the Bitcoin blockchain because it is expensive.

Therefore we need a new arbiter. That is the hard part, but not unsolvable. Notice that we don't need an absolutely perfect arbiter, anything is better than nothing, really, even an unreliable arbiter that is offline half of the day is better than what we have today, or an arbiter that lies, an arbiter that charges some satoshis for each resolution, anything.

Here are some suggestions:

• random nodes from the network selected by an algorithm that both peers agree to, so they can't cheat by selecting themselves. The only thing these nodes have to do is to store data from one peer, try to retransmit it to the other peer and record the results for some time.
• a set of nodes preselected by the two peers when the channel is being opened -- same as above, but with more handpicked-trust involved.
• some third-party cloud storage or notification provider with guarantees of having open data in it and some public log-keeping, like Twitter, GitHub or a Nostr relay;
• peers that get paid to do the job, selected by the fact that they own some token (I know this is stepping too close to the shitcoin territory, but could be an idea) issued in a Spacechain;
• a Spacechain itself, serving only as the storage for a bunch of OP_RETURNs that are published and tracked by these Lightning peers whenever there is an issue (this looks wrong, but could work).

Key points

1. Lightning with HTLC-based routing was a cool idea, but it wasn't ever really feasible.
2. HTLCs are going to be abandoned and that's the natural course of things.
3. It is actually good that HTLCs are being abandoned, but
4. We must change the protocol to account for the existence of fake HTLCs and thus make the bulk of the Lightning Network usage viable again.

See also

• Ripple and the problem of the decentralized commit
• The Lightning Network solves the problem of the decentralized commit

@ e6817453:b0ac3c39

The Rise of Graph RAGs and the Quest for Data Quality

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

Booming Interest in Graph RAGs

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

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

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

Data Quality: The Foundation of Effective Graphs

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

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

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

Hybrid Graph RAGs and Variations

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

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

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

Ontology: The Key to Graph Construction Quality

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

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

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

How to Build Ontology Expertise in a Startup Team

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

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

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

You could read about barefoot experts in my article :

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

How to Find or Create Ontologies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parallel Ontology and Graph Extraction

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

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

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

LLMs as Ontologists

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

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

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

Final Thoughts: Unlocking the Power of Graph RAGs

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

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

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

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

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

Part One: 2029–2032

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

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

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

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

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

Time Jump: 2032–2047

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

Part Two: 2047

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

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

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

Key Differences

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

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

@ a4a6b584:1e05b95b

The Four-Layer Framework

Layer 1: Zoom Out

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

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

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

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

---

Layer 2: Categorize and Connect

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

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

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

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

---

Layer 3: Master the Details

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

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

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

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

---

Layer 4: Expand Your Horizons

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

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

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

---

Pro Tips for Better Learning

1. Use Active Recall and Spaced Repetition

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

2. Map It Out

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

3. Teach What You Learn

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

4. Engage with LLMs and Discuss Concepts

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

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

---

Get Started

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

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

E-cash are coupons or tokens for Bitcoin, or Bitcoin debt notes that the mint issues. The e-cash states, essentially, "IoU 2900 sats".

They're redeemable for Bitcoin on Lightning (hard money), and therefore can be used as cash (softer money), so long as the mint has a good reputation. That means that they're less fungible than Lightning because the e-cash from one mint can be more or less valuable than the e-cash from another. If a mint is buggy, offline, or disappears, then the e-cash is unreedemable.

It also means that e-cash is more anonymous than Lightning, and that the sender and receiver's wallets don't need to be online, to transact. Nutzaps now add the possibility of parking transactions one level farther out, on a relay. The same relays that cannot keep npub profiles and follow lists consistent will now do monetary transactions.

What we then have is * a transaction on a relay that triggers * a transaction on a mint that triggers * a transaction on Lightning that triggers * a transaction on Bitcoin.

Which means that every relay that stores the nuts is part of a wildcat banking system. Which is fine, but relay operators should consider whether they wish to carry the associated risks and liabilities. They should also be aware that they should implement the appropriate features in their relay, such as expiration tags (nuts rot after 2 weeks), and to make sure that only expired nuts are deleted.

There will be plenty of specialized relays for this, so don't feel pressured to join in, and research the topic carefully, for yourself.

https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/60.md

@ e7bc35f8:3ed2a7cf

In the heart of Romania’s 2024 presidential election, a seismic shock rattled the foundations of its democracy. Just days before the final runoff, the Constitutional Court made an unprecedented move: it annulled the entire election, citing evidence of Russian interference that propelled a far-right nationalist, Călin Georgescu, to a surprise lead. Was this a bold reflex to safeguard democratic integrity against foreign manipulation, or a chilling cancellation of the people’s voice, silencing millions who had cast their ballots? As Romania grapples with this historic decision, the line between protecting democracy and undermining it has never been blurrier, leaving citizens and observers alike questioning the true cost of this electoral upheaval.

In this article, I will explore Romania’s 2024 presidential election annulment chronologically, tracing the rise of far-right candidate Călin Georgescu, the Constitutional Court’s decision to cancel the vote on December 6, and the resulting protests and probes into foreign interference. This timeline will clarify whether the move was a democratic safeguard or an undemocratic suppression of the people’s will.

October 15, 2024

Judges booted candidate Diana Șoșoacă, leader of the ultra-nationalist party S.O.S Romania, from the race because she threatened Bucharest’s place in the EU and NATO. But her rivals are saying the court overstepped its remit.

The unprecedented ruling by the Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR) sparked criticism from Șoșoacă’s rivals across the political spectrum, encompassing socialists, liberals and academics — with one figure even pointing to how it echoes the Kremlin’s electoral governance.

November 22, 2024

The final major poll before Romania’s 2024 presidential election, released on the eve of the vote, painted a starkly different picture from the eventual outcome. Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu led with 23.7%, followed by Elena Lasconi at 17.8%, George Simion at 16.9%, and Nicolae Ciucă at 14.3%. Astonishingly, Călin Georgescu, who would later surge to a stunning first-round victory, languished in fifth place with just 8.1%, a staggering underestimation that would soon fuel suspicions of manipulation and upend the nation’s electoral process.

November 24, 2024

In a stunning upset, Călin Georgescu won Romania’s 2024 presidential election with 22.94% of the vote, dominating the first round despite trailing in pre-election polls. George Simion, often labeled the country’s “hard right chief” by Western media, lagged behind in fourth place with just 13.8%. No credible evidence suggests vote tampering; Georgescu’s victory reflected a genuine surge of voter support, particularly among the diaspora, where he won overwhelmingly—except in Moldova, where he secured only 3.11% amid a large pro-Russian population that had narrowly passed a pro-EU referendum a month earlier.

As regards Georgescu himself, by CV, appearance and speaking style he comes across as the ideal candidate. He studied agronomy, has a PhD in soil science and is a university lecturer; has worked at senior levels in government – including in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs – as well as at the UN and other NGOs, with a focus on sustainable development; and he speaks four foreign languages. He projects a professional, clean-cut image of a determined, experienced 62 year-old nationalist at the apex of his powers, speaking very simply and clearly in a calm, confident manner. Strictly by these superficial PR metrics, on paper, he is, at first glance, perfectly suited for the role.

Nor is he unknown in Romanian politics; but he is – or has been – a very fringe figure. His name was floated several times in recent years, in nationalist-populist circles, as a potential alternative for prime minister. He nearly became honorary president of Romania’s main nationalist conservative party, AUR, before the deal fell through when past comments came to light in which he had called the country’s Second World War leader and Axis ally, Marshal Antonescu – who is considered responsible for the Romanian Holocaust – a “hero”.

Georgescu had conducted a persuasive online campaign, primarily on TikTok, focusing on the importance of an autochthon economy, the inherent superiority of rural life in Romania, and essentially claiming that just like a national poet from the 19th century, he is a divine messenger. The campaign consisted of thousands of TikTok profiles distributing ten-second videos about him, with many influencers suggesting in the past weeks that they would vote for him. According to Georgescu, he didn’t spend any money on the campaign, but the scale and the professionalism in which it was conducted suggest otherwise.

November 25, 2024

Politico comes to remind us why EU is so interested about Romania. According to this article, Romania has been a steadfast ally in the West’s support for Ukraine, leveraging the Port of Constanța as a critical lifeline for exporting Ukrainian grain and funneling military supplies into the conflict zone. The war has also elevated the strategic significance of the Mihail Kogălniceanu air base on the Black Sea, poised to become NATO’s largest. However, Călin Georgescu’s unexpected electoral triumph raises alarms across Europe, as his leadership could pivot Romania away from this pro-Western stance, potentially disrupting these vital geopolitical roles. This prospect underscores why European leaders are deeply invested in ensuring Romania remains in “reliable” hands, aligned with NATO and EU priorities.

November 26, 2024

Reformist Elena Lasconi, who was going to face Georgescu in the runoff on Dec. 8, was directly warning that Romanians must now rally together to stop the country falling back under the thrall of Russia, which occupied it after World War II. She urged a crowd in Bucharest not to let frustration with the current establishment “become a vulnerability exploited by Russia.”

November 28, 2024

The official claim of Russian meddling rested directly and exclusively on a specific set of intelligence documents on the matter, first submitted in a closed National Security Council meeting on 28 November. Romania’s Constitutional Court asked the country’s top election authority to recount and check again all ballots from Sunday’s presidential election first round.

November 30, 2024

Elena Lasconi, who narrowly secured a runoff spot by edging out PSD Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu by just 2,700 votes, has firmly rejected allegations of electoral misconduct. Lasconi and her party, USR, accuse the PSD and center-right PNL of undermining the people’s will through the annulment push. In a passionate statement, she urged, “I appeal to all state institutions: Don’t destroy democracy in Romania,” highlighting the high stakes for the nation’s democratic integrity.

December 4, 2024

The set of intelligence documents on the matter, first submitted in a closed National Security Council meeting on 28 November and then hastily declassified on 4 December by the sitting President in order to “inform” the Constitutional Court’s decision. But the reports contained no actual evidence of the sort.

The documents alleged that 800 TikTok accounts had been activated just before the election and that they had supported Călin Georgescu’s campaign.

Albeit these reports did not definitely say that the meddling effort managed to actually sway the election in Georgescu’s favour, they suggested it.

I ve translated the declassified documents using the AI tools: Grok and ChatGPT. I can assure you that the following summary from "Brussels Signal" is accurate. I will quote the summary because of the key importance on the subject:

The documents provide no concrete evidence of Russian state interference in Romania’s presidential elections or any links between presidential candidate Calin Georgescu and Russia.

The most important and explosive term used in these documents (by SRI) is “state actor.” The documents offer no evidence or analytical explanation for the use of this term, rendering it an unsupported claim.

On the contrary, to the extent that they shed light on anything, the documents indicate that Georgescu’s campaign simply employed highly effective digital marketing techniques, giving him a “comparative exponential” advantage (according to SRI).

The documents offer only disparate, circumstantial, and often trivial information presented in a way that leaves plenty of room for wide-ranging interpretations. Their tone and terminology appear designed to fuel an anti-Georgescu narrative in the public sphere.

As intelligence products, the documents are sloppy and of very poor quality by Allied standards. They include contradictions, errors, and blatant inaccuracies. The language is often vague, and key terms remain undefined (e.g., various uses of the word “network”). For the most part, the documents are full only of useless platitudes, with the majority of the information already having been circulating in the public domain in the days after 24 November (the date of the first voting round).

The documents are merely “Briefing Notes” (note informative, in Romanian), not assessments – thus lacking clear and definitive analytical conclusions or interpretations. They make isolated claims (mostly unsupported), with no discussion of sources or evidence. This is likely a method for the intelligence services to protect themselves politically. Subsequent interpretations of these documents by the media are not, therefore, based on conclusions of the Romanian state.

The documents are also redacted in key parts. It is therefore important to understand that the information in these documents was only partially declassified – despite the media narrative suggesting the documents were declassified in their entirety. It is also important to understand that the redacted passages may alter the meaning of the text.

The SIE Briefing Note has not actually been declassified. The President only published an “unclassified excerpt” from it. The SIE Note itself remains classified, likely because it contradicts the Notes submitted by the other agencies.

The documents do point to potential irregularities in Georgescu’s campaign finance statements. However, such issues are common in campaigns worldwide and, moreover, should be investigated with respect to all the other candidates as well, in the same way. In any case, the documents make no suggestion of foreign funding, let alone from Russia.

The only concrete elements noted in the documents as being specifically identified as of 24 November (the day of the vote in the first round) are: 100 TikTok influencer accounts paid to distribute content using 3 (three) hashtags that do not even mention Calin Georgescu; 797 accounts created before (!) the launch of TikTok itself, under this brand name; 1,088 users in a “coordination” group on Telegram (which, again, is standard in all political campaigns); and $381,000 paid to some “influencers”.

Conclusion: The CSAT documents declassified by the President provide absolutely no real, concrete basis for the public narratives about a “Russian attack” on Romania or of links between Georgescu’s campaign and Russia. These documents, by themselves, cannot rationally be used as arguments against this candidate because they prove nothing.

Shortly after the vote in a televised address President Iohannis claimed that the ‘campaign was illegally supported from outside Romania’ and that it is a ‘matter of national security’.

December 6, 2024

Romania’s top constitutional court dramatically cancelled high-stakes presidential elections after security services warned Russia was mounting “aggressive” hybrid attacks against the country. Călin Georgescu was accused to benefit from a TikTok campaign that was similar to influence operations allegedly run by the Kremlin in Ukraine and Moldova. The files said Moscow was targeting Romania as an enemy state, using “aggressive hybrid action,” a view backed by the United States, at that time.

Running as an independent, Georgescu was due to face liberal Elena Lasconi of the Save Romania Union (USR) in a Dec. 8 runoff. Suspicious of the two old parties, she is also calling on the court not to meddle with Romanian democracy. According to Radio Romania Actualitati, she said: ‘Today is the moment when the Romanian state has trampled on democracy,’ adding: ‘We should have gone ahead with the vote. We should have respected the will of the Romanian people, whether we like it or not; legally and legitimately, nine million Romanian citizens, both at home and in the diaspora, have expressed their preference for a particular candidate by voting. We cannot ignore their will.’

Elena Lasconi, a liberal—by Western standards, however, she might not be considered a typical liberal, as she openly expresses patriotism, displays the Romanian flag alongside the EU flag, and occasionally wears traditional folk costumes—former TV journalist. Lasconi, like Georgescu, is an anti-establishment figure, vocal in her criticism of the current political elite and adept at channelling voter discontent and frustration with mainstream parties. It is no surprise, then, that both the Social Democratic Party (PSD) and the National Liberal Party (PNL)—Romania’s two largest establishment parties—reacted with dismay to the performances of Georgescu and Lasconi. This discontent was amplified by the fact that neither party’s candidate came close to qualifying for a potential second round. Politicians from both the far right as well as liberal reformists Save Romania Union (USR) party view an annulment as an attempt by the widely distrusted old establishment parties — the Social Democratic Party (PSD) and the center-right National Liberal Party (PNL) — to hold on to power by pulling strings within the judiciary. Elena Lasconi, a liberal former TV journalist who was set to stand against Georgescu in the second round, was mortified by what she saw as a hijacking of the electoral process.

The court canceled the process completely, leaving voters bemused as they turned up to cast their ballots. In a defiant video released on Friday night, Georgescu accused the court of launching “practically a formalized coup d’état” and told his supporters to show they are “brave” and not to give up.

In fact, Georgescu was leading with as much as 77 per cent against Lasconi’s 23 per cent in the diaspora when Romania’s Constitutional Court decided to annul the elections.

The President, at that time, Klaus Iohannis was due to end his term on Dec. 21. But in an address to the nation Friday evening, he announced that he was going to stay on until the next president was about to sworn in.

Nicolae Ciucă, the head of the Romanian senate and the National Liberal Party’s presidential candidate in the first round said that The decision to cancel the vote was “without precedent in Romania’s democratic history,” he said, adding “the current situation is a difficult test for our democratic institutions.”

According to the press's findings, behind Georgescu there appears to have been an entire “network” of volunteers – often organised via Telegram – running thousands of co-ordinated TikTok accounts designed to boost each other’s posts – i.e. Georgescu’s short promo videos. TikTok has only relatively recently caught on in Romania; certainly it wasn’t a factor at the last election. This might explain why a strong TikTok campaign would not have registered properly in political analysis, and why it might’ve had an outsized effect on voting intentions. It is also a warning for the future of the very idea of democratic politics, as it shows that it is possible for candidates to completely side-step the traditional “public square”, avoid any major real-world debates or campaigning, and win elections exclusively online.

Still, there is a great deal of mystery over exactly how all this worked. Georgescu’s TikTok metrics are inferior to his three key adversaries for example: there were 145 million views this year for Georgescu’s main hashtags compared to 396 million for Simion’s, 328 million for Ciolacu and 202 million for Lasconi. One difference is that the bulk of Georgescu’s TikTok views and followers accrued within the past two months. Coupled with other indicators, it seems rather clear that so-called “troll farms” have been at work on his behalf, to spread his message; but it is not clear whether this practice is unique to Georgescu or whether it has been used – to varying degrees – by his opponents as well.

As Georgescu is perceived to be “pro-Russia” – an imprecise term to boot – suspicion in this regard is directed towards the Kremlin. But hard evidence is lacking; there is no smoking gun, so far. Russian actors are involved in virtually every election in the West, but their exact role in swinging the result is hardly ever clear. In the US a Congressional investigation – eventually known as the “Russia Hoax”, for good reason – failed to prove alleged collusion between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Moscow, despite widespread belief in this story from those shocked that “orange man” could ever win because his message was more effective.

The reaction from the EU and Washington was particularly alarming, though hardly surprising. ‘The integrity of Romania’s elections is paramount for Romanians’ hard-earned democracy. It is the choice of the Romanian people whom they elect. No other country or foreign actor has that right,’ the US State Department said in a statement. The contradiction is glaring, isn’t it? It’s supposedly the Romanians’ choice who they elect, yet if a candidate not favoured by the Americans wins, the election results are annulled.

Moscow denied meddling into the Romanian democratic process.

December 20, 2024

According to a Snoop (investigative journalist organization) investigation, Georgescu’s alleged financing would have been done by the PNL. ** All this, so that Georgescu’s message would spread and more people could vote for him so that George Simion would not make it to the second round. ** In fact, the ANAF (National Agency for Tax Administration) discovered that the PNL paid for a campaign massively promoting Călin Georgescu on TikTok, published on 20 December 2024.

December 22, 2024

Subsequent investigations by the National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF), Romania’s tax authority, uncovered the origins of Călin Georgescu’s successful TikTok campaign: the PNL. The centre-right party’s campaign initially employed the hashtag #echilibrusiseriozitate to promote European values and pro-EU positions. Kensington Communication, the company responsible for the campaign, also targeted Georgescu’s content, aiming to counter his EU-critical rhetoric. However, the hashtag #echilibrusiseriozitate, designed to create an unfavourable environment for non-liberal presidential candidates on TikTok, was replaced by #echilibrusiverticalitate on the FameUP platform—a free automated platform that amplifies marketing campaigns. Interestingly, this new hashtag was ultimately adopted and used by Georgescu’s supporters, transforming its purpose and amplifying his campaign’s visibility. The Romanian government proposed 4 May as the date for a new presidential election. However, no formal decision was made since. Călin Georgescu has since challenged the Constitutional Court’s decision at a local appeals court and lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights. ‘I will take our cause to the heart of Europe, to the highest courts. Each of us is doing our part in this historic mission to defend our democracy,’ he declared.

January 5, 2025

Recent polls show that Călin Georgescu remains the most popular presidential candidate, with some surveys suggesting that the ultranationalist contender could garner close to 40 per cent support.

January 8, 2025

The court is considering disqualifying Georgescu for undeclared campaign funding.

The leaders of the ruling coalition made up of the Social Democrats (PSD), Liberals (PNL), the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians (UDMR), and the minorities' group decided on the new dates for the presidential elections. According to the agreed election schedule, the first round would have taken place on May 4, followed by the runoff on May 18.

At the beginning of the government meeting, prime minister Marcel Ciolacu announced the introduction of sanctions against social media networks that favor candidates, according to Europa Libera Romania.

Georgescu’s appeal against the constitutional court’s decision to nullify the election was rejected, so he lodged a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights.

In fact, even the Venice Commission (the officially European Commission for Democracy through Law) stated that, regarding what had happened in Romania, evidence must be given: ‘An election annulment must be based on transparent evidence, not classified information.’

January 10, 2025

Former European commissioner Thierry Breton assured that the European Union has mechanisms to overturn an eventual AfD victory:

We did it in Romania and obviously we will do it in Germany if necessary.

This was widely seen as a clear admission of their true intentions, as if they had dropped all pretenses and fully revealed themselves.

They tell you to your face that they can suspend elections and that absolutely nothing happens, then they have the cheek to declare themselves the ‘democrats’ and ‘tolerant’, when it is them who are the main enemies of democracy and freedom of expression!

January 12, 2025

Tens of thousands of supporters of Romanian presidential candidate Călin Georgescu took to the streets in Bucharest on Sunday to protest the annulment of the presidential election. With no concrete evidence emerging to substantiate the allegations of Russian interference, it has become increasingly evident that the progressive elite will go to any lengths to remain in power.

February 1, 2025 According to the last polls, Georgescu would be around 50 per cent; specifically, according to the last one published by România TV, he would obtain 47 per cent.

February 10, 2025

Romanian President Klaus Iohannis announced his resignation before his possible forced dismissal from parliament. Iohannis, echoing Joe Biden, made sure to pardon his family and the judges who suspended the presidential election before leaving, for reasons of precaution.

Once the court cancelled the elections—so no new president was elected—, it also decided to lengthen the current president’s term in office until a new vote in May 2025. Iohannis faced raising opposition, however, as some viewed his lengthened mandate as illegitimate. On the one hand, the Romanian constitution states that a presidential term is five years, and the president remains in office until their successor takes over. On the other hand, it also makes clear that the presidency can be extended only in case of war or catastrophe. Protests also took place against the decision of him remaining in office, and the legislature initiated his removal as well. **Preventing a successful impeachment procedure, Klaus Iohannis stepped down. ** In his resignation speech he highlighted that Romania’s western partners will not understand the reason why he was forced to step down, and that his departure will damage Bucharest’s relationship with its allies. The country’s interim president will be the Senate’s president, Ilie Bolojan.

February 15, 2025

The Constitutional Court of Romania is accused of canceling elections without evidence, allegedly to suppress votes against the EU-aligned political establishment. Claims suggest court judges are linked to Soros-funded NGOs. A network of "independent" NGOs and media, funded by hundreds of millions from the EU and USAID, is said to promote left-wing globalist agendas, manipulate public opinion, and counter conservative values. EU grants and a secret 130 million euro contract to a French agency, tied to corruption, allegedly fueled pro-EU media campaigns, undermining independent journalism and labeling critics as pro-Russia. Independent journalist, Iosefina Pascal, talks thoroughly about this case.

February 19, 2025 Renowned journalist and X (formerly Twitter) personality Mario Nawfal interviews Georgescu, with clear expressions of support for Trump and Musk, alongside a strong critical stance toward George Soros.

February 26, 2025 Romania’s presidential candidate, Calin Georgescu was arrested while en route to Bucharest to announce his new presidential campaign. Georgescu’s campaign team has confirmed that Georgescu was picked up by the police and detained in the middle of traffic for questioning at the attorney general’s office.

Georgescu was declared the winner of that election round, but an arrest warrant was issued against him on February 26, as reported by the Romanian press.

Romanian prosecutors have initiated criminal proceedings against the right-wing politician and candidate for the 2024 presidential election, Călin Georgescu, on six charges. These include allegations of engaging in unconstitutional activities and providing inaccurate financial disclosures, according to official sources.

March 1, 2025

Thousands march for freedom in Romania. Over 200,000 Romanians flood streets for Georgescu. Anti-Soros feelings are everywhere.

March 6, 2025

The Romanian opposition – denied a likely victory – took their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

The ECHR (The European Convention on Human Rights, a supranational convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe) threw the case out without even hearing it. Apparently, the Romanian courts were perfectly within their rights to simply indefinitely postpone their election on the basis of unproven allegations.

Romania is moving toward its strictest censorship law since 1989, granting authorities the power to block websites and social media posts without independent review.

The Emergency Ordinance (OUG) would allow the government to shut down content deemed “false information,” “manipulation,” or a “threat to national security,” with no clear definitions or court approval required.

The Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI), military, cybersecurity agencies, and electoral authorities would have sweeping powers to remove posts and block platforms, while internet providers refusing to comply could face massive daily fines.

This law could be used to silence journalists and political opponents, as there is no independent oversight and no clear standard for what counts as “false information.”

The government claims the measure is meant to combat foreign election interference, but it will actually be weaponized against free speech.

March 7, 2025 Călin Georgescu, the people’s choice in Romania’s annulled election, has officially submitted his candidacy for the upcoming presidential race, backed by over 324,000 signatures.

The Constitutional Court will decide this month or early April if his candidacy is approved, assuming, of course, that he doesn't get arrested again this time.

March 8, 2025

Demonstrators gathered in front of Romania’s Palace of Parliament, holding banners thanking Tulsi Gabbard and urging Trump to “help take our country back!”

Romania’s Constitutional Court has unanimously rejected 4 appeals attempting to block Călin Georgescu from the presidential race. The challenges, filed by minor candidates Sebastian Popescu and Cristian Terheș, accused him of failing to disclose campaign funding and alleged foreign financial ties. The court dismissed the claims as inadmissible, citing procedural failures and lack of legal merit.

Allegedly Soros-linked activists flood Romanian Electoral Bureau with 1,000 identical appeals against CĂLIN GEORGESCU

Over 1,000 copy-paste appeals were filed against Călin Georgescu’s candidacy, organized by Soros-backed activists trying to block him.

But the Electoral Bureau (BEC) is set to reject them all—the challenges were filed before his candidacy was even validated, making them invalid.

March 9, 2025

Calin Georgescu’s presidential candidacy has been officially rejected, sparking outrage among his supporters, who attempted to breach the Bureau of Electoral Control (BEC).

The candidacy was rejected with 10 votes in favor and 4 against.

Romania’s Electoral Office bypassed the Constitutional Court, which had approved his candidacy in December, and shut him down directly instead.

George Simion, president of the AUR stated in viral video:

Georgescu put his candidacy at the Central Electoral Bureau and by 10 members to 4, it was rejected without any reason. All the papers were in good order. They just said they voted through their conscience. We live in a dictatorship. Please help us. Please be on our side to restore democracy in Romania.

March 11, 2025

Romanian presidential candidate Călin Georgescu cannot run in the Presidential Election. Călin Georgescu’s appeal against the invalidation of his presidential candidacy has been rejected by the Constitutional Court.

March 27, 2025

The National Authority for Administration and Regulation in Communications (ANCOM), coordinator of digital services in Romania held an exercise to test the capacity to respond to challenges that may emerge in the online environment, in view of the presidential elections in May.

This initiative takes its root from the Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM), which ironically, was established during the G7 Charlevoix Summit in June 2018, meant to enhance cooperation among nations in addressing ‘crisis’ moments and perceived threats to western democracy.

Ahead of Romania’s new presidential election, the European Commission has launched its ‘RRM’ as a proactive strategy which the EC presents as a means to tackle potential electoral law violations on social media in member states holding elections. In effect, a similar simulation was reportedly held before the February elections in Germany. Coincidentally, a call for proposals to manage the new project described as a “Media Freedom Rapid Response Mechanism” was issued by the European Commission on Oct 24, 2024, under the cross-sectoral strand of the Creative Europe Programme. This CFP was launched to allegedly promote an independent and pluralistic media environment through an independent Europe-wide rapid response mechanism.

Subsequently, the Romanian government is now drafting an emergency ordinance to empower authorities to eliminate illegal (or inconvenient) online content, which they argue is essential for protecting the electoral process. However, some interpret this as a sign of a democratic crisis, with the current administration struggling to maintain power and resorting to emergency measures to suppress opposition and their freedom of speech. Recent polls suggest that Călin Georgescu could win the presidency in a single round, a situation complicated by the exclusion of the right-wing conservative candidate from the May 2025 elections. Other talks about possible corruption surrounding the construction of the multi-billion classified secret service contract for the Realization of the infrastructure of NATO 57th Air Base Mihail Kogălniceanu, located only 30 kilometres from the Black Sea and anticipated to be NATO’s largest base in Europe upon completion.

@ 46fcbe30:6bd8ce4d

MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION

SUBJECT: Meeting with Russian President Yeltsin

PARTICIPANTS: - U.S. - President Clinton - Secretary Albright - National Security Advisor Berger - Deputy National Security Advisor Steinberg - Ambassador Sestanovich - Carlos Pascual

• Russia
• Russian President Yeltsin
• Foreign Minister Ivanov
• Kremlin Foreign Policy Advisor Prihodko
• Defense Minister Sergeyev
• Interpreter: Peter Afansenko
• Notetaker: Carlos Pascual

DATE, TIME AND PLACE: November 19, 1999, 10:45 a.m. - 11:40 a.m. Istanbul, Turkey

President Yeltsin: We are in neutral territory here. I welcome you.

The President: Neither of us has a stake here. It's good to see you.

President Yeltsin: Well, Bill, what about those camps here in Turkey that are preparing troops to go into Chechnya? Aren't you in charge of those? I have the details. Minister Ivanov, give me the map. I want to show you where the mercenaries are being trained and then being sent into Chechnya. They are armed to the teeth. (Note: Yeltsin pulls out map of Turkey and circulates it.) Bill, this is your fault. I told Demirel yesterday that I will send the head of the SRV tomorrow and we will show him where the camps are located. These are not state-sanctioned camps. They are sponsored by NGOs and religious organizations. But let me tell you if this were in Russia and there were but one camp, I would throw them all out and put the bandits in the electric chair.

The President: Perhaps Demirel could help you.

President Yeltsin: Well, he ought to. Tomorrow after I get back, I will send the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service here. Bill, did you hurt your leg?

The President: Yes, but it is not bad.

President Yeltsin: When one leg of the President hurts, that is a bad thing.

The President: It lets me know I am alive.

President Yeltsin: I know we are not upset at each other. We were just throwing some jabs. I'm still waiting for you to visit. Bill. I've said to you come to visit in May, then June, then July and then August. Now it's past October and you're still not there.

The President: You're right, Boris, I owe you a visit.

President Yeltsin: Last time I went to the U.S., Bill.

The President: Well, I better set it up. I'll look at the calendar and find a time that's good for you and me.

President Yeltsin: Call me and tell me the month and date. Unless I have another visit, I will do the maximum amount I can to do everything around your schedule. The main things I have are to go to China and India.

The President: Boris, we still have lots to do together.

President Yeltsin: You heard my statement on nuclear arms and on banning nuclear tests. I just signed a law on ratification of a new agreement on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Isn't that right, Minister Ivanov?

Minister Ivanov: You signed the documents that sent the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Duma for review.

President Yeltsin: Well, in any case, I still approved it.

The President: Maybe I can get the Congress to agree still. They kept the Treaty even after they rejected it. So perhaps, there is still a chance.

President Yeltsin: Or perhaps it's just the bureaucrats working and they haven't had a chance to send it back to you yet. I'm upset that you signed the law to change the ABM Treaty.

The President: I signed no such law. People in Congress don't like the ABM Treaty. If Congress had its way, they would undermine the treaty. I'm trying to uphold it. But we need a national missile defense to protect against rogue states. We can't have a national missile defense that works without changing the ABM Treaty. But I want to do this cooperatively. I want to persuade you that this is good for both of us. The primary purpose is to protect against terrorists and rogue states. It would be ineffective against Russia. The system we're looking at would operate against just 20 missiles. And, Boris I want to figure out how to share the benefits. For all I know, in twenty years terrorists could have access to nuclear weapons. I know your people don't agree with me, but I'm not trying to overthrow the ABM Treaty. We're still trying to discover what's technically possible with national missile defense, but there are people in America who want to throw over the ABM Treaty. I have made no decisions yet.

President Yeltsin: Bill, Bill. I got your note. It went into all these things in incredible detail. I read it and I was satisfied. I've not yet ceased to believe in you. I ask you one thing. Just give Europe to Russia. The U.S. is not in Europe. Europe should be the business of Europeans. Russia is half European and half Asian.

The President: So you want Asia too?

President Yeltsin: Sure, sure. Bill. Eventually, we will have to agree on all of this.

The President: I don't think the Europeans would like this very much.

President Yeltsin: Not all. But I am a European. I live in Moscow. Moscow is in Europe and I like it. You can take all the other states and provide security to them. I will take Europe and provide them security. Well, not I. Russia will. We will end this conflict in Chechnya. I didn't say all the things I was thinking (in his speech). I listened to you carefully. I took a break just beforehand. Then I listened to you from beginning to end. I can even repeat what you said. Bill, I'm serious. Give Europe to Europe itself. Europe never felt as close to Russia as it does now. We have no difference of opinion with Europe, except maybe on Afganistan and Pakistan—which, by the way, is training Chechens. These are bandits, headhunters and killers. They're raping American women. They're cutting off ears and other parts of their hostages. We're fighting these types of terrorists. Let's not accuse Russia that we are too rough with these kinds of people. There are only two options: kill them or put them on trial. There's no third option, but we can put them on trial, and sentence them to 20-25 years. How many Americans, French, British and Germans have I freed that were there in Chechnya under the OSCE? The Chechen killers don't like the language of the OSCE. Here's my Minister of Defense. Stand up. We have not lost one soldier down there. Tell them.

Minister Sergeyev: We did not lose one soldier in Gudermes.

President Yeltsin: You see, Gudermes was cleansed without one military or civilian killed. We killed 200 bandits. The Minister of Defense is fulfilling the plan as I have said it should be. He's doing this thoughtfully. The soldiers only ask: don't stop the campaign. I promised these guys—I told every soldier, marshal and general—I will bring the campaign to fruition. We have these Chechens under lock and key. We have the key. They can't get in, they can't get out. Except maybe through Georgia; that's Shevardnadze's big mistake. And through Azerbaijan; that's Aliyev's mistake. They're shuttling in under the name of Islam. We're for freedom of religion, but not for fundamentalist Islam. These extremists are against you and against me.

We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles. We'll make all the appropriate treaties with China. We're not going to provide nuclear weapons to India. If we give them submarines, it will be only conventional diesel submarines, not nuclear. They would be from the 935 generation. You're going in that direction too. I'm thinking about your proposal—well, what your armed forces are doing—getting rid of fissile materials, particularly plutonium. We should just get rid of it. As soon as it's there, people start thinking of how to make bombs. Look, Russia has the power and intellect to know what to do with Europe. If Ivanov stays here, he will initial the CFE Treaty and I'll sign it under him. But under the OSCE Charter, there is one thing I cannot agree—which is that, based on humanitarian causes, one state can interfere in the affairs of another state.

National Security Advisor Berger: Mr. President, there's nothing in the Charter on one state's interference in the affairs of another.

Secretary Albright: That's right. What the Charter says is that affairs within a state will affect the other states around it.

President Yeltsin: Russia agrees to take out its property and equipment from Georgia in accordance with the new CFE Treaty. I have a statement on this. (looking toward Ivanov) Give it to me. I signed it today. Actually, it was late last night. I like to work late.

The President: Me, too.

President Yeltsin: I know you like to work late, Bill. When you call me, I calculate the time and I tell myself it's 4 a.m. and he's calling me. It lets you cleanse your brain and you feel great. I am not criticizing you, Bill. The President should be encouraged to work hard.

The President: So, we will get an agreement on CFE.

President Yeltsin: Yes.

The President: That's very important, seven years. We've worked on this for a long time.

President Yeltsin: Look, Ivanov has lost the statement in his own bag. He can't find the paper in his own bag. On the Charter, we have to look at it from the beginning. The Charter's ready. However, when states begin to tie in the Charter with the final declaration that has wording unacceptable to us, that's when we'll say no. And responsibility for this will fall fully on the West. (Looking at Ivanov) Give me this thing. It is written on paper. Bill. I am ready to sign it. It is a declaration about what we're talking about.

Secretary Albright: Some states want to record in the declaration your willingness to have an OSCE mission.

President Yeltsin: No, not at all. We will finish this with our own forces. Chechnya is the business of the internal affairs of Russia. We have to decide what to do. After we cleansed Gudermes, the muslim mufti came and asked for help, said I hate Basayev and he should be banned. These are the kinds of leaders we will put forward. I have thought this through carefully.

The President: On the Chechen problem. I have been less critical than others. Even today, I asked the others how they would deal with this if it were their country. This is a political issue. It may be the best thing for you within Russia to tell the Europeans to go to hell. But the best thing for your relations with Europe for the long term is to figure out the policy that you want to have with Europe and to keep that in mind as you deal with Chechnya.

President Yeltsin: (Gets up rapidly) Bill, the meeting is up. We said 20 minutes and it has now been more than 35 minutes.

The President: That's fine. We can say the meeting is over.

President Yeltsin: This meeting has gone on too long. You should come to visit, Bill.

The President: Who will win the election?

President Yeltsin: Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He's a democrat, and he knows the West.

The President: He's very smart.

President Yeltsin: He's tough. He has an internal ramrod. He's tough internally, and I will do everything possible for him to win—legally, of course. And he will win. You'll do business together. He will continue the Yeltsin line on democracy and economics and widen Russia's contacts. He has the energy and the brains to succeed. Thank you, Bill.

The President: Thank you, Boris. It was good to see you.

End of Conversation

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

🆕 What's changed:

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

♻️ Migrate the PostgreSQL database location

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

• With user admin create the dedicated PostgreSQL data folder

sudo mkdir /data/postgresdb

• Assign as the owner to the postgres user

sudo chown postgres:postgres /data/postgresdb

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

sudo chmod -R 700 /data/postgresdb

• Stop NBXplorer and BTCPay Server

sudo systemctl stop nbxplorer && sudo systemctl stop btcpayserver

• Stop PostgreSQL

sudo systemctl stop postgresql

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

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

Expected output:

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

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

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

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

• Replace the line 42 to this. Save and exit

data_directory = '/data/postgresdb'

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

sudo systemctl start postgresql

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

journalctl -fu postgresql

Example of the expected output:

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

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

journalctl -fu postgresql@16-main

Example of the expected output:

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

• Start NBXplorer and BTCPay Server again

sudo systemctl start nbxplorer && sudo systemctl start btcpayserver

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

journalctl -fu nbxplorer

journalctl -fu btcpayserver

Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ c0c42bba:a5feb7b5

Hey guy this is my first note on nostr and I'm glad we have something like this now. I've been a Substack writer for a couple of years now and I'm so excited to jump on this and I can't wait for the many things I can do with this

please show your support

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Introduction

Throughout human history, the pyramids of Egypt have fascinated scholars, archaeologists, and engineers alike. Traditionally thought of as tombs for pharaohs or religious monuments, alternative theories have speculated that the pyramids may have served advanced technological functions. One such hypothesis suggests that the pyramids acted as large-scale nitrogen fertilizer generators, designed to transform arid desert landscapes into fertile land.

This paper explores the feasibility of such a system by examining how a pyramid could integrate thermal convection, electrolysis, and a self-regulating breeder reactor to sustain nitrogen fixation processes. We will calculate the total power requirements and estimate the longevity of a breeder reactor housed within the structure.

The Pyramid’s Function as a Nitrogen Fertilizer Generator

The hypothesized system involves several key processes:

• Heat and Convection: A fissile material core located in the King's Chamber would generate heat, creating convection currents throughout the pyramid.
• Electrolysis and Hydrogen Production: Water sourced from subterranean channels would undergo electrolysis, splitting into hydrogen and oxygen due to electrical and thermal energy.
• Nitrogen Fixation: The generated hydrogen would react with atmospheric nitrogen (N₂) to produce ammonia (NH₃), a vital component of nitrogen-based fertilizers.

Power Requirements for Continuous Operation

To maintain the pyramid’s core at approximately 450°C, sufficient to drive nitrogen fixation, we estimate a steady-state power requirement of 23.9 gigawatts (GW).

Total Energy Required Over 10,000 Years

Given continuous operation over 10,000 years, the total energy demand can be calculated as:

[ \text{Total time} = 10,000 \times 365.25 \times 24 \times 3600 \text{ seconds} ]

[ \text{Total time} = 3.16 \times 10^{11} \text{ seconds} ]

[ \text{Total energy} = 23.9 \text{ GW} \times 3.16 \times 10^{11} \text{ s} ]

[ \approx 7.55 \times 10^{21} \text{ J} ]

Using a Self-Regulating Breeder Reactor

A breeder reactor could sustain this power requirement by generating more fissile material than it consumes. This reduces the need for frequent refueling.

Pebble Bed Reactor Design

• Self-Regulation: The reactor would use passive cooling and fuel expansion to self-regulate temperature.
• Breeding Process: The reactor would convert thorium-232 into uranium-233, creating a sustainable fuel cycle.

Fissile Material Requirements

Each kilogram of fissile material releases approximately 80 terajoules (TJ) (or 8 × 10^{13} J/kg). Given a 35% efficiency rate, the usable energy per kilogram is:

[ \text{Usable energy per kg} = 8 \times 10^{13} \times 0.35 = 2.8 \times 10^{13} \text{ J/kg} ]

[ \text{Fissile material required} = \frac{7.55 \times 10^{21}}{2.8 \times 10^{13}} ]

[ \approx 2.7 \times 10^{8} \text{ kg} = 270,000 \text{ tons} ]

Impact of a Breeding Ratio

If the reactor operates at a breeding ratio of 1.3, the total fissile material requirement would be reduced to:

[ \frac{270,000}{1.3} \approx 208,000 \text{ tons} ]

Reactor Size and Fuel Replenishment

Assuming a pebble bed reactor housed in the King’s Chamber (~318 cubic meters), the fuel cycle could be sustained with minimal refueling. With a breeding ratio of 1.3, the reactor could theoretically operate for 10,000 years with occasional replenishment of lost material due to inefficiencies.

Managing Scaling in the Steam Generation System

To ensure long-term efficiency, the water supply must be conditioned to prevent mineral scaling. Several strategies could be implemented:

1. Natural Water Softening Using Limestone

• Passing river water through limestone beds could help precipitate out calcium bicarbonate, reducing hardness before entering the steam system.

2. Chemical Additives for Scaling Prevention

• Chelating Agents: Compounds such as citric acid or tannins could be introduced to bind calcium and magnesium ions.
• Phosphate Compounds: These interfere with crystal formation, preventing scale adhesion.

3. Superheating and Pre-Evaporation

• Pre-Evaporation: Water exposed to extreme heat before entering the system would allow minerals to precipitate out before reaching the reactor.
• Superheated Steam: Ensuring only pure vapor enters the steam cycle would prevent mineral buildup.
• Electrolysis of Superheated Steam: Using multi-million volt electrostatic fields to ionize and separate minerals before they enter the steam system.

4. Electrostatic Control for Scaling Mitigation

• The pyramid’s hypothesized high-voltage environment could ionize water molecules, helping to prevent mineral deposits.

Conclusion

If the Great Pyramid were designed as a self-regulating nitrogen fertilizer generator, it would require a continuous 23.9 GW energy supply, which could be met by a breeder reactor housed within its core. With a breeding ratio of 1.3, an initial load of 208,000 tons of fissile material would sustain operations for 10,000 years with minimal refueling.

Additionally, advanced water treatment techniques, including limestone filtration, chemical additives, and electrostatic control, could ensure long-term efficiency by mitigating scaling issues.

While this remains a speculative hypothesis, it presents a fascinating intersection of energy production, water treatment, and environmental engineering as a means to terraform the ancient world.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

There's a problem with using Git concepts for everything

We've been seeing a surge in applications that use Git to store other things than code, or that are based on Git concepts and so enable "forking, merging and distributed collaboration" for things like blogs, recipes, literature, music composition, normal files in a filesystem, databases.

The problem with all this is they will either:

1. assume the user will commit manually and expect that commit to be composed by a set of meaningful changes, and the commiter will also add a message to the commit, describing that set of meaningful, related changes; or
2. try to make the committing process automatic and hide it from the user, so will producing meaningless commits, based on random changes in many different files (it's not "files" if we are talking about a recipe or rows in a table, but let's say "files" for the sake of clarity) that will probably not be related and not reduceable to a meaningful commit message, or maybe the commit will contain only the changes to a single file, and its commit message would be equivalent to "updated <name of the file>".

Programmers, when using Git, think in Git, i.e., they work with version control in their minds. They try hard to commit together only sets of meaningful and related changes, even when they happen to make unrelated changes in the meantime, and that's why there are commands like git add -p and many others.

Normal people, to whom many of these git-based tools are intended to (and even programmers when out of their code-world), are much less prone to think in Git, and that's why another kind of abstraction for fork-merge-collaborate in non-code environments must be used.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Custom spreadsheets

The idea was to use it to make an app that would serve as custom database for everything and interact with the spreadsheet so people could play and calculate with their values after they were created by the custom app, something like an MS Access integrated with Excel?

My first attempt that worked (I believe there was an attempt before but I have probably deleted it from everywhere) was this react-microspreadsheet thing (at the time called react-spreadsheet before I donated the npm name to someone who asked):

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/react-microspreadsheet

This was a very good spreadsheet component that did many things current "react spreadsheet" components out there don't do. It had formulas; support for that handle thing that you pulled with the mouse and it autofilled cells with a pattern; it had keyboard navigation with Ctrl, Shift, Ctrl+Shift; it had that thing through which you copy-pasted formulas and they would change their parameters depending on where you pasted them (implemented in a very poor manner because I was using and thinking about Excel in baby mode at the time).

Then I tried to make it into "a small sheet you can share" kind of app through assemblymade.com, and eventually as I tried to add more things bugs began to appear.

Then there was cycle6-spreadsheet:

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/spreadsheet-cycle6

If I remember well this was very similar to the other one, although made almost 2 years after. Despite having the same initial goal of the other (the multi-app custom database thing) it only yielded:

• Sidesheet, a Chrome extension that opened a spreadsheet on the side of the screen that you could use to make calculations and so on. It worked, but had too many bugs that probably caused me to give up entirely.

I'm not sure which of the two spreadsheets above powers http://sheets.alhur.es.

@ 107f2bb3:d78aa4c4

bye

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Introduction

Since the mid-1990s, American media has fractured into two distinct and increasingly isolated ecosystems, each with its own Overton window of acceptable discourse. Once upon a time, Americans of different political leanings shared a common set of facts, even if they interpreted them differently. Today, they don’t even agree on what the facts are—or who has the authority to define them.

This divide stems from a deeper philosophical rift in how each side determines truth and legitimacy. The institutional left derives its authority from the expert class—academics, think tanks, scientific consensus, and mainstream media. The populist right, on the other hand, finds its authority in traditional belief systems—religion, historical precedent, and what many call "common sense." As these two moral and epistemological frameworks drift further apart, the result is not just political division but the emergence of two separate cultural nations sharing the same geographic space.

The Battle of Epistemologies: Experts vs. Tradition

The left-leaning camp sees scientific consensus, peer-reviewed research, and institutional expertise as the gold standard of truth. Universities, media organizations, and policy think tanks function as arbiters of knowledge, shaping the moral and political beliefs of those who trust them. From this perspective, governance should be guided by data-driven decisions, often favoring progressive change and bureaucratic administration over democratic populism.

The right-leaning camp is skeptical of these institutions, viewing them as ideologically captured and detached from real-world concerns. Instead, they look to religion, historical wisdom, and traditional social structures as more reliable sources of truth. To them, the "expert class" is not an impartial source of knowledge but a self-reinforcing elite that justifies its own power while dismissing dissenters as uneducated or morally deficient.

This fundamental disagreement over the source of moral and factual authority means that political debates today are rarely about policy alone. They are battles over legitimacy itself. One side sees resistance to climate policies as "anti-science," while the other sees aggressive climate mandates as an elite power grab. One side views traditional gender roles as oppressive, while the other sees rapid changes in gender norms as unnatural and destabilizing. Each group believes the other is not just wrong, but dangerous.

The Consequences of Non-Overlapping Overton Windows

As these worldviews diverge, so do their respective Overton windows—the range of ideas considered acceptable for public discourse. There is little overlap left. What is considered self-evident truth in one camp is often seen as heresy or misinformation in the other. The result is:

• Epistemic Closure – Each side has its own trusted media sources, and cross-exposure is minimal. The left dismisses right-wing media as conspiracy-driven, while the right views mainstream media as corrupt propaganda. Both believe the other is being systematically misled.
• Moralization of Politics – Since truth itself is contested, policy debates become existential battles. Disagreements over issues like immigration, education, or healthcare are no longer just about governance but about moral purity versus moral corruption.
• Cultural and Political Balkanization – Without a shared understanding of reality, compromise becomes impossible. Americans increasingly consume separate news, live in ideologically homogeneous communities, and even speak different political languages.

Conclusion: Two Nations on One Land

A country can survive disagreements, but can it survive when its people no longer share a common source of truth? Historically, such deep societal fractures have led to secession, authoritarianism, or violent conflict. The United States has managed to avoid these extremes so far, but the trendline is clear: as long as each camp continues reinforcing its own epistemology while rejecting the other's as illegitimate, the divide will only grow.

The question is no longer whether America is divided—it is whether these two cultures can continue to coexist under a single political system. Can anything bridge the gap between institutional authority and traditional wisdom? Or are we witnessing the slow but inevitable unraveling of a once-unified nation into two separate moral and epistemic realities?

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

A step-by-step guide to building a Bitcoin & Lightning node, and other stuff on a personal computer.

~ > It builds on a personal computer with x86/amd64 architecture processors.

~> It is based on the popular RaspiBolt v3 guide.

---

Those are some of the most relevant changes:

• Changed OS from Raspberry Pi OS Lite (64-bits) to Ubuntu Server LTS (Long term support) 64-bit PC (AMD64).
• Changed binaries and signatures of the programs to adapt them to x86/amd64 architecture.
• Deleted unnecessary tools and steps, and added others according to this case of use.
• Some useful authentication logs and monitoring commands were added in the security section.
• Added some interesting parameters in the settings of some services to activate and take advantage of new features.
• Changed I2P, Fulcrum, and ThunderHub guides, to be part of the core guide.
• Added exclusive optimization section of services for slow devices.

~ > Complete release notes MiniBolt v1: https://github.com/twofaktor/minibolt/releases/tag/1.0

~ > The MiniBolt guide is available at: https://minibolt.info

~ > Feel free to contribute to the source code on GitHub by opening issues, pull requests or discussions

---

Created by ⚡2 FakTor⚡

Telegram groups: * English * Spanish

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

P2P reputation thing

Each node shares a blob of the reputations they have, which includes a confidence number. The number comes from the fact that reputations are inherited from other nodes they trust and averaged by their confidence in these. Everything is mixed for plausible deniability. By default a node only shares their stuff with people they manually add, to prevent government from crawling everybody's database. Also to each added friend nodes share a different identity/pubkey (like giving a new Bitcoin address for every transaction) (derived from hip32) (and since each identity can only be contacted by one other entity the node filters incoming connections to download their database: "this identity already been used? no, yes, used with which peer?").

Network protocol

Maybe the data uploader/offerer initiates connection to the receiver over Tor so there's only a Tor address for incoming data, never an address for a data source, i.e. everybody has an address, but only for requesting data.

How to request? Post an encrypted message in an IRC room or something similar (better if messages are stored for a while) targeted to the node/identity you want to download from, along with your Tor address. Once the node sees that it checks if you can download and contacts you.

The encrypted messages could have the target identity pubkey prefix such that the receiving node could try to decrypt only some if those with some probability of success.

Nodes can choose to share with anyone, share only with pre-approved people, share only with people who know one of their addresses/entities (works like a PIN, you give the address to someone in the street, that person can reach you, to the next person you give another address etc., you can even have a public address and share limited data with that).

Data model

Each entry in a database should be in the following format:

internal_id : real_world_identifier [, real_world_identifier...] : tag

Which means you can either associate one or multiple real world identifier with an internal id and associate the real person designated by these identifiers with a tag. the tag should be part of the standard or maybe negotiated between peers. it can be things like scammer, thief, tax collector etc., or honest, good dentist etc. defining good enough labels may be tricky.

internal_id should be created by the user who made the record about the person.

At first this is not necessary, but additional bloat can be added to the protocol if the federated automated message posting boards are working in the sense that each user can ask for more information about a given id and the author of that record can contact the person asking for information and deliver free text to them with the given information. For this to work the internal id must be a public key and the information delivered must be signed with the correspondent private key, so the receiver of the information will know it's not just some spammer inventing stuff, but actually the person who originated that record.

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Design and build chemical processes, better. Alkali is creating the world's first AI Process Engineer.

What the future of chemical process design should look like.

Under the hood, APE-0 uses tried-and-true open-source packages to run simulations. You don't have to trust that the LLM predicted the result — you can check out the simulation file it produced, and run it yourself!

Discover more at https://www.alkali-eng.com/blogs/introducing-fel-0

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/968211

@ df478568:2a951e67

Freedom tech is free and open-source software. It is free as in freedom. A common license in FOSS is the MIT license. It's the license behind Bitcoin, a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Anyone is free to run this software. The same is true for the software at mempool.space. The software is free to use. I run it on my own server.

This is what I use to time-stamp my articles. You can use it to check transactions on the bitcoin time chain, but you need to trust that I'm not doing any funny business. I'm not, but keep in mind, the whole point of p2p elwctronic cash is that you don't trust. You verify.

The beauty of FOSS is: You don't need to trust me. You can triple-check the transactions you search on my mempool instance by looking at the official mempool.space website and blockchain.info...Or...You can run your own node on your own hardware, free of charge.

Of course, the hardware is not free. Neither is the actual bitcoin. The freedom is built into the software, but as the saying goes, "freedom isn't free." It took me years to learn how to run my own software on my own server and make it available on the clear net.

SearXNG

SearXNG is my favorite search engine. I don't like giving up my precious data to big tech located in the United States or China. I run my own search engine. I have noticed certain biases in Google searches. The biggest problem is ads.

Companies tend to pay for Yelp and Google reviews. I called an AC company I found from a local magazine that came in the mail. A portly man wearing an HVAC costume drove to my house in a white van. He had a great smile and even better social skills. The van had a slogan plastered on it like most tradie vans do. "Reviews Matter We have a 4.9 Review on Google." He also had his name painted on this van like a Bomber pilot from WW2. I won't dox him, but it was something like "Joe the closer."

I don't trust the omnipotenence of the Googs. I also don't trust fat men they call "the closer" to give me the best deal. The trick to saving sats is to choose the game-theory optimal way of negogiation.

In DUCY, by David Sklansky, I learned useful negotiation skills. Sklansky wrote classic poker books and applied his actuarial math brain to negotiation techniques. He said he would go to a Toyota dealer and say, "I'm shopping for a new Camry. I already have a price from dealership XYZ in a nearby city. What is your price?"

This changes the dynamic right from the starting line and gives the consumer the advantage. So I tried this based technique with the HVAC industrial complex. I got a quote from 3 people: 1. Joe "The Closer." 2. The Costco-sponsored HVAC Company 3. My SearXNG search results.

In essence, I apply the same logic I learned running a full bitcoin node. Remember how I said the decentralized nature of bitcoin allows you to triple-check your transactions? Running SearXNG allows me to triple check my search results in a similar fashion. I don't trust Google, Costco, or the magazine I get every month in the mail. I verify results with my own search engine.

My SearXNG does not track my location, but I set it to give me local results. To be honest, I have not verified this, but the code is on GitHub for everyone to see.

I don't want to be "sold" on an AC. I don't want an AC if I could avoid it, but my AC was as dead as dentacoin. Living in Southern California with a wife going through "the change" gave me no alternative.

The guy I found on SearXNG showed up in an unmarked van. He had a beard. He was not "a closer." He was an actual HVAC technician. He tried cleaning my unit made in the same year Weezer released their Blue album. He said he coukd jerry rig it to get it working for another few months, but the machine is on it's last days. He said a newer unit would also be more efficient so I asked him about the energy like a bitcoiner.

"How many kilowatt hours does it cost me to run my AC versus a new AC?"

I don't remember the exact answer, but I asked all three companies. He was the only one that new how to find out. He also happened to be the cheapest, but I would have bought a new AC from this guy even if he wasn't.

I told him I made a space heater out of a bitcoin miner. He had no idea this was possible, but he at least pretended to find it interesting. That's why I use SearXNG to find tradesmen. It's better than Yelp.

If you would like to try my instance of SearXNG, check it out.

523FeCpi9Gx4nR9NmSFIMEaYcI5Q4WmhYHPEPaEah84=

To decrypt it, use the key behind the paywall at:

https://8gwifi.org/CipherFunctions.jsp

npub1marc26z8nh3xkj5rcx7ufkatvx6ueqhp5vfw9v5teq26z254renshtf3g0

882785

merch

Follow me on nostr.

All of my work is available under the Creative Commons 0 licence. If you would like to try my instance of Searxng and do not wish to support my work, find me on habla.news by searching my npub. You can find all of my work there(including encryption keys)free of charge.

Paywall On Substack

abdominal.savior.repaint

Will decrypt this ciphertext: 523FeCpi9Gx4nR9NmSFIMEaYcI5Q4WmhYHPEPaEah84=

Which will reveal my instance of SearXNG at

https://searxng.marc26z.com/

Subscribe on Subtack

@ ec42c765:328c0600

この記事は前回の内容を把握している人向けに書いています（特にNostrエクステンション（NIP-07）導入）

前回：Nostrのカスタム絵文字の使い方

手順

1. 登録する画像を用意する
2. 画像をweb上にアップロードする
3. 絵文字セットに登録する

1. 登録する画像を用意する

以下のような方法で用意してください。

• 画像編集ソフト等を使って自分で作成する
• 絵文字作成サイトを使う（絵文字ジェネレーター、MEGAMOJI など）
• フリー画像を使う（いらすとや など）

データ量削減

Nostrでは画像をそのまま表示するクライアントが多いので、データ量が大きな画像をそのまま使うとモバイル通信時などに負担がかかります。

データ量を増やさないためにサイズやファイル形式を変更することをおすすめします。

以下は私のおすすめです。 * サイズ：正方形 128×128 ピクセル、長方形 任意の横幅×128 ピクセル * ファイル形式：webp形式（webp変換おすすめサイト toimg） * 単色、単純な画像の場合：png形式（webpにするとむしろサイズが大きくなる）

その他

• 背景透過画像
• ダークモード、ライトモード両方で見やすい色

がおすすめです。

2. 画像をweb上にアップロードする

よく分からなければ emojito からのアップロードで問題ないです。
普段使っている画像アップロード先があるならそれでも構いません。
気になる方はアップロード先を適宜選んでください。

既に投稿されたカスタム絵文字の画像に対して

• 削除も差し替えもできない → emojito など
• 削除できるが差し替えはできない → Gyazo、nostrcheck.meなど
• 削除も差し替えもできる → GitHub 、セルフホスティングなど

これらは既にNostr上に投稿されたカスタム絵文字の画像を後から変更できるかどうかを指します。
どの方法でも新しく使われるカスタム絵文字を変更することは可能です。
同一のカスタム絵文字セットに同一のショートコードで別の画像を登録する形で対応できます。

3. 絵文字セットに登録する

emojito から登録します。

右上のアイコン → + New emoji set から新規の絵文字セットを作成できます。

① 絵文字セット名を入力

基本的にカスタム絵文字はカスタム絵文字セットを作り、ひとまとまりにして登録します。

一度作った絵文字セットに後から絵文字を追加することもできます。

② 画像をアップロードまたは画像URLを入力

emojitoから画像をアップロードする場合、ファイル名に日本語などの2バイト文字が含まれているとアップロードがエラーになるようです。

その場合はファイル名を適当な英数字などに変更してください。

③ 絵文字のショートコードを入力

ショートコードは絵文字を呼び出す時に使用する場合があります。

他のカスタム絵文字と被っても問題ありませんが選択時に複数表示されて支障が出る可能性があります。

他と被りにくく長くなりすぎないショートコードが良いかもしれません。

ショートコードに使えるのは半角の英数字とアンダーバーのみです。

④ 追加

Add を押してもまだ作成完了にはなりません。

一度に絵文字を複数登録できます。

最後に右上の Save を押すと作成完了です。

画面が切り替わるので、右側の Options から Bookmark を選択するとそのカスタム絵文字セットを自分で使えるようになります。

既存の絵文字セットを編集するには Options から Edit を選択します。

以上です。

---

仕様

NIP-30 Custom Emoji

NIP-30 カスタム絵文字（和訳）

@ 291c75d9:37f1bfbe

In 1727, a 21-year-old Benjamin Franklin gathered a dozen men in Philadelphia for a bold experiment in intellectual and civic growth. Every Friday night, this group—known as the Junto, from the Spanish juntar ("to join")—met in a tavern or private home to discuss "Morals, Politics, or Natural Philosophy (science)." Far from a casual social club, the Junto was a secret society dedicated to mutual improvement, respectful discourse, and community betterment. What began as a small gathering of tradesmen and thinkers would leave a lasting mark on Franklin’s life and colonial America.

Printers are educated in the belief that when men differ in opinion, both sides ought equally to have the advantage of being heard by the public, and that when Truth and Error have fair play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter.

- Benjamin Franklin

The Junto operated under a clear set of rules, detailed by Franklin in his Autobiography:

"The rules that I drew up required that every member, in his turn, should produce one or more queries on any point of Morals, Politics, or Natural Philosophy, to be discuss’d by the company; and once in three months produce and read an essay of his own writing, on any subject he pleased. Our debates were to be under the direction of a president, and to be conducted in the sincere spirit of inquiry after truth, without fondness for dispute, or desire of victory; and, to prevent warmth [heatedness], all expressions of positiveness in opinions, or direct contradiction, were after some time made contraband and prohibited under small pecuniary penalties [monetary fines]."

These guidelines emphasized collaboration over competition. Members were expected to contribute questions or essays, sparking discussions that prioritized truth over ego. To keep debates civil, the group even imposed small fines for overly assertive or contradictory behavior—a practical nudge toward humility and open-mindedness. (Yes, I believe that is an ass tax!)

Rather than admitting new members, Franklin encouraged existing ones to form their own discussion groups. This created a decentralized network of groups ("private relays," as I think of them), echoing the structure of modern platforms like NOSTR—while preserving the Junto’s exclusivity and privacy.

From the beginning, they made it a rule to keep these meetings secret, without applications or admittance of new members. Instead, Franklin encouraged members to form their own groups—in a way acting as private relays of sorts. (I say "private" because they continued to keep the Junto secret, even with these new groups.)

Membership: A Diverse Circle United by Values

The Junto’s twelve founding members came from varied walks of life—printers, surveyors, shoemakers, and clerks—yet shared a commitment to self-improvement. Franklin, though the youngest (around 21 when the group formed), led the Junto with a vision of collective growth. To join, candidates faced a simple vetting process, answering four key questions:

1. Have you any particular disrespect for any present members? Answer: I have not.
2. Do you sincerely declare that you love mankind in general, of what profession or religion soever? Answer: I do.
3. Do you think any person ought to be harmed in his body, name, or goods, for mere speculative opinions, or his external way of worship? Answer: No.
4. Do you love truth for truth’s sake, and will you endeavor impartially to find and receive it yourself and communicate it to others? Answer: Yes.

These criteria reveal the Junto’s core values: respect, tolerance, and an unwavering pursuit of truth. They ensured that members brought not just intellect but also character to the table—placing dialogue as the priority.

One should also note the inspiration from the "Dry Club" of John Locke, William Popple, and Benjamin Furly in the 1690s. They too required affirmation to:

1. Whether he loves all men, of what profession or religion soever?
2. Whether he thinks no person ought to be harmed in his body, name, or goods, for mere speculative opinions, or his external way of worship?
3. Whether he loves and seeks truth for truth’s sake; and will endeavor impartially to find and receive it himself, and to communicate it to others?

And they agreed: "That no person or opinion be unhandsomely reflected on; but every member behave himself with all the temper, judgment, modesty, and discretion he is master of."

The Discussions: 24 Questions to Spark Insight

Franklin crafted a list of 24 questions to guide the Junto’s conversations, ranging from personal anecdotes to civic concerns. These prompts showcase the group’s intellectual breadth. Here are some of my favorites:

Hath any citizen in your knowledge failed in his business lately, and what have you heard of the cause?

Have you lately heard of any citizen’s thriving well, and by what means?

Do you know of any fellow citizen who has lately done a worthy action, deserving praise and imitation?

Do you think of anything at present in which the Junto may be serviceable to mankind, their country, friends, or themselves?

Have you lately observed any defect in the laws of your country, which it would be proper to move the legislature for an amendment?

Do you know of any deserving young beginner lately set up, whom it lies in the power of the Junto any way to encourage?

(Read them all here.)

Note the keen attention to success and failure, and the reflection on both. Attention was often placed on the community and individual improvement beyond the members of the group. These questions encouraged members to share knowledge, reflect on virtues and vices, and propose solutions to real-world problems. The result? Discussions that didn’t just end at the tavern door but inspired tangible community improvements.

The Junto’s Legacy: America’s First Lending Library

One of the Junto’s most enduring contributions to Philadelphia—and indeed, to the American colonies—was the creation of the first lending library in 1731. Born from the group’s commitment to mutual improvement and knowledge-sharing, this library became a cornerstone of public education and intellectual life in the community.

The idea for the library emerged naturally from the Junto’s discussions. Members, who came from diverse backgrounds but shared a passion for learning, recognized that their own access to books was often limited and costly—and they referred to them often. To address this, they proposed pooling their personal collections to create a shared resource. This collaborative effort allowed them—and eventually the broader public—to access a wider range of books than any individual could afford alone.

The library operated on a simple yet revolutionary principle: knowledge should be available to all, regardless of wealth or status. By creating a lending system, the Junto democratized access to information, fostering a culture of self-education and curiosity. This was especially significant at a time when books were scarce and formal education was not universally accessible.

The success of the Junto’s library inspired similar initiatives across the colonies, laying the groundwork for the public library system we know today. It also reflected the group’s broader mission: to serve not just its members but the entire community. The library became a symbol of the Junto’s belief in the power of education to uplift individuals and society alike.

With roots extending back to the founding of the Society in 1743, the Library of the American Philosophical Society houses over thirteen million manuscripts, 350,000 volumes and bound periodicals, 250,000 images, and thousands of hours of audiotape. The Library’s holdings make it one of the premier institutions for documenting the history of the American Revolution and Founding, the study of natural history in the 18th and 19th centuries, the study of evolution and genetics, quantum mechanics, and the development of cultural anthropology, among others.

The American Philosophical Society Library continues today. I hope to visit it myself in the future.

Freedom, for Community

Comparing the Junto to Nostr shows how the tools of community and debate evolve with time. Both prove that people crave spaces to connect, share, and grow—whether in a colonial tavern or a digital relay. Yet their differences reveal trade-offs: the Junto’s structure offered depth and focus but capped its reach, while Nostr’s openness promises scale at the cost of order.

In a sense, Nostr feels like the Junto’s modern echo—faster, bigger, and unbound by gates or rules. Franklin might admire its ambition, even if he’d raise an eyebrow at its messiness. For us, the comparison underscores a timeless truth: no matter the medium, the drive to seek truth and build community endures.

---

The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (1771–1790, pub. 1791)

http://www.benjamin-franklin-history.org/junto-club/

Benjamin Franklin, Political, Miscellaneous, and Philosophical Pieces, ed. Benjamin Vaughan (London: 1779), pp. 533–536.

"Rules of a Society" in The Remains of John Locke, Esq. (1714), p. 113

npubpro

@ 1d7ff02a:d042b5be

Source: https://youtu.be/e_Y9tI4dALA?si=F5wXRlpM0YulbhmY

Twitter Origins and Evolution

Twitter began as Dorsey's attempt to better understand cities by visualizing what people were doing and thinking (00:35-02:27) Key features like @mentions, hashtags, and retweets were invented by users, not the company (04:06-05:24) Dorsey realized Twitter was becoming significant when he saw politicians using it during Obama's first address to the nation (06:29-07:44)

Reflections on Twitter/X

Regrets monetizing too quickly through advertising rather than exploring better business models (12:19-13:05) Believes Twitter should have been built as an open protocol rather than a centralized company (13:05-14:23) Advocates for user choice in algorithms rather than having companies decide what content users see (15:35-18:31)

Decentralized Social Media

Started Blue Sky while at Twitter to create a decentralized social media protocol (22:51-24:07) Later focused on Nostr, which he believes has a better development model similar to Linux (24:07-25:57) Believes the future of social media includes agent-driven systems and greater user agency (29:01-29:41)

Block and Bitcoin

Block (formerly Square) focuses on economic empowerment through financial tools (32:08-32:47) Sees Bitcoin as essential for creating an internet protocol for moving money (33:25-35:09) Believes Bitcoin will eventually move beyond being just a store of value to become a currency for cross-border remittances (35:09-36:58)

Entrepreneurship Philosophy

Never intended to be an entrepreneur but wanted to build useful products (40:22-42:02) Compares entrepreneurship to art - knowing how to express ideas and where to set boundaries (42:02-43:09) Deals with rejection by viewing all experiences as teachers with lessons to offer (43:44-44:55)

Personal Habits

Practices meditation daily and previously did 10-day silent retreats (45:30-46:43) Creates daily lists of both what to do and what not to do (47:21-48:28) Eats only once a day to save time and better appreciate food (51:29-52:39) Dedicates morning hours to learning difficult subjects like quantum physics (48:28-49:40)

His advice to young people: observe everything, take in information, and don't worry about immediately reacting to it (52:39-53:00).

Noteable Quotes

• On Twitter's co-creation with users: "What's interesting about Twitter is it wasn't really us who determined where it went, it was the people using it." (04:06)

• On algorithms: "I think it's less about free speech, I think it's more about do we get to choose how the algorithms are programming us, because the algorithms are definitively programming us." (15:35)

• On rejections and setbacks: "Everything I encounter, everything I experience is a teacher and they have some lesson for me, and it's up to me whether I decide to learn from it or not." (43:44)

• On entrepreneurship as art: "It's expression, it's knowing when to end something, it's knowing what the chapters are and where the piece begins and where it ends." (42:02)

• On Bitcoin's potential: "Bitcoin is over close to 16 years old right now. It's never gone down, it's never had a security issue, it has no leader, it has a completely open roadmap, and it's determined by a consensus development model." (36:18)

• On learning: "I think people skip the observing phase too often. I don't think people are good listeners. I don't think people have honed their ability to observe the world and observe nature and observe how things work." (50:19)

• On his advice to young people: "Observe everything, like take everything in, get love information, love receiving information, don't worry about reacting to it, don't worry about memorizing it, don't worry about doing anything with it at all, just be open." (52:39)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

gravity

IPFS is nice as a personal archiving tool (edit: it's not). You store a bunch of data and make it available to the public.

The problem is that no one will ever know you have that data, therefore you need a place to publish it somewhere. Gravity was an attempt of being the tool for this job.

It was a website that showcased the collections from users, and it was also a command-line client that used your IPFS keys for authentication and allowed you to paste IPFS URIs and names and descriptions.

The site was intended to be easy to run so you could have multiple stellar bodies aggregating content and interact with them all in a standardized manner.

It also had an ActivityPub/"fediverse" integration so people could follow Gravity server users from Mastodon and friends and see new data they published as "tweets".

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/gravity

See also

• How IPFS is broken
• litepub

@ fe32298e:20516265

Today I learned how to install NVapi to monitor my GPUs in Home Assistant.

NVApi is a lightweight API designed for monitoring NVIDIA GPU utilization and enabling automated power management. It provides real-time GPU metrics, supports integration with tools like Home Assistant, and offers flexible power management and PCIe link speed management based on workload and thermal conditions.

• GPU Utilization Monitoring: Utilization, memory usage, temperature, fan speed, and power consumption.
• Automated Power Limiting: Adjusts power limits dynamically based on temperature thresholds and total power caps, configurable per GPU or globally.
• Cross-GPU Coordination: Total power budget applies across multiple GPUs in the same system.
• PCIe Link Speed Management: Controls minimum and maximum PCIe link speeds with idle thresholds for power optimization.
• Home Assistant Integration: Uses the built-in RESTful platform and template sensors.

Getting the Data

sudo apt install golang-go git clone https://github.com/sammcj/NVApi.git cd NVapi go run main.go -port 9999 -rate 1 curl http://localhost:9999/gpu

Response for a single GPU: [ { "index": 0, "name": "NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090", "gpu_utilisation": 0, "memory_utilisation": 0, "power_watts": 16, "power_limit_watts": 450, "memory_total_gb": 23.99, "memory_used_gb": 0.46, "memory_free_gb": 23.52, "memory_usage_percent": 2, "temperature": 38, "processes": [], "pcie_link_state": "not managed" } ]

Response for multiple GPUs: [ { "index": 0, "name": "NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090", "gpu_utilisation": 0, "memory_utilisation": 0, "power_watts": 14, "power_limit_watts": 350, "memory_total_gb": 24, "memory_used_gb": 0.43, "memory_free_gb": 23.57, "memory_usage_percent": 2, "temperature": 36, "processes": [], "pcie_link_state": "not managed" }, { "index": 1, "name": "NVIDIA RTX A4000", "gpu_utilisation": 0, "memory_utilisation": 0, "power_watts": 10, "power_limit_watts": 140, "memory_total_gb": 15.99, "memory_used_gb": 0.56, "memory_free_gb": 15.43, "memory_usage_percent": 3, "temperature": 41, "processes": [], "pcie_link_state": "not managed" } ]

Start at Boot

Create /etc/systemd/system/nvapi.service:

``` [Unit] Description=Run NVapi After=network.target

[Service] Type=simple Environment="GOPATH=/home/ansible/go" WorkingDirectory=/home/ansible/NVapi ExecStart=/usr/bin/go run main.go -port 9999 -rate 1 Restart=always User=ansible

Environment="GPU_TEMP_CHECK_INTERVAL=5"

Environment="GPU_TOTAL_POWER_CAP=400"

Environment="GPU_0_LOW_TEMP=40"

Environment="GPU_0_MEDIUM_TEMP=70"

Environment="GPU_0_LOW_TEMP_LIMIT=135"

Environment="GPU_0_MEDIUM_TEMP_LIMIT=120"

Environment="GPU_0_HIGH_TEMP_LIMIT=100"

Environment="GPU_1_LOW_TEMP=45"

Environment="GPU_1_MEDIUM_TEMP=75"

Environment="GPU_1_LOW_TEMP_LIMIT=140"

Environment="GPU_1_MEDIUM_TEMP_LIMIT=125"

Environment="GPU_1_HIGH_TEMP_LIMIT=110"

[Install] WantedBy=multi-user.target ```

Home Assistant

Add to Home Assistant configuration.yaml and restart HA (completely).

For a single GPU, this works: ``` sensor: - platform: rest name: MYPC GPU Information resource: http://mypc:9999 method: GET headers: Content-Type: application/json value_template: "{{ value_json[0].index }}" json_attributes: - name - gpu_utilisation - memory_utilisation - power_watts - power_limit_watts - memory_total_gb - memory_used_gb - memory_free_gb - memory_usage_percent - temperature scan_interval: 1 # seconds

• platform: template sensors: mypc_gpu_0_gpu: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} GPU" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'gpu_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_0_memory: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} Memory" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'memory_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_0_power: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} Power" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'power_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_0_power_limit: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} Power Limit" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'power_limit_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_0_temperature: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} Temperature" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'temperature') }}" unit_of_measurement: "°C" ```

For multiple GPUs: ``` rest: scan_interval: 1 resource: http://mypc:9999 sensor: - name: "MYPC GPU0 Information" value_template: "{{ value_json[0].index }}" json_attributes_path: "$.0" json_attributes: - name - gpu_utilisation - memory_utilisation - power_watts - power_limit_watts - memory_total_gb - memory_used_gb - memory_free_gb - memory_usage_percent - temperature - name: "MYPC GPU1 Information" value_template: "{{ value_json[1].index }}" json_attributes_path: "$.1" json_attributes: - name - gpu_utilisation - memory_utilisation - power_watts - power_limit_watts - memory_total_gb - memory_used_gb - memory_free_gb - memory_usage_percent - temperature

• platform: template sensors: mypc_gpu_0_gpu: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 GPU" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'gpu_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_0_memory: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 Memory" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'memory_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_0_power: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 Power" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'power_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_0_power_limit: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 Power Limit" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'power_limit_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_0_temperature: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 Temperature" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'temperature') }}" unit_of_measurement: "C"

• platform: template sensors: mypc_gpu_1_gpu: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 GPU" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'gpu_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_1_memory: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 Memory" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'memory_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_1_power: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 Power" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'power_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_1_power_limit: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 Power Limit" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'power_limit_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_1_temperature: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 Temperature" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'temperature') }}" unit_of_measurement: "C"

```

Basic entity card: type: entities entities: - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_gpu secondary_info: last-updated - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_memory secondary_info: last-updated - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_power secondary_info: last-updated - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_power_limit secondary_info: last-updated - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_temperature secondary_info: last-updated

Ansible Role

```

• name: install go become: true package: name: golang-go state: present

• name: git clone git: repo: "https://github.com/sammcj/NVApi.git" dest: "/home/ansible/NVapi" update: yes force: true

go run main.go -port 9999 -rate 1

• name: install systemd service become: true copy: src: nvapi.service dest: /etc/systemd/system/nvapi.service

• name: Reload systemd daemons, enable, and restart nvapi become: true systemd: name: nvapi daemon_reload: yes enabled: yes state: restarted ```

@ c48e29f0:26e14c11

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STRATEGIC BITCOIN RESERVE AND UNITED STATES DIGITAL ASSET STOCKPILE EXECUTIVE ORDER March 6, 2025

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Background.

Bitcoin is the original cryptocurrency. The Bitcoin protocol permanently caps the total supply of bitcoin (BTC) at 21 million coins, and has never been hacked. As a result of its scarcity and security, Bitcoin is often referred to as “digital gold”. Because there is a fixed supply of BTC, there is a strategic advantage to being among the first nations to create a strategic bitcoin reserve. The United States Government currently holds a significant amount of BTC, but has not implemented a policy to maximize BTC’s strategic position as a unique store of value in the global financial system. Just as it is in our country’s interest to thoughtfully manage national ownership and control of any other resource, our Nation must harness, not limit, the power of digital assets for our prosperity.

Sec. 2. Policy.

It is the policy of the United States to establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. It is further the policy of the United States to establish a United States Digital Asset Stockpile that can serve as a secure account for orderly and strategic management of the United States’ other digital asset holdings.

Sec. 3. Creation and Administration of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile.

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish an office to administer and maintain control of custodial accounts collectively known as the “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve,” capitalized with all BTC held by the Department of the Treasury that was finally forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings or in satisfaction of any civil money penalty imposed by any executive department or agency (agency) and that is not needed to satisfy requirements under 31 U.S.C. 9705 or released pursuant to subsection (d) of this section (Government BTC). Within 30 days of the date of this order, each agency shall review its authorities to transfer any Government BTC held by it to the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and shall submit a report reflecting the result of that review to the Secretary of the Treasury. Government BTC deposited into the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve shall not be sold and shall be maintained as reserve assets of the United States utilized to meet governmental objectives in accordance with applicable law.

(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish an office to administer and maintain control of custodial accounts collectively known as the “United States Digital Asset Stockpile,” capitalized with all digital assets owned by the Department of the Treasury, other than BTC, that were finally forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings and that are not needed to satisfy requirements under 31 U.S.C. 9705 or released pursuant to subsection (d) of this section (Stockpile Assets). Within 30 days of the date of this order, each agency shall review its authorities to transfer any Stockpile Assets held by it to the United States Digital Asset Stockpile and shall submit a report reflecting the result of that review to the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury shall determine strategies for responsible stewardship of the United States Digital Asset Stockpile in accordance with applicable law.

(c) The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce shall develop strategies for acquiring additional Government BTC provided that such strategies are budget neutral and do not impose incremental costs on United States taxpayers. However, the United States Government shall not acquire additional Stockpile Assets other than in connection with criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings or in satisfaction of any civil money penalty imposed by any agency without further executive or legislative action.

(d) “Government Digital Assets” means all Government BTC and all Stockpile Assets. The head of each agency shall not sell or otherwise dispose of any Government Digital Assets, except in connection with the Secretary of the Treasury’s exercise of his lawful authority and responsible stewardship of the United States Digital Asset Stockpile pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, or pursuant to an order from a court of competent jurisdiction, as required by law, or in cases where the Attorney General or other relevant agency head determines that the Government Digital Assets (or the proceeds from the sale or disposition thereof) can and should: (i) be returned to identifiable and verifiable victims of crime; (ii) be used for law enforcement operations;
(iii) be equitably shared with State and local law enforcement partners; or (iv) be released to satisfy requirements under 31 U.S.C. 9705, 28 U.S.C. 524(c), 18 U.S.C. 981, or 21 U.S.C. 881.

(e) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury shall deliver an evaluation of the legal and investment considerations for establishing and managing the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile going forward, including the accounts in which the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile should be located and the need for any legislation to operationalize any aspect of this order or the proper management and administration of such accounts.

Sec. 4. Accounting.

Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall provide the Secretary of the Treasury and the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets with a full accounting of all Government Digital Assets in such agency’s possession, including any information regarding the custodial accounts in which such Government Digital Assets are currently held that would be necessary to facilitate a transfer of the Government Digital Assets to the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve or the United States Digital Asset Stockpile. If such agency holds no Government Digital Assets, such agency shall confirm such fact to the Secretary of the Treasury and the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets within 30 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 5. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE, March 6, 2025

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

TiddlyWiki remoteStorage

TiddlyWiki is very good and useful, but since at this time I used multiple computers during the week, it wouldn't work for me to use it as a single file on my computer, so I had to hack its internal tiddler saving mechanism to instead save the raw data of each tiddler to remoteStorage and load them from that place also (ok, there was in theory a plugin system, but I had to read and understand the entire unformatted core source-code anyway).

There was also a server that fetched tiddlywikis from anyone's remoteStorage buckets (after authorization) and served these to the world, a quick and nice way to publish a TiddlyWiki -- which is a problem all people in TiddlyWiki struggle against.

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/tiddlywiki-remotestorage
• https://tiddly.alhur.es/

See also

• hledger-web
• LessPass remoteStorage

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Democracia na América

Alexis de Tocqueville escreveu um livro só elogiando o sistema político dos Estados Unidos. E mesmo tendo sido assim, e mesmo tendo escrito o seu livro quase 100 anos antes do mais precoce sinal de decadência da democracia na América, percebeu coisas que até hoje quase ninguém percebe: o mandato da suprema corte é um enorme poder, uma força centralizadora, imune ao voto popular e com poderes altamente indefinidos e por isso mesmo ilimitados.

Não sei se ele concluiu, porém, que não existe nem pode existir balanço perfeito entre poderes. Sempre haverá furos.

De qualquer maneira, o homem é um gênio apenas por ter percebido isso e outras coisas, como o fato da figura do presidente, também obviamente um elemento centralizador, não ser tão poderosa quanto a figura de um rei da França, por exemplo. Mas ao mesmo tempo, por entre o véu de elogios (sempre muito sóbrios) deixou escapar que provavelmente também achava que não poderia durar para sempre a fraqueza do cargo de presidente.

• Democracy as a failed open-network protocol
• Família e propriedade
• Liberalismo oitocentista

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

The financial system has long relied on traditional banking methods, but emerging technologies like Bitcoin and Nostr are paving the way for a new era of financial interactions.

Secure Savings with Bitcoin:

Bitcoin wallets can act as secure savings accounts, offering users control and ownership over their funds without relying on third parties.

Instant Settlements with the Lightning Network:

The Lightning Network can replace traditional settlement systems, such as ACH or wire transfers, by enabling instant, low-cost transactions.

Face-to-Face Transactions with Ecash:

Ecash could offer a fee-free option for smaller, everyday transactions, complementing the Lightning Network for larger payments.

Automated Billing with Nostr Wallet Connect:

Nostr Wallet Connect could revolutionize automated billing, allowing users to set payment limits and offering more control over subscriptions and recurring expenses.

Conclusion:

Combining Bitcoin and Nostr technologies could create a more efficient, user-centric financial system that empowers individuals and businesses alike.

@ 2685c45c:8bc01bfd

1. Abstract

A society is a group of individuals (members) who abide by common rules.
A democracy is a society where members strive for rules defined with the maximum consciousness and consensus.

To increase awareness, such a society must be completely transparent.

The key challenge is to find the most consensual set of rules. Members could themselves decide:

• Who to admit or exclude from membership
• Which rules to submit for approval
• How to approve proposed rules

The proposed software does not:

• Interpret the meaning of the rules
• Prevent from having inconsistent sets of rules
• Impose a governance structure

Rather, it could be viewed as:

• A framework for defining and running a society (a constitution)
• A ledger which records all rules, votes and members in one place

A client accessing the blockchain can, at any time, know:

• The rights and duties of any member
• The connections between members
• The voting history of any member

In summary, the software enables a web of trust on a blockchain used for voting.

2. A blockchain

2.1 Why using a blockchain

The core of any society lies in maintaining an up-to-date registry of its members (1 member = 1 pubkey), along with their respective rights and duties. This information is recorded on a distributed blockchain.

The advantages of using a distributed blockchain are:

• No single central authority/server in charge of publishing society updates
• Each block is a time unit to define anteriorities and thereby freeze the state of the society

Unlike Bitcoin, there is no financial incentive to participate in the network. Instead, stakeholders may be motivated by their desire:

• To support a society
• To join a society
• To remain part of a society

2.2 Structure of a block

Members issue objects (as bitcoiners issue transactions) that are first stored in a mempool, prior to being 'blockchainized'.

A Block has three parts:

• Header
  • Hash of the signature of the preceding block
  • Object counter
  • Merkle root of the below objects
• Content
  • All objects sorted
• Footer
  • Signature of the block header (by the author of the block)

Unlike Bitcoin:

• There is no nonce
• Objects must be arranged following an hard-coded sorting method
• A block must have at least one object (no upper limit: no block size)
• A block must be signed by its author
• The hash of the signature constitutes the 'chain' connecting the 'blocks'

@readers

We call 'block hash' the hash of the block's signature.

In this paper, for clarity, the ideas of object's issuer and author are one.

2.3 Consensus mechanism

Like in Bitcoin, the branch with the most leading zeros in its block hashes is the legitimate branch. To prevent spam, a block (at height n) will be relayed only if its hash is less than the one currently stored at height n.

Block authors may choose to omit certain (available in mempool) objects from a block, as they would increase the block hash value. However, statistically, these excluded objects will contribute to lower a future block hash.

Block time is agreed upon by members. Block authors should stick to this pace. Those who don't may be causing inconvenience for others, but won't compromise the consensus. Repeat offenders can be easily identified through their block signatures and could get banned.

2.4 Consensus attack

An attack on the consensus can:

• Censor a controversial object
• Disrupt the chronology of the blockchainized objects

A block author, attempting to manipulate the blockchain, can compute a malicious object solely designed to reduce his block hash. This tactic ensures that the maliciously created block will be accepted as part of the legitimate branch. This attack could be repeated on all future blocks. Some other attacks on the consensus are possible.

A trustless blockchain requires POW. But, the proposed blockchain is not trustless as it records a web of trust. When needed, members will vote for the block they consider legitimate and it will contravene the default consensus rule. Actually, the real risk lies in members not trusting each other.

3. Objects

3.1 Common format

Objects are JSONs.

There are:

• 5 different objects that can be recorded in the blockchain
• 1 pseudo object that constitutes the blockchain

The JSONs have standardized keys, known as 'attributes'. One of these is called 'core', which contains a further dictionary with its own standardized keys, known as 'fields'.

@readers

• 'Pop' is abbreviated from 'population'
• 'Admin' is abbreviated from 'administration'

3.2 Link

A link is created by 2 members signing their pubkeys. The web of trust comprises all these links. It serves as a civil registry.

3.3 Admin

An admin:

• Grants some members permission to issue some objects (even other admins)
• Defines criteria for the issued objects approval (votes requirements)

The set of approved admins defines the constitution of the society.

Any core of an admin must have these fields:

• Member: Pop of members allowed to issue objects
• Boundary: Limitations on the issued objects
• Approval: Vote requirements for the issued objects approval

3.4 Law

A law is a human interpretable free text which applies to a defined pop of members.

Any core of a law must have these fields:

• Member: Pop of members on whom the law applies
• Content: The content of the law

3.5 Vote

A vote may concern any object (even another vote).

Any core of a vote must have these fields:

• Object: Pop of objects being voted
• Side: The 'yes' or 'no' vote itself

If a member votes twice on the same object, only the first one will count. To counteract this, the member would need to void his first vote.

3.6 Void

A void is used to temporarily or permanently ignore objects (even other voids).

Any core of a void must have these fields:

• Object: Pop of objects to be ignored
• Duration: Time period expressed in blocks, can be infinite

Modifying an already blockchainized object requires to:

1. Void the object
2. Issue a newly created object with the wished modifications

Once an admin is voided:

• The children objects are unaffected
• The voided admin cannot issue any further object

The genesis admin, JSON object automatically created at system setup, grants full permissions to founding members. It allows them to create the first admins. Once this has been done, the genesis admin should be permanently voided.

A member exists only by his links. Voiding all these means banning this member.

@readers:

• 'Member pop' means 'pop of members'
• 'Object pop' means 'pop of objects'

3.7 Block

A block is a pseudo object as it is not recorded in the blockchain but constitutes it.

Like other objects:

• An admin can grant some members permission to issue blocks
• Issuing votes or voids concerning blocks can be allowed

But unlike other objects:

• Blocks do not possess explicit attributes like other JSON objects
• The program implicitly assigns a 'type' attribute to blocks
• Approved and voided blocks impact the default consensus rule

Actually, the program identifies the legitimate branch according to the consensus rule (maximum cumulative heading 0), with these constraints:

• All approved blocks must be part of this branch
• This branch must not pass through any voided block

In case of fork attack:

• Block voters can vote for the right forking block
• Block voiders could reconsider this decision voiding the approved forking block (trust crisis)

@devs:

Approving/voiding blocks can lead to a rollback. Only genesis block is not approvable/voidable.

4. Attributes

4.1 Path

Each object originates from the core of an admin which originates from the core of a parent admin. This continues until the genesis admin is reached. All objects and cores have an id. The path of an object A consists of all these ids: from the genesis admin till the id of A.

Two blockchainized objects can't have the same path. In order to reduce conflicts, it can be advisable to choose large random numbers as ids.

4.2 Type

An object can have only one type.

A block always has the default type 'block'. A JSON object can't have this type.

4.3 Author

This attribute stores the list of pubkeys of the members who wrote the object.

Except for links, which must have exactly two authors, other objects can have from 1 to n authors.

4.4 Label

This attribute allows members to tag objects. Members shall agree on standardized tags: tax, justice... They could even tag objects as belonging to an ideology or party. It would ease the work for voters who need guidance.

4.5 Context

In addition to storing and relaying objects, servers can optionally store aside free texts and relay them as well. They provide explanations (such as contextual information) about the issued objects. This attribute enables linking a free text (through its hash) to an object.

4.6 Core

All objects possess between 1 and n cores - though links which do not have one. They define the political essence of the objects. Practically, a core is a dictionary where allowed fields (keys) depend on the object type.

4.7 Signature

Before object issuance, each member whose the pubkey is in the author list must sign all previously described attributes. This attribute stores the list of these signatures.

4.8 Digest

| level | key | value | uniqueness | mandatory | | - | - | - | - | - | | 1 | path | list of ids | yes | yes | | 1 | type | 'link' or 'admin' or 'law' or 'vote' or 'void' | yes | yes | | 1 | author | list of pubkeys | yes | yes | | 1 | label | string of plain word(s) | yes | no | | 1 | context | string of an hash | yes | no | | 1 | core-n | dict of fields | no | yes, except for links | | 1 | signature | list of signatures | yes | yes |

@devs:

In this paper, a list refers to a string where items are separated by commas without any blank space.

Such lists are well suited for regex parsing.

4.9 Example

The object below describes an admin with the id 29 originating from:

• The core 3 of the admin 7 which originates from
• The core 0 of the admin 0 (the genesis admin)

This admin:

• Is created by two members
• Is tagged with the words 'trade' and 'justice'
• Has a context file associated
• Has two signatures

{ 'path': '0-0,7-3,29', 'type': 'admin', 'author': '15a3b72c,b52d6e1a', 'label': 'trade justice', 'context': '5bc953e0', 'core-0': <This core allows to issue laws>, 'core-1': <This core allows to issue votes concerning the core-0 laws>, 'signature': '827d65b7,3c65da6b' }

5. Member field

5.1 Applications

The field member defines a member pop. It is used in:

• Admin cores: Define who can issue objects
• Law cores: Define who is concerned by the law

5.2 Composing pops

Member pops can be composed using algebra of sets. Two keys are used:

• Operand: A member pop
• Operator: An operator (arity = 2)

An operand is a dictionary that:

• Defines a basic pop
• Applies methods to this basic pop to adjust it

Operators are either:

• '+': Union: Merge two member pops
• '-': Complement: Subtract from the first pop the members in the second pop
• '&': Intersection: Keep only the members who are in both pops

The simplest composition consists of just one operand. However, as shown in the following example, complex compositions (with priority rules) are also possible:

• The operand-0 pop is the intersection of two other pops
• The final pop is the operand-0 pop minus the operand-1 pop

'core-0': |--'member': |--'operand-0': | |--'operand-10': ... | |--'operator-10': '&' | |--'operand-11': ... |--'operator-0': '-' |--'operand-1': ...

5.3 Defining a basic pop

These keys define a basic pop:

• Base: Set a starting point to define the pop
• Value: Define an argument to complete the base key
• Future: Define whether the pop will evolve after object blockchainization

The base key has these possible values:

• Allmembers:
  • Includes all non banned members of the society
  • Useful for widespread rights/duties (i.e., the right to issue links)
  • Omits the value key
• Nomember:
  • Doesn't include any member
  • Useful for giving rights/duties to few members or to members with specific locations in the graph
  • Supposed to be used with the method 'name' to add members to the pop
  • Omits the value key
• Issuing:
  • Includes all members who have issued or co-issued objects belonging to a defined object pop
  • Useful for giving rights/duties to members according to their past actions
  • The value key must store an object pop
• Pointing:
  • Points to an existing member pop
  • Useful for readability
  • The value key must store the path to an admin or law core

The future key has these possible values:

• Dynamic: The pop is recomputed at each new block by the program
• Static: The pop is computed at the time of object blockchainization, only future voided links can still impact it

5.4 Adjusting a basic pop

5.4.1 Common format

These keys define a method:

• Method: The method's name
• Arg: The argument passed to the method

As several methods can be applied to the same basic pop, these keys are suffixed. These suffixes specify the methods order execution.

5.4.2 Name method

It adds or removes the specified members from the basic pop. The arg must be a list of pubkeys prefixed by:

• '+': Add member
• '-': Remove member

The program ignores added members who have been banned.

Two keywords can be used instead of a pubkey:

• @self: It denotes the pubkey(s) of the author(s) of the object
• @center: It denotes the pubkey(s) of the member(s) located at the whole graph center

@thinkers:

Does the center of the web of trust best reflect the values of the society?

5.4.3 Radius method

It adds or removes members from the basic pop (which is a graph) based on how far they are from its center. The arg must be a positive or negative integer:

• n: Radius + n links
• -n: Radius - n links

If given basic pop is a disconnected graph, the method is applied to each subgraph.

@devs:

The distance between 2 members is the minimum number of links to join these 2 members.

The center of a graph is composed of the members who have the smallest distance to all other members.

The radius of a graph is this smallest distance.

5.4.4 Degree method

It adds or removes members from the basic pop according to their number of links within it. This method can be used to exclude members not well integrated within the basic pop.

The arg must be an integer which serves as a comparison:

• n: n or more links
• -n: n or less links

@readers:

An integer which serves as a comparison is called a 'comparator'.

5.5 Digest

| level | key | value | uniqueness | mandatory | | - | - | - | - | - | | 2 | member | dict with below level-3 keys | yes | yes | | 3 | operand-n | dict with below level-4 keys | no | yes | | 4 | base | 'allmembers' or 'nomember' or 'issuing' or 'pointing' | yes | yes | | 4 | value | base='issuing', object pop
base='pointing', path to a core | yes | base='issuing'/'pointing', yes
base='allmembers'/'nomembers', no | | 4 | future | 'dynamic' or 'static' | yes | yes | | 4 | method-n | 'name' or 'radius' or 'degree' | no | no | | 4 | arg-n | method='name', list of +/- prefixed pubkeys
method='radius', integer (-inf,+inf)
method='degree', comparator (-inf,+inf)| no | any method requires an arg | | 3 | operator-n | '+' or '-' or '&' | no | no |

5.6 Examples

The following example shows the union of two pops, forming the final member pop.

The first pop is dynamic: it is re-computed at each new block. It includes:

• All members within 20 hops radius around the graph's center
• With at least 3 links within this 'extended central' pop

The second pop references an existing member pop: the core-1 pop of the law or admin 2, itself originating from the core 0....until the genesis admin. The referenced pop could be dynamic. However, this second pop is static.

'core-0': |--'member': | |--'operand-0': | | |--'core': 'nomember' | | |--'future': 'dynamic' | | |--'method-0': 'name' | | |--'arg-0': '+@center' | | |--'method-1': 'radius' | | |--'arg-1': 20 | | |--'method-2': 'degree' | | |--'arg-2': 3 | |--'operator': '+' | |--'operand-1': | | |--'core': 'pointing' | | |--'future': 'static' | | |--'value': '0-0,5-2,3-0,2-1'

The following example shows a pop comprising a single operand. It includes:

• The object's author(s)
• All his (their) current neighbors up to 5 hops away

'core-0': |--'member': | |--'operand-0': | | |--'core': 'nomember' | | |--'future': 'dynamic' | | |--'method-0': 'name' | | |--'arg-0': '+@self' | | |--'method-1': 'radius' | | |--'arg-1': 5

6. Approval field

6.1 Application

The approval field is used in the admin cores. It specifies voting requirements for issued objects approval.

Approved objects have varying implications depending on their types:

• Link: Only approved links comprise the graph (the web of trust)
• Admin: Only approved admins can issue objects
• Law: Once approved, a law applies to concerned members
• Vote: Only approved votes counts to meet voting requirements
• Void: Once approved, objects concerned by the void are ignored (voided)
• Block: The legitimate branch must pass through the approved blocks

@devs:

Except for laws, approved objects affect program behavior.

6.2 Defining approval requirements

These keys define an approval field:

• Quorum: Minimum percentage of voters required among eligible voters
• Strength: Minimum percentage of 'yes' votes required among all votes

The values of these keys are comparators between 0 and 100. If both values are equal to zero, it means that once blockchainized, the object is approved.

The pop of eligible voters can be spread across multiple admin cores. It can also be dynamic, maintaining a perpetual approval uncertainty.

@thinkers:

Should new eligible voters have the automatic right to challenge existing approved rules ?

6.3 Digest

| level | key | value | uniqueness | mandatory | | - | - | - | - | - | | 2 | approval | dict with below level-3 keys | yes | yes | | 3 | quorum | comparator [0,100] | yes | yes | | 3 | strength | comparator [0,100] | yes | yes |

6.4 Example

In the following example, the approval requirements are:

• At least 50% of the eligible voters must vote
• At least 70% of the votes must be 'yes' votes

'core-0': |--'approval': | |--'quorum': 50 | |--'strength': 70

7. Content field

The content field is used in the law cores. It's a text open to human interpretation defining the content of a law.

| level | key | value | uniqueness | mandatory | | - | - | - | - | - | | 2 | content | free text | yes | yes |

8. Object field

8.1 Applications

The object field defines an object pop. It is used for these objects:

• Vote: Define the objects voted
• Void: Define the objects to ignore

Object pops can be composed in the same way as member pops (same operators).

8.2 Defining an object pop

An object pop is a dictionary where key names mirror some attribute and field names. These keys act as filters (criteria) to select relevant objects.

An object pop includes all objects that:

• Satisfy criteria at attribute level
• Have at least one core that satisfies all criteria at field level

Meeting a criterion depends on its type:

• Regex: Full match with mirrored attribute or field
• Pop: Include mirrored pop

Depending on the criteria, object pops can be static or dynamic. However, issuing votes or voids concerning a dynamic object pop means voting or voiding non yet issued objects! UX should prevent this risk.

8.3 Digest

| level | key | value | uniqueness | mandatory | | - | - | - | - | - | | 2 | object | dict with below level-3 keys | yes | yes | | 3 | operand-n | dict with below level-4 keys | no | yes | | 4 | path | regex | yes | no | | 4 | type | regex | yes | no | | 4 | author | member pop | yes | no | | 4 | label | regex | yes | no | | 4 | member | member pop | yes | no | | 4 | object | object pop | yes | no | | 4 | side | regex | yes | no | | 3 | operator-n | '+' or '-' or '&' | no | no |

8.4 Examples

The following example shows an object pop, including objects:

• Originating from the core 2 of the admin 9 (itself originating from the genesis admin)
• With ids from 0 to 5
• That are voids or laws
• That have the word 'CUSTO' in their labels

'core-0': |--'object': | |--'path': '0-0,9-2,[0-5]' | |--'type': 'void|law' | |--'label': '.*CUSTO.*'

The following example shows an object pop which includes any object originating from the core 2 of the admin 9. It includes eventual admins and their children objects. This kind of dynamic object pops should be used carefully.

'core-0': |--'object': | |--'path': '0-0,9-2,.*'

The following example could be an extract of a vote which concerns voids:

• Originating from the core 5 of the admin 8
• Issued (or co-issued) by any member currently located within a 3-hop radius around the member 4f52da24
• Concerning laws originating from the cores 0 to 4 of the admin 8

'core-0': |--'object': | |--'operand': | | |--'path': '0-0,8-5,[0-9]*' | | |--'type': 'void' | | |--'author': | | | |--'operand': | | | | |--'base': 'nomember' | | | | |--'behavior': 'dynamic' | | | | |--'method-0': 'name' | | | | |--'arg-0': '+4f52da24' | | | | |--'method-1': 'radius' | | | | |--'arg-1': 3 | | |--'object': | | | |--'operand': | | | | |--'path': '0-0,8-[0-4]' | | | | |--'type': 'law'

@thinkers:

A vote concerning voids which concern laws.

Getting the hang of it requires some mental effort!

9. Side field

The side field is used in the vote cores. It tells whether it's a yes or no vote.

| level | key | value | uniqueness | mandatory | | - | - | - | - | - | | 2 | side | 'yes' or 'no' | yes | yes |

10. Duration field

10.1 Application

The duration field is used in void cores. It specifies how long the program ignores the voided object.

10.2 Defining duration

The duration field can have these values:

• 0: Voided objects are forever ignored
• n (with n>0): Voided objects are ignored during n blocks

The timeframe starts after void approval.

10.3 Digest

| level | key | value | uniqueness | mandatory | | - | - | - | - | - | | 2 | duration | integer [0,+inf) | yes | yes |

11. Boundary field

11.1 Application

The boundary field is used in admin cores. It limits the objects that can be issued.

These keys define a boundary field:

• Content: To restrict the content of the issued objects
• Amount: To limit the amount of objects issued

An object that does not fully respect the boundary field will be rejected by the network.

11.2 Restricting content

The content key stores a dictionary where key names mirror some attribute and field names. These keys act as criteria to filter the objects that can be issued. These objects must:

• Satisfy criteria at attribute level
• Have all their cores satisfying criteria at field level

Blocks possess only the type attribute. Therefore, a content restriction on blocks can only allow or forbid issuance.

Meeting a criterion depends on its type:

• Regex: Full match with mirrored attribute or field
• Pop: Include mirrored pop
• Comparator: Respect comparison logic
• Boundary:
  • This criterion type is used to limit the boundary field of a meta-admin
  • A meta-admin is an admin that can generate child admins
  • It consists of the same data as a boundary field
  • All the restrictions of the mirrored boundary field must be more stringent

@devs:

A regex can be more stringent than another one. For example, '[0-9]{2}' is more stringent than '[0-9]+'. Boundary criterion requires to code such a regex assessor.

11.3 Restricting amount

These keys define the amount restriction:

• Scope:
  • Meaning: The below restrictions can be either per member or for the whole member pop
  • Value: Either the string 'each' or the string 'all'
• Maximum:
  • Meaning: Maximum number of issued objects (excluding issued objects voided)
  • Value: A negative non null comparator
• Frequency:
  • Meaning: Required time gap (expressed in blocks) between object issuance
  • Value: A positive or null comparator

11.4 Digest

| level | key | value | uniqueness | mandatory | | - | - | - | - | - | | 2 | boundary | dict with below level-3 keys | yes | yes | | 3 | content | dict with below level-4 keys | yes | no | | 4 | path | regex | yes | no | | 4 | type | regex | yes | no | | 4 | author | member pop | yes | no | | 4 | label | regex | yes | no | | 4 | member | member pop | yes | no | | 4 | approval | dict with below level-4 keys | yes | no | | 5 | quorum | comparator [0,100] | yes | no | | 5 | strength | comparator [0,100] | yes | no | | 4 | object | object pop | yes | no | | 4 | duration | comparator (-inf,+inf) | yes | no | | 4 | boundary | boundary | yes | no | | 3 | amount | dict with below level-3 keys | no | no | | 4 | scope | 'all' or 'each' | yes | no | | 4 | maximum | comparator (-inf,-1] | yes | no | | 4 | frequency | comparator [0,+inf) | yes | no |

@devs:

The comparator for duration has a quirk. Indeed, a zero duration means forever.

11.5 Examples

The boundary field in the following example allows to issue laws:

• That include the word 'medicine' in their labels
• That concern all current and future members (or any sub-pop of this pop)

'core-0': |--'boundary': | |--'content': | | |--'type': 'law' | | |--'label': '.*medicine.*' | | |--'member': | | | |--'operand-0': | | | | |--'base': 'allmembers' | | | | |--'future': 'dynamic'

The admin core described in the following example:

• Allows all current and future members
• To issue links
• That are automatically approved

The amount of issued links is limited:

• Up to 8 links maximum per member (excluding issued links voided)
• Each member must wait 1,095 blocks between two links

'core-0': |--'member': | |--'operand-0': | | |--'base': 'allmembers' | | |--'future': 'dynamic' |--'boundary': | |--'content': | | |--'type': 'link' | |--'amount': | | |--'scope': 'each' | | |--'maximum': 8 | | |--'frequency': 1095 |--'approval': | |--'quorum': 0 | |--'strength': 0

The admin core described in the following example:

• Allows all current and future members
• To issue voids
• That are automatically approved

These voids must:

• Have the exact value 'unlink' as label
• Concern links written by the void author and his direct neighbors

This admin core allows each member to void his own links. Motivations might be:

• The loss of confidence in a direct neighbor
• The death of a direct neighbor
• The wish to opt-out from the society

'core-0': |--'member': | |--'operand-0': | | |--'base': 'allmembers' | | |--'future': 'dynamic' |--'boundary': | |--'content': | | |--'type': 'void' | | |--'label': 'unlink' | | |--'object': | | | |--'operand-0': | | | | |--'type': 'link' | | | | |--'author': | | | | | |--'operand-0': | | | | | | |--'base': 'nomember' | | | | | | |--'future': 'dynamic' | | | | | | |--'method-0': 'name' | | | | | | |--'arg-0': '+@self' | | | | | | |--'method-1': 'radius' | | | | | | |--'arg-1': 1 |--'approval': | |--'quorum': 0 | |--'strength': 0

The meta-admin core described in the following example:

• Allows 3 members
• To issue admins
• That require votes to be approved (80-30)

These admins:

• Allow some members (center + 50 hops and 6 or more links)
• To issue laws
• That require votes to be approved (60-50)

These laws:

• Must include the word 'newcomer' in their labels
• Must concern all members with 3 or less links

'core-0': |--'member': | |--'operand-0': | | |--'base': 'nomember' | | |--'future': 'static' | | |--'method-0': 'name' | | |--'arg-0': '+d15a4c8f,+4867ae22,+a1f8c7d4' |--'boundary': | |--'content': | | |--'type': 'admin' | | |--'member': | | | |--'operand-0': | | | | |--'base': 'nomember' | | | | |--'future': 'dynamic' | | | | |--'method-0': 'name' | | | | |--'arg-0': '+@center' | | | | |--'method-1': 'radius' | | | | |--'args-1': 50 | | | | |--'method-2': 'degree' | | | | |--'arg-2': 6 | | |--'boundary': | | | |--'content': | | | | |--'type': 'law' | | | | |--'label': '.*newcomer.*' | | | | |--'member': | | | | | |--'operand-0': | | | | | | |--'base': 'allmembers' | | | | | | |--'future': 'dynamic' | | | | | | |--'method-0': 'degree' | | | | | | |--'arg-0': '-3' | | |--'approval': | | | |--'quorum': 60 | | | |--'strength': 50 |--'aproval': | |--'quorum': 80 | |--'strength': 30

@thinkers:

We don't recommend creating short-lived admins.

A sturdy constitution (set of admins), is the hallmark of good governance.

12. Staying united

12.1 Membership feeling

Using a web-of-trust to register members has several effects on social dynamics, including boosting the sense of community. Moreover, the more governance reflects members preferences, the greater this effect becomes.

12.2 Banning a member

To prevent banned members from reappearing with new identities (new pubkeys), doxing them is essential.

A highly adversarial environment would demand such caution:

1. Any member can denunciate a suspect to 'initiators'
2. 'Initiators' decide whether to issue a void concerning the links of the suspect
3. 'Neighbors' of the suspect should reveal his identity to the 'initiators'
4. 'Initiators' issue a report on the suspect to the 'judges'
5. 'Judges' vote for or against the void
6. If the void is approved, the suspect is banned and the initiators issue a law to dox him

Ideally:

• Communications in steps 1, 3 and 4 should be encrypted for the intended recipients
• Neighbors should cooperate with initiators to avoid raising suspicions!
• The report sent to judges should be anonymized

Organizing the ban process in real life can be much more simple but it entails risks. Social enginery can mitigate these risks.

12.3 Sybill attack

An attacker could assume several identities. To tackle this problem, above banning process applies with these exceptions:

• Several suspects are involved
• Reports can't be anonymized

12.4 Adversarial environment

This chapter explores a high-risk use case: breaking free from an oppressive and centralized state. In this context, decentralization and anonymity are essential to survive.

A society is as strong and attractive as its members being supportive of each other. This involves fostering an exclusive commercial environment. Businesses need to be encouraged while keeping members' privacy concerns paramount. In an extreme scenario, producers should trade only with their direct neighbours, who endorse the role of trader with their own direct neighbours, thus mirroring the graph's topology.

Encrypting blockchain content to restrict access to members only is a misguided approach. It creates an air of mystery around the society's intentions, fuelling fear instead. To counter this, it's crucial to showcase the society's benevolent intentions, thereby undermining central state oppression and making the system as appealing as possible.

The state might anyway hinder the development of such a society. In response, members could adopt this defensive strategy:

1. Dox on chain low-level managers overseeing state violence and their supports
2. Halt solidarity with doxed people until they give up doing evil
3. Update the list of doxed people
4. Attract operators of the resigned managers to enforce justice in their own society

@thinkers:

We believe total social exclusion produces better outcomes than physical violence. We never encourage the latter.

13. Conclusion

We have proposed a system for a decentralized and pseudonymous society where a built-in script language provides unparalleled flexibility in designing the constitution. Only hands-on use can demonstrate its value. The potential impact on human organizations is considerable and we urge careful consideration. All lives matter.

14. ANNEX 1: UX

14.1 A UX per use case

Any political venture vulnerable to central powers could fall back on the proposed software:

• Collaborative encyclopaedia
• Sport association or committee
• ...

Devs could share customized plugins for each use case. A plugin comprises:

• A set of pre-built objects
• A UX

Incorporating a plugin into the software would make a big difference in terms of usability:

• Wizard for society setup (constitution)
• Template objects to reuse/customize
• Template pops and regex to reuse/customize
• Simplified interface for voting
• ...

A draft, generic, by default, UX is detailed below.

14.2 Main view

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | url: https://www.node_accepting_connections_from_some_trusted_members.io | +-------------------------+------------------------------------------------+ | Member focused | | | -------------- | o---------o---------o-------o-----o------o | | | \ /|\ / \ / /| | | | [Enter here a pubkey] | \ / | \ / \ / / | | | | | \ / | o / \ / / | o | | | States considered | \ / | \ / / / | / | | | ----------------- | o----|----o / \ / | / | | | | | / \ / \ / |/ | | | [ ] Mempool | | / \ / o------o------o | | [x] Blockchainized | | / \ / | | | | [x] Approved | |/ o-------o------o | | [ ] Voided | o | | | | +-------------------------+------------------------------------------------+ | Understand | Behave | Act | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | These 3 tabs are explained further | | | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The main view is divided into three sections:

• Focus: Set global settings
• Graph: Display the web of trust
• Explorer: Explore and create objects

Focus section affects both Graph and Explorer sections that:

• Adopt the selected member's point of view
• Show only objects with the desired states

The explorer section is divided into three tabs.

14.3 Understand tab

+-------------------------+------------------------------------------+------------------------------------+ | Tree | Children | Content | +-------------------------+------------------------------------------+------------------------------------+ | v id 0 | Select | id | type | label | Status | v attributes | | |-v core 0 |------------------------------------------| |-> path: 0-0,1-0,0-0,2 | | | |-v id 0 | ( ) | 0 | law | cadaster | approved | |-> type: law | | | | |-> core 0 | ( ) | 1 | law | cadaster | approved | |-> ... | | | | |-> core 1 | (x) | 2 | law | cadaster | approved | |-v core 0 | | | |-v id 1 | ( ) | 3 | void | cadaster | approved | | |-v member | | | | |-v core 0 |------------------------------------------| | | |-v operand 0 | | | | | |-v id 0 | | | | | |-> base: allmembers | | | | | | |-> >>core 0<< | | | | | |-> future: dynamic | | | | | | |-> core 1 | | | | |-v content | | | | +--------------------------------+ | | | | | Upon approval of this law, | | | | | | a45br7h6 will become the owner | | | | | | of property 8394144 | | | | | +--------------------------------+ | +-------------------------+------------------------------------------+------------------------------------+

The Understand tab serves as an object explorer. It is divided into three panels:

• Tree: Tree of all admins
• Children: Children objects of the selected item in the Tree panel:
  • An admin: A list of the cores of this admin
  • A core: A list of the objects originating from this core
• Content: Content of the selected item in the Children panel:
  • A core: The JSON content of this core
  • An object: The JSON content of this object
  • No selection: The JSON content of the selected admin or core in the Tree panel

14.4 Behave tab

+---------------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+ | Regulation | Content | +---------------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+ | Label filter: [Add text to filter objects i.e. 'tax'] | v attributes | |---------------------------------------------------------| |-> path: 0-0,2-0,6 | | Select | path | label | status | |-> type: law | |---------------------------------------------------------| |-> issuer: 2dac829k, b7ff56ff | | ( ) | 0-0,1-2,3-4,5 | tax water | approved | |-> label: tax property | | (x) | 0-0,2-0,6 | tax property | blockchainized | |-> context: s7w7y89f | | ( ) | 0-0,3-4,0-2,5 | foreigner tax | mempool | | | |-v operand 0 | |---------------------------------------------------------| | | | |-> base: allmembers | | | | | | |-> future: dynamic | | | | | |-v content | | | +---------------------------------------+ | | | | Monthly payment expected: | | | | | - Amount: 500¥ per square meter owned | | | | | - Address: 3dsh4r44 | | | | | Well indicate your pubkey in the tx | | | | +---------------------------------------+ | |---------------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+

The Behave tab enables access to all laws concerning the selected member. It is divided into three panels:

• Regulation: All laws concerning the selected member
• Content: JSON content of the selected law

14.5 Act tab

+-------------------------+-----------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ | Tree | Content | Writer | +-------------------------+-----------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ | v id 0 | v core | v attributes | | |-v core 0 | |-v member | |-> path: 0-0,1-0,0-0,[Add id] | | | |-v id 0 | | |-v operand 0 | |-> type: vote | | | | |-> core 0 | | | |-> base: nomember | |-> pubkey: 78cq32hu, [Add cosigner] | | | | |-> core 1 | | | |-> future: dynamic | |-> label: [Add label] | | | |-v id 5 | | | |-> method 0: name | |-> context: [Add hash] | | | | |-v core 2 | | | |-> arg 0: +@center | |-v core 0 | | | | | |-v id 3 | |-v boundary | | |-v object | | | | | | |-> core 6 | | |-v content | | | |-v operand 0 | | | | | | |-> >>core 7<< | | | |-> type: vote | | | | |-> path: [Add regex] | | | | | |-v object | | |-> side: [Add 'yes' or 'no'] | | | | | | |-v operand 0 | | | | | | | | |-> path: 0-0,5-2,3-6,.+ | +----------+ | | | |-v approval | | Add core | | | | | |-> quorum: 0 | +----------+ | | | | |-> strength: 0 | +-----------------------+ | | | | | Sign and issue object | | | | | +-----------------------+ | +-------------------------+-----------------------------------+---------------------------------------+

The Act tab enables to write and issue objects. It is divided into three panels:

• Tree: Tree of the admins where the selected member has issuance rights
• Content: JSON content of the core selected
• Creator: Form to write an object (require privkey; the selected member = the visitor)

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

Autor: Ludwig F. Badenhagen. Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben. Sie finden alle Texte der Friedenstaube und weitere Texte zum Thema Frieden hier. Die neuesten Pareto-Artikel finden Sie auch in unserem Telegram-Kanal.

---

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

---

Woran erkennt man einen Verbrecher? Die meisten Menschen erfahren von Verbrechern aus den Medien, denn die Medien erklären, wer ein Verbrecher und was ein Verbrechen ist. Die Medien berufen sich hierbei gerne auf „Experten“ und „helfen“ dem gewöhnlichen Bürger bei der „Einordnung“ von Sachverhalten. Man lernt, dass „ein junger Mann“, der mit einem Messer ein hilfloses Baby abschlachtet, nicht so hart bestraft wird, wie etwa ein „Steuersünder“. Und wer glaubt, dass Wahlbetrug juristisch geahndet werden könnte, der irrt ebenso wie jemand, der glaubt, dass es in einer Demokratie erlaubt sein könnte, ein satirisches Meme über einen Politiker zu teilen. Neuerdings sind selbst „Meinungen unterhalb der Strafbarkeitsgrenze“ für gewöhnliche Bürger nicht mehr folgenlos.

Bekanntlich ist die Staatsanwaltschaft in Deutschland eine weisungsgebundene Behörde und als solche ein Teil der Exekutive. Dem Staatsanwalt selbst ist gemäß § 353b Strafgesetzbuch zudem strafrechtlich untersagt, ihm gegenüber erteilte Weisungen Dritten mitzuteilen. Sofern demnach direkte Weisungen erteilt würden, hätte der weisungsgebundene Staatsanwalt diese nicht nur zu befolgen, sondern dürfte auch niemandem gegenüber offenbaren, dass er nicht aus eigener Überzeugung, sondern auf Anweisung - wie beispielsweisen aus politischen Motiven heraus - handelt. Diese juristische Konstruktion eröffnet regierenden Politikern einen erheblichen Gestaltungsspielraum. 

Anstelle der konsequenten Anwendung des Strafrechts gab es vor allem in der jüngeren Vergangenheit bei den der Öffentlichkeit nicht zu verbergenden Verfehlungen von Politikern lediglich folgenlose Untersuchungsausschüsse. Könnte dies daran gelegen haben, dass Gerechtigkeit eine Frage von Auslegung und Deutung ist – und die Politiker die Deutungshoheit haben?

Wenn dies so wäre, würde sich die Frage aufdrängen, wie weitgehend denn Straftaten dieser Personengruppe ungestraft ausgeführt werden könnten? Ein Manager eines Unternehmens wird für Fehlverhalten massiv bestraft, während der Lenker eines Landes quasi alles tun kann, was er – im Auftrag der Leute, für die er tatsächlich tätig ist – tun möchte? Wenn dies so wäre, würde es sich dann nicht eher um eine Kabale als um eine ehrenhafte Regierung handeln?

---

DIE FRIEDENSTAUBE FLIEGT AUCH IN IHR POSTFACH!

Hier können Sie die Friedenstaube abonnieren und bekommen die Artikel zugesandt, vorerst für alle kostenfrei, wir starten gänzlich ohne Paywall. (Die Bezahlabos fangen erst zu laufen an, wenn ein Monetarisierungskonzept für die Inhalte steht). Sie wollen der Genossenschaft beitreten oder uns unterstützen? Mehr Infos hier oder am Ende des Textes. friedenstaube@pareto.space

---

Was wäre in diesem Fall mit dem Gewaltmonopol? Könnten die Soldaten und Polizisten dann nicht für das Durchsetzen der individuellen Interessen dieser Leute missbraucht werden? Ein Bürger dürfte sich nicht kritisch über diese Leute äußern, oder müsste stärkste Repressionen erdulden. Wenn die Gerichtsbarkeit dieser Kabale dienen würde, wäre denn dann eine Rechtsprechung überhaupt möglich? Was würde mit einem Richter, der „in einer wichtigen Sache das falsche Urteil sprechen“ würde, denn passieren? Würde möglicherweise sein Haus von einem Sonderkommando durchsucht und würde er gedemütigt? Würde er seinen Job verlieren und käme er ins Gefängnis? Und wie würde dies auf andere Richter wirken? Würden sich diese gegen die Kabale auflehnen oder lieber tun, was die Kabale ihnen vorgibt?

Was wäre, wenn solch eine Kabale zu Krieg, höheren Steuerzahlungen, medizinischen Zwangsbehandlungen etc. unter Androhung von Bestrafungen zwingen würde? Und was wäre, wenn die Menschen erkennen würden, dass sie von Verbrechern regiert werden?

Was würden Sie tun?

Nun, man könnte demonstrieren, auf die Straße gehen, und dort für seine Rechte eintreten, oder? Aber ist dieses „Demonstrationsrecht“, welches dem eigentlichen Souverän, dem Bürger, „großzügig“ eingeräumt wurde, nicht etwas völlig Wirkungsloses? Wer demonstriert, hat das Gewaltmonopol des Staates zu akzeptieren, sodass er zwar geschlagen, mit Wasserwerfern und Pfefferspray besprüht, gewürgt und von Hunden gebissen werden, aber sich selbst nicht wehren darf. Wenn sich ein Demonstrant in der „falschen Sache“ nicht an die Demonstrationsregeln hält und beispielsweise Sicherheitsabstände nicht korrekt einhält, wird er sehr schnell von einem gepanzerten und anonymisierten Polizisten bestraft. Und was ist mit den vielen V-Leuten? Ein so genannter Agent Provokateur mischt sich unter die Demonstranten und gibt vor, ein Teil von diesen zu sein, um dann in deren Namen „etwas Unrechtes“ zu tun wie eine Reichsbürger-Fahne zu schwenken oder einen Sicherheitsabstand nicht einzuhalten oder einen Polizisten anzugreifen. Und schon hat man „einen Grund“, dieser Demonstration einen besonderen Anstrich zu verpassen. Wer sich noch an „den Sturm auf den Reichstag“ und die Verleihungen von Verdienstorden für „die Rettung unserer Demokratie“ erinnert, weiß, dass Demonstrationen gelenkt werden können und dass ein gewöhnlicher Bürger, der „sein Demonstrationsrecht“ wahrnimmt, im Zuge einer solchen Veranstaltung am eigenen Leib erfahren kann, dass ihm die Demo im günstigsten Fall weder genützt noch geschadet hat.

Aber was sonst könnte man tun, wenn man von Verbrechern regiert würde? Was könnte getan werden, wenn Untaten wie Kriegstreiberei, Gesundheitsdiktatur, Steuerwillkür, Klimawahn, Wahlmanipulationen etc. nicht „aus Versehen“, sondern mit schädigender Absicht, also mit Vorsatz getan wurden und werden?

Wer sich diese Fragen stellt, ist bereits sehr weit und weitgehend isoliert, denn der große Teil der Bevölkerung wird durch die Medien nicht nur darüber „informiert“, was Straftaten sind, sondern erhält zudem „wohlwollende Einordnungen“ zum jeweils aktuellen Geschehen. Der „gute Bürger Unsererdemokratie“ ist einfach „besser informiert“, und weiß, was er zu denken hat. Für den „guten Bürger“ ist alles klar: Wir leben in der besten Demokratie aller Zeiten und die Politiker geben ihr Bestes, zu unser aller Wohle. Sie schützen uns vor Pandemien, vor Feinden der Demokratie und Feinden des Landes, und sind hierbei weitestgehend selbstlos. 

Aber wer sich der Mühe unterziehen möchte, selbst zu denken, der hat die Möglichkeit, seine eigenen Einordnungen auf der Basis ungeschwärzter Fakten vorzunehmen. Wer beispielsweise die RKI-Protokolle oder auch anderes Material ungeschwärzt lesen möchte, kann sich (noch) unabhängiger Portale bedienen, die seitens der Regierung zwar allesamt verboten werden sollen (da man schließlich als Regierung bestimmen möchte, was die Bürger zu lesen und zu glauben haben), die aber derzeit noch verfügbar sind.

In welcher Welt wollen wir und unsere Kinder leben und was ist zu tun, damit diese wünschenswerte Welt entsteht? Die Menschen sollten in die Wahrnehmung und von dort aus in die Erkenntnis kommen. Und aus der Erkenntnis ins Wollen, denn letztendlich ist das Wollen stets die Grundvoraussetzung für das Tun. Und ohne das Tun passiert – nichts.

Lesen Sie hier, wie Menschen wie Vieh behandelt werden und hier, wie das System organisiert ist. Und hier ist zu nachzulesen, was getan werden könnte, wenn Verbrecher an der Macht wären.

---

LASSEN SIE DER FRIEDENSTAUBE FLÜGEL WACHSEN!

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

Schon jetzt können Sie uns unterstützen:

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

Für Einzahlungen in CHF (Betreff: Friedenstaube):

Für Einzahlungen in Euro:

Milosz Matuschek

IBAN DE 53710520500000814137

BYLADEM1TST

Sparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg

Betreff: Friedenstaube

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

---

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

@ 8cda1daa:e9e5bdd8

Bitcoin's blockspace is a free market (and a fee market!)

Each byte bids for inclusion according to the fee it carries, whether that byte represents a coffee payment or an encoded inscription protocol. The current debate over expanding OP_RETURN is a reminder that the ledger does not interpret meaning; it only records weight in bytes and payment in bitcoin fees.

There is no value stored on Bitcoin's ledger other than the literal number of bitcoin units recorded in your UTXO.

That means there is no "digital energy" in there, no dollars, no "store of value," nothing except a number in a database.

When you spend bitcoin, for whatever reason, it is your counterparty that decides what those units are worth. They are free to discriminate them, or you, in any way they can get away with.

They can also attribute extra value to them for any reason: a ticker price on their favorite exchange, a JPG forever attached to the output, a USDT anchor, or a private protocol no one even knows about for a VIP club membership.

All value is subjective, so it is impossible to know the trade value of every transaction merely by looking at block data.

Your counterparty also decides when a trade is settled, not the Bitcoin blockchain. They may agree on one confirmation, or three, or zero... They might require a government‑issued ID or even custody of your first‑born child.

Do not confuse Bitcoin "transactions" with trades; they are only score updates in a database. All of the value is decided by people and made competitive by the open market.

Why OP_RETURN Matters Right Now

Bitcoin offers an 80‑byte OP_RETURN field that lets users write data without polluting the UTXO set. As blockspace demand soared with Ordinals, BRC‑20, and Runes, people began hiding data in taproot leaves and bare multisig outputs, which never get spent and therefore swell the UTXO set, driving up node costs.

Relaxing, or even removing, the 80‑byte cap would invite this data back into a provably unspendable, prunable space; the chain stays neutral - every byte either pays or waits.

Is this the right thing to do? Personally, I don't care. Things are working exactly how everyone should have expected.

How to Think About "Spam" vs "Use"

Fee neutrality: If it pays the market fee, it belongs. By design. Hidden context: You can never fully know the value or trade behind the onchain transaction.

UTXO preservation: Favor prunable data (witness & OP_RETURN) over perpetually unspent outputs.

Censorship fragments the mempool: Policy bans force operators to patch their nodes or run alternate relay networks, creating isolated pools, unreliable fee estimates, and extra burden for wallets that must navigate around invisible gaps.

Takeaway

We have no objective tool for classifying "usefulness" on‑chain. The cleanest rule remains: pay the fee, get the block. If you want a lean UTXO set, widen OP_RETURN and let economics, not censorship, do the pruning.

A Meta Recommendation

Bitcoin Core is the de-facto reference implementation, not the policy police. Any subjective rule, whether it targets memes, stablecoins, transaction flags, or inscriptions, can and should be handled in downstream forks, plug‑ins, or user‑level policy. Node operators already tweak mempool size, relay settings, and script limits to match their own risk models. Pretending they cannot already only muddies the debate.

A sure path to minimizing controversy is to keep Bitcoin Core truly core: compact, predictable, and neutral. Every extra rule adds maintenance overhead and widens the surface for accidental forks. By shipping only what consensus requires and leaving higher‑layer policy to the market, Core Devs protect the common base layer we all rely on, and their own sanity.

Bonus Take: 🌶️ Shrink Blocks, or Repeal Taproot

If a transaction looks like spam to you, the blunt but honest remedy is to cut capacity, not to micromanage content. The four‑megabyte block weight and Taproot's flexible script paths are exactly what unlocked today's wave of inscriptions and tokens. If that bothers you, push to shrink the block size or even roll back Taproot and own the trade‑offs. Anything else is selective outrage dressed up as policy.

(NOTE: I do not support any current fork or mempool policy proposals.)

@ c8383d81:f9139549

Project is still in early stages but now it is split into 2 different domain entities. 
Everything is opened sourced under one github https://github.com/Nsite-Info

So what’s new ?

Project #1 https://Nsite.info

A basic website with main info regarding what an Nsite is how it works and a list of tools and repo’s you can use to start building and debugging.
99% Finished, needs some extra translations and the Nsite Debugger can use a small upgrade.



Project #2 https://Nsite.cloud

This project isn’t finished, it currently is at a 40% finished stage. This contains the Nsite Gateway for all sites (still a work in progress) and the final stage the Nsite editor & template deployment.

If you are interested in Nsite’s join: 

https://chachi.chat/groups.hzrd149.com/e23891

Big thanks to nostr:npub1elta7cneng3w8p9y4dw633qzdjr4kyvaparuyuttyrx6e8xp7xnq32cume nostr:npub1ye5ptcxfyyxl5vjvdjar2ua3f0hynkjzpx552mu5snj3qmx5pzjscpknpr nostr:npub1klr0dy2ul2dx9llk58czvpx73rprcmrvd5dc7ck8esg8f8es06qs427gxc for all the tooling & code.

!(image)[https://i.nostr.build/AkUvk7R2h9cVEMLB.png]

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Election Authority (EA) Platform

1.1 EA Administration Interface (Web-Based)

• Purpose: Gives authorized personnel (e.g., election officials) a user-friendly way to administer the election.
• Key Tasks:
• Voter Registration Oversight: Mark which voters have proven their identity (via in-person KYC or some legal process).
• Blind Signature Issuance: Approve or deny blind signature requests from registered voters (each corresponding to one ephemeral key).
• Tracking Voter Slots: Keep a minimal registry of who is allowed one ephemeral key signature, and mark it “used” once a signature is issued.
• Election Configuration: Set start/end times, provide encryption parameters (public keys), manage threshold cryptography setup.
• Monitor Tallying: After the election, collaborate with trustees to decrypt final results and release them.

1.2 EA Backend Services

• Blind Signature Service:
• An API endpoint or internal module that receives a blinded ephemeral key from a voter, checks if they are authorized (one signature per voter), and returns the blind-signed result.

• Typically requires secure storage of the EA’s blind signing private key.

• Voter Roll Database:

• Stores minimal info: “Voter #12345 is authorized to request one ephemeral key signature,” plus status flags.

• Does not store ephemeral keys themselves (to preserve anonymity).

• (Optional) Mix-Net or Homomorphic Tally Service:

• Coordinates with trustees for threshold decryption or re-encryption.
• Alternatively, a separate “Tally Authority” service can handle this.

---

2. Auditor Interface

2.1 Auditor Web-Based Portal

• Purpose: Allows independent auditors (or the public) to:
• Fetch All Ballots from the relays (or from an aggregator).
• Verify Proofs: Check each ballot’s signature, blind signature from the EA, OTS proof, zero-knowledge proofs, etc.
• Check Double-Usage: Confirm that each ephemeral key is used only once (or final re-vote is the only valid instance).

• Observe Tally Process: Possibly see partial decryptions or shuffle steps, verify the final result matches the posted ballots.

• Key Tasks:

• Provide a dashboard showing the election’s real-time status or final results, after cryptographic verification.
• Offer open data downloads so third parties can run independent checks.

2.2 (Optional) Trustee Dashboard

• If the election uses threshold cryptography (multiple parties must decrypt), each trustee (candidate rep, official, etc.) might have an interface for:
• Uploading partial decryption shares or re-encryption proofs.
• Checking that other trustees did their steps correctly (zero-knowledge proofs for correct shuffling, etc.).

---

3. Voter Application

3.1 Voter Client (Mobile App or Web Interface)

• Purpose: The main tool voters use to participate—before, during, and after the election.

• Functionalities:

• Registration Linking:
  • Voter goes in-person to an election office or uses an online KYC process.
  • Voter obtains or confirms their long-term (“KYC-bound”) key. The client can store it securely (or the voter just logs in to a “voter account”).
• Ephemeral Key Generation:
  • Create an ephemeral key pair ((nsec_e, npub_e)) locally.
  • Blind (\npub_e) and send it to the EA for signing.
  • Unblind the returned signature.
  • Store (\npub_e) + EA’s signature for use during voting.
• Ballot Composition:
  • Display candidates/offices to the voter.
  • Let them select choices.
  • Possibly generate zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) behind the scenes to confirm “exactly one choice per race.”
• Encryption & OTS Timestamp:
  • Encrypt the ballot under the election’s public (threshold) key or produce a format suitable for a mix-net.
  • Obtain an OpenTimestamps proof for the ballot’s hash.
• Publish Ballot:
  • Sign the entire “timestamped ballot” with the ephemeral key.
  • Include the EA’s blind signature on (\npub_e).
  • Post to the Nostr relays (or any chosen decentralized channel).
• Re-Voting:
  • If the user needs to change their vote, the client repeats the encryption + OTS step, publishes a new ballot with a strictly later OTS anchor.
• Verification:
  • After the election, the voter can check that their final ballot is present in the tally set.

3.2 Local Storage / Security

• The app must securely store:
• Ephemeral private key ((nsec_e)) until voting is complete.
• Potential backup/recovery mechanism if the phone is lost.
• Blind signature from the EA on (\npub_e).
• Potentially uses hardware security modules (HSM) or secure enclaves on the device.

---

4. Nostr Relays (or Equivalent Decentralized Layer)

• Purpose: Store and replicate voter-submitted ballots (events).
• Key Properties:
• Redundancy: Voters can post to multiple relays to mitigate censorship or downtime.
• Public Accessibility: Auditors, the EA, and the public can fetch all events to verify or tally.
• Event Filtering: By design, watchers can filter events with certain tags, e.g. “election: 2025 County Race,” ensuring they gather all ballots.

---

5. Threshold Cryptography Setup

5.1 Multi-Seg (Multi-Party) Key Generation

• Participants: Possibly the EA + major candidates + accredited observers.
• Process: A Distributed Key Generation (DKG) protocol that yields a single public encryption key.
• Private Key Shares: Each trustee holds a piece of the decryption key; no single party can decrypt alone.

5.2 Decryption / Tally Mechanism

• Homomorphic Approach:
• Ballots are additively encrypted.
• Summation of ciphertexts is done publicly.
• Trustees provide partial decryptions for the final sum.
• Mix-Net Approach:
• Ballots are collected.
• Multiple servers shuffle and re-encrypt them (each trustee verifies correctness).
• Final set is decrypted, but the link to each ephemeral key is lost.

5.3 Trustee Interfaces

• Separate or integrated into the auditor interface—each trustee logs in and provides their partial key share for decrypting the final result.
• Possibly combined with ZK proofs to confirm correct partial decryption or shuffling.

---

6. OpenTimestamps (OTS) or External Time Anchor

6.1 Aggregator Service

• Purpose: Receives a hash from the voter’s app, anchors it into a blockchain or alternative time-stamping system.
• Result: Returns a proof object that can later be used by any auditor to confirm the time/block height at which the hash was included.

6.2 Verifier Interface

• Could be part of the auditor tool or the voter client.
• Checks that each ballot’s OTS proof is valid and references a block/time prior to the election’s closing.

---

7. Registration Process (In-Person or Hybrid)

1. Voter presents ID physically at a polling station or a designated office (or an online KYC approach, if legally allowed).
2. EA official:
3. Confirms identity.
4. Links the voter to a “voter record” (Voter #12345).
5. Authorizes them for “1 ephemeral key blind-sign.”
6. Voter obtains or logs into the voter client:
7. The app or website might show “You are now cleared to request a blind signature from the EA.”
8. Voter later (or immediately) generates the ephemeral key and requests the blind signature.

---

8. Putting It All Together (High-Level Flow)

1. Key Setup
2. The EA + trustees run a DKG to produce the election public key.
3. Voter Registration
4. Voter is validated (ID check).
5. Marked as eligible in the EA database.
6. Blind-Signed Ephemeral Key
7. Voter’s client generates a key, blinds (\npub_e), obtains EA’s signature, unblinds.
8. Voting
9. Voter composes ballot, encrypts with the election public key.
10. Gets OTS proof for the ballot hash.
11. Voter’s ephemeral key signs the entire package (including EA’s signature on (\npub_e)).
12. Publishes to Nostr.
13. Re-Voting (Optional)
14. Same ephemeral key, new OTS timestamp.
15. Final ballot is whichever has the latest valid timestamp before closing.
16. Close of Election & Tally
17. EA announces closing.
18. Tally software (admin + auditors) collects ballots from Nostr, discards invalid duplicates.
19. Threshold decryption or mix-net to reveal final counts.
20. Publish final results and let auditors verify everything.

---

9. Summary of Major Components

Below is a succinct list:

1. EA Admin Platform
2. Web UI for officials (registration, blind signature issuing, final tally management).
3. Backend DB for voter records & authorized ephemeral keys.
4. Auditor/Trustee Platforms
5. Web interface for verifying ballots, partial decryption, and final results.
6. Voter Application (Mobile / Web)
7. Generating ephemeral keys, getting blind-signed, casting encrypted ballots, re-voting, verifying included ballots.
8. Nostr Relays (Decentralized Storage)
9. Where ballots (events) are published, replicated, and fetched for final tally.
10. Threshold Cryptography System
11. Multi-party DKG for the election key.
12. Protocols or services for partial decryption, mix-net, or homomorphic summation.
13. OpenTimestamps Aggregator
14. Service that returns a blockchain-anchored timestamp proof for each ballot’s hash.

Additional Implementation Considerations

• Security Hardening:
• Using hardware security modules (HSM) for the EA’s blind-signing key, for trustee shares, etc.
• Scalability:
• Handling large numbers of concurrent voters, large data flows to relays.
• User Experience:
• Minimizing cryptographic complexity for non-technical voters.
• Legal and Procedural:
• Compliance with local laws for in-person ID checks, mandatory paper backups (if any), etc.

---

Final Note

While each functional block can be designed and deployed independently (e.g., multiple aggregator services, multiple relays, separate tally servers), the key to a successful system is interoperability and careful orchestration of these components—ensuring strong security, a straightforward voter experience, and transparent auditing.

nostr:naddr1qqxnzde5xq6nzv348yunvv35qy28wue69uhnzv3h9cczuvpwxyargwpk8yhsygxpax4n544z4dk2f04lgn4xfvha5s9vvvg73p46s66x2gtfedttgvpsgqqqw4rs0rcnsu

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

busca múltipla na estante virtual

A single-page app made in Elm with a Go backend that scrapped estantevirtual.com.br in real-time for search results of multiple different search terms and aggregated the results per book store, so when you want to buy many books you can find the stores that have the biggest part of what you want and buy everything together, paying less for the delivery fee.

It had a very weird unicode issue I never managed to solve, something with the encoding estantevirtual.com.br used.

I also planned to build the entire checkout flow directly in this UI, but then decided it wasn't worth it. The search flow only was already good enough.

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

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

The mystical d attribute in SVG paths is actually a series of small commands. In this guide, we'll take a look at each path command and how we can use them to draw icons. Read more at https://www.nan.fyi/svg-paths

I you'd like to learn Interactive SVG Animations, here a text-based mini-course on making whimsical, playful SVG animations https://www.svg-animations.how/

credits: @nandafyi

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/968195

@ 6f6b50bb:a848e5a1

Che cosa significherebbe trattare l'IA come uno strumento invece che come una persona?

Dall’avvio di ChatGPT, le esplorazioni in due direzioni hanno preso velocità.

La prima direzione riguarda le capacità tecniche. Quanto grande possiamo addestrare un modello? Quanto bene può rispondere alle domande del SAT? Con quanta efficienza possiamo distribuirlo?

La seconda direzione riguarda il design dell’interazione. Come comunichiamo con un modello? Come possiamo usarlo per un lavoro utile? Quale metafora usiamo per ragionare su di esso?

La prima direzione è ampiamente seguita e enormemente finanziata, e per una buona ragione: i progressi nelle capacità tecniche sono alla base di ogni possibile applicazione. Ma la seconda è altrettanto cruciale per il campo e ha enormi incognite. Siamo solo a pochi anni dall’inizio dell’era dei grandi modelli. Quali sono le probabilità che abbiamo già capito i modi migliori per usarli?

Propongo una nuova modalità di interazione, in cui i modelli svolgano il ruolo di applicazioni informatiche (ad esempio app per telefoni): fornendo un’interfaccia grafica, interpretando gli input degli utenti e aggiornando il loro stato. In questa modalità, invece di essere un “agente” che utilizza un computer per conto dell’essere umano, l’IA può fornire un ambiente informatico più ricco e potente che possiamo utilizzare.

Metafore per l’interazione

Al centro di un’interazione c’è una metafora che guida le aspettative di un utente su un sistema. I primi giorni dell’informatica hanno preso metafore come “scrivanie”, “macchine da scrivere”, “fogli di calcolo” e “lettere” e le hanno trasformate in equivalenti digitali, permettendo all’utente di ragionare sul loro comportamento. Puoi lasciare qualcosa sulla tua scrivania e tornare a prenderlo; hai bisogno di un indirizzo per inviare una lettera. Man mano che abbiamo sviluppato una conoscenza culturale di questi dispositivi, la necessità di queste particolari metafore è scomparsa, e con esse i design di interfaccia skeumorfici che le rafforzavano. Come un cestino o una matita, un computer è ora una metafora di se stesso.

La metafora dominante per i grandi modelli oggi è modello-come-persona. Questa è una metafora efficace perché le persone hanno capacità estese che conosciamo intuitivamente. Implica che possiamo avere una conversazione con un modello e porgli domande; che il modello possa collaborare con noi su un documento o un pezzo di codice; che possiamo assegnargli un compito da svolgere da solo e che tornerà quando sarà finito.

Tuttavia, trattare un modello come una persona limita profondamente il nostro modo di pensare all’interazione con esso. Le interazioni umane sono intrinsecamente lente e lineari, limitate dalla larghezza di banda e dalla natura a turni della comunicazione verbale. Come abbiamo tutti sperimentato, comunicare idee complesse in una conversazione è difficile e dispersivo. Quando vogliamo precisione, ci rivolgiamo invece a strumenti, utilizzando manipolazioni dirette e interfacce visive ad alta larghezza di banda per creare diagrammi, scrivere codice e progettare modelli CAD. Poiché concepiamo i modelli come persone, li utilizziamo attraverso conversazioni lente, anche se sono perfettamente in grado di accettare input diretti e rapidi e di produrre risultati visivi. Le metafore che utilizziamo limitano le esperienze che costruiamo, e la metafora modello-come-persona ci impedisce di esplorare il pieno potenziale dei grandi modelli.

Per molti casi d’uso, e specialmente per il lavoro produttivo, credo che il futuro risieda in un’altra metafora: modello-come-computer.

Usare un’IA come un computer

Sotto la metafora modello-come-computer, interagiremo con i grandi modelli seguendo le intuizioni che abbiamo sulle applicazioni informatiche (sia su desktop, tablet o telefono). Nota che ciò non significa che il modello sarà un’app tradizionale più di quanto il desktop di Windows fosse una scrivania letterale. “Applicazione informatica” sarà un modo per un modello di rappresentarsi a noi. Invece di agire come una persona, il modello agirà come un computer.

Agire come un computer significa produrre un’interfaccia grafica. Al posto del flusso lineare di testo in stile telescrivente fornito da ChatGPT, un sistema modello-come-computer genererà qualcosa che somiglia all’interfaccia di un’applicazione moderna: pulsanti, cursori, schede, immagini, grafici e tutto il resto. Questo affronta limitazioni chiave dell’interfaccia di chat standard modello-come-persona:

• Scoperta. Un buon strumento suggerisce i suoi usi. Quando l’unica interfaccia è una casella di testo vuota, spetta all’utente capire cosa fare e comprendere i limiti del sistema. La barra laterale Modifica in Lightroom è un ottimo modo per imparare l’editing fotografico perché non si limita a dirti cosa può fare questa applicazione con una foto, ma cosa potresti voler fare. Allo stesso modo, un’interfaccia modello-come-computer per DALL-E potrebbe mostrare nuove possibilità per le tue generazioni di immagini.

• Efficienza. La manipolazione diretta è più rapida che scrivere una richiesta a parole. Per continuare l’esempio di Lightroom, sarebbe impensabile modificare una foto dicendo a una persona quali cursori spostare e di quanto. Ci vorrebbe un giorno intero per chiedere un’esposizione leggermente più bassa e una vibranza leggermente più alta, solo per vedere come apparirebbe. Nella metafora modello-come-computer, il modello può creare strumenti che ti permettono di comunicare ciò che vuoi più efficientemente e quindi di fare le cose più rapidamente.

A differenza di un’app tradizionale, questa interfaccia grafica è generata dal modello su richiesta. Questo significa che ogni parte dell’interfaccia che vedi è rilevante per ciò che stai facendo in quel momento, inclusi i contenuti specifici del tuo lavoro. Significa anche che, se desideri un’interfaccia più ampia o diversa, puoi semplicemente richiederla. Potresti chiedere a DALL-E di produrre alcuni preset modificabili per le sue impostazioni ispirati da famosi artisti di schizzi. Quando clicchi sul preset Leonardo da Vinci, imposta i cursori per disegni prospettici altamente dettagliati in inchiostro nero. Se clicchi su Charles Schulz, seleziona fumetti tecnicolor 2D a basso dettaglio.

Una bicicletta della mente proteiforme

La metafora modello-come-persona ha una curiosa tendenza a creare distanza tra l’utente e il modello, rispecchiando il divario di comunicazione tra due persone che può essere ridotto ma mai completamente colmato. A causa della difficoltà e del costo di comunicare a parole, le persone tendono a suddividere i compiti tra loro in blocchi grandi e il più indipendenti possibile. Le interfacce modello-come-persona seguono questo schema: non vale la pena dire a un modello di aggiungere un return statement alla tua funzione quando è più veloce scriverlo da solo. Con il sovraccarico della comunicazione, i sistemi modello-come-persona sono più utili quando possono fare un intero blocco di lavoro da soli. Fanno le cose per te.

Questo contrasta con il modo in cui interagiamo con i computer o altri strumenti. Gli strumenti producono feedback visivi in tempo reale e sono controllati attraverso manipolazioni dirette. Hanno un overhead comunicativo così basso che non è necessario specificare un blocco di lavoro indipendente. Ha più senso mantenere l’umano nel loop e dirigere lo strumento momento per momento. Come stivali delle sette leghe, gli strumenti ti permettono di andare più lontano a ogni passo, ma sei ancora tu a fare il lavoro. Ti permettono di fare le cose più velocemente.

Considera il compito di costruire un sito web usando un grande modello. Con le interfacce di oggi, potresti trattare il modello come un appaltatore o un collaboratore. Cercheresti di scrivere a parole il più possibile su come vuoi che il sito appaia, cosa vuoi che dica e quali funzionalità vuoi che abbia. Il modello genererebbe una prima bozza, tu la eseguirai e poi fornirai un feedback. “Fai il logo un po’ più grande”, diresti, e “centra quella prima immagine principale”, e “deve esserci un pulsante di login nell’intestazione”. Per ottenere esattamente ciò che vuoi, invierai una lista molto lunga di richieste sempre più minuziose.

Un’interazione alternativa modello-come-computer sarebbe diversa: invece di costruire il sito web, il modello genererebbe un’interfaccia per te per costruirlo, dove ogni input dell’utente a quell’interfaccia interroga il grande modello sotto il cofano. Forse quando descrivi le tue necessità creerebbe un’interfaccia con una barra laterale e una finestra di anteprima. All’inizio la barra laterale contiene solo alcuni schizzi di layout che puoi scegliere come punto di partenza. Puoi cliccare su ciascuno di essi, e il modello scrive l’HTML per una pagina web usando quel layout e lo visualizza nella finestra di anteprima. Ora che hai una pagina su cui lavorare, la barra laterale guadagna opzioni aggiuntive che influenzano la pagina globalmente, come accoppiamenti di font e schemi di colore. L’anteprima funge da editor WYSIWYG, permettendoti di afferrare elementi e spostarli, modificarne i contenuti, ecc. A supportare tutto ciò è il modello, che vede queste azioni dell’utente e riscrive la pagina per corrispondere ai cambiamenti effettuati. Poiché il modello può generare un’interfaccia per aiutare te e lui a comunicare più efficientemente, puoi esercitare più controllo sul prodotto finale in meno tempo.

La metafora modello-come-computer ci incoraggia a pensare al modello come a uno strumento con cui interagire in tempo reale piuttosto che a un collaboratore a cui assegnare compiti. Invece di sostituire un tirocinante o un tutor, può essere una sorta di bicicletta proteiforme per la mente, una che è sempre costruita su misura esattamente per te e il terreno che intendi attraversare.

Un nuovo paradigma per l’informatica?

I modelli che possono generare interfacce su richiesta sono una frontiera completamente nuova nell’informatica. Potrebbero essere un paradigma del tutto nuovo, con il modo in cui cortocircuitano il modello di applicazione esistente. Dare agli utenti finali il potere di creare e modificare app al volo cambia fondamentalmente il modo in cui interagiamo con i computer. Al posto di una singola applicazione statica costruita da uno sviluppatore, un modello genererà un’applicazione su misura per l’utente e le sue esigenze immediate. Al posto della logica aziendale implementata nel codice, il modello interpreterà gli input dell’utente e aggiornerà l’interfaccia utente. È persino possibile che questo tipo di interfaccia generativa sostituisca completamente il sistema operativo, generando e gestendo interfacce e finestre al volo secondo necessità.

All’inizio, l’interfaccia generativa sarà un giocattolo, utile solo per l’esplorazione creativa e poche altre applicazioni di nicchia. Dopotutto, nessuno vorrebbe un’app di posta elettronica che occasionalmente invia email al tuo ex e mente sulla tua casella di posta. Ma gradualmente i modelli miglioreranno. Anche mentre si spingeranno ulteriormente nello spazio di esperienze completamente nuove, diventeranno lentamente abbastanza affidabili da essere utilizzati per un lavoro reale.

Piccoli pezzi di questo futuro esistono già. Anni fa Jonas Degrave ha dimostrato che ChatGPT poteva fare una buona simulazione di una riga di comando Linux. Allo stesso modo, websim.ai utilizza un LLM per generare siti web su richiesta mentre li navighi. Oasis, GameNGen e DIAMOND addestrano modelli video condizionati sull’azione su singoli videogiochi, permettendoti di giocare ad esempio a Doom dentro un grande modello. E Genie 2 genera videogiochi giocabili da prompt testuali. L’interfaccia generativa potrebbe ancora sembrare un’idea folle, ma non è così folle.

Ci sono enormi domande aperte su come apparirà tutto questo. Dove sarà inizialmente utile l’interfaccia generativa? Come condivideremo e distribuiremo le esperienze che creiamo collaborando con il modello, se esistono solo come contesto di un grande modello? Vorremmo davvero farlo? Quali nuovi tipi di esperienze saranno possibili? Come funzionerà tutto questo in pratica? I modelli genereranno interfacce come codice o produrranno direttamente pixel grezzi?

Non conosco ancora queste risposte. Dovremo sperimentare e scoprirlo!Che cosa significherebbe trattare l'IA come uno strumento invece che come una persona?

Dall’avvio di ChatGPT, le esplorazioni in due direzioni hanno preso velocità.

La prima direzione riguarda le capacità tecniche. Quanto grande possiamo addestrare un modello? Quanto bene può rispondere alle domande del SAT? Con quanta efficienza possiamo distribuirlo?

La seconda direzione riguarda il design dell’interazione. Come comunichiamo con un modello? Come possiamo usarlo per un lavoro utile? Quale metafora usiamo per ragionare su di esso?

La prima direzione è ampiamente seguita e enormemente finanziata, e per una buona ragione: i progressi nelle capacità tecniche sono alla base di ogni possibile applicazione. Ma la seconda è altrettanto cruciale per il campo e ha enormi incognite. Siamo solo a pochi anni dall’inizio dell’era dei grandi modelli. Quali sono le probabilità che abbiamo già capito i modi migliori per usarli?

Propongo una nuova modalità di interazione, in cui i modelli svolgano il ruolo di applicazioni informatiche (ad esempio app per telefoni): fornendo un’interfaccia grafica, interpretando gli input degli utenti e aggiornando il loro stato. In questa modalità, invece di essere un “agente” che utilizza un computer per conto dell’essere umano, l’IA può fornire un ambiente informatico più ricco e potente che possiamo utilizzare.

Metafore per l’interazione

Al centro di un’interazione c’è una metafora che guida le aspettative di un utente su un sistema. I primi giorni dell’informatica hanno preso metafore come “scrivanie”, “macchine da scrivere”, “fogli di calcolo” e “lettere” e le hanno trasformate in equivalenti digitali, permettendo all’utente di ragionare sul loro comportamento. Puoi lasciare qualcosa sulla tua scrivania e tornare a prenderlo; hai bisogno di un indirizzo per inviare una lettera. Man mano che abbiamo sviluppato una conoscenza culturale di questi dispositivi, la necessità di queste particolari metafore è scomparsa, e con esse i design di interfaccia skeumorfici che le rafforzavano. Come un cestino o una matita, un computer è ora una metafora di se stesso.

La metafora dominante per i grandi modelli oggi è modello-come-persona. Questa è una metafora efficace perché le persone hanno capacità estese che conosciamo intuitivamente. Implica che possiamo avere una conversazione con un modello e porgli domande; che il modello possa collaborare con noi su un documento o un pezzo di codice; che possiamo assegnargli un compito da svolgere da solo e che tornerà quando sarà finito.

Tuttavia, trattare un modello come una persona limita profondamente il nostro modo di pensare all’interazione con esso. Le interazioni umane sono intrinsecamente lente e lineari, limitate dalla larghezza di banda e dalla natura a turni della comunicazione verbale. Come abbiamo tutti sperimentato, comunicare idee complesse in una conversazione è difficile e dispersivo. Quando vogliamo precisione, ci rivolgiamo invece a strumenti, utilizzando manipolazioni dirette e interfacce visive ad alta larghezza di banda per creare diagrammi, scrivere codice e progettare modelli CAD. Poiché concepiamo i modelli come persone, li utilizziamo attraverso conversazioni lente, anche se sono perfettamente in grado di accettare input diretti e rapidi e di produrre risultati visivi. Le metafore che utilizziamo limitano le esperienze che costruiamo, e la metafora modello-come-persona ci impedisce di esplorare il pieno potenziale dei grandi modelli.

Per molti casi d’uso, e specialmente per il lavoro produttivo, credo che il futuro risieda in un’altra metafora: modello-come-computer.

Usare un’IA come un computer

Sotto la metafora modello-come-computer, interagiremo con i grandi modelli seguendo le intuizioni che abbiamo sulle applicazioni informatiche (sia su desktop, tablet o telefono). Nota che ciò non significa che il modello sarà un’app tradizionale più di quanto il desktop di Windows fosse una scrivania letterale. “Applicazione informatica” sarà un modo per un modello di rappresentarsi a noi. Invece di agire come una persona, il modello agirà come un computer.

Agire come un computer significa produrre un’interfaccia grafica. Al posto del flusso lineare di testo in stile telescrivente fornito da ChatGPT, un sistema modello-come-computer genererà qualcosa che somiglia all’interfaccia di un’applicazione moderna: pulsanti, cursori, schede, immagini, grafici e tutto il resto. Questo affronta limitazioni chiave dell’interfaccia di chat standard modello-come-persona:

Scoperta. Un buon strumento suggerisce i suoi usi. Quando l’unica interfaccia è una casella di testo vuota, spetta all’utente capire cosa fare e comprendere i limiti del sistema. La barra laterale Modifica in Lightroom è un ottimo modo per imparare l’editing fotografico perché non si limita a dirti cosa può fare questa applicazione con una foto, ma cosa potresti voler fare. Allo stesso modo, un’interfaccia modello-come-computer per DALL-E potrebbe mostrare nuove possibilità per le tue generazioni di immagini.

Efficienza. La manipolazione diretta è più rapida che scrivere una richiesta a parole. Per continuare l’esempio di Lightroom, sarebbe impensabile modificare una foto dicendo a una persona quali cursori spostare e di quanto. Ci vorrebbe un giorno intero per chiedere un’esposizione leggermente più bassa e una vibranza leggermente più alta, solo per vedere come apparirebbe. Nella metafora modello-come-computer, il modello può creare strumenti che ti permettono di comunicare ciò che vuoi più efficientemente e quindi di fare le cose più rapidamente.

A differenza di un’app tradizionale, questa interfaccia grafica è generata dal modello su richiesta. Questo significa che ogni parte dell’interfaccia che vedi è rilevante per ciò che stai facendo in quel momento, inclusi i contenuti specifici del tuo lavoro. Significa anche che, se desideri un’interfaccia più ampia o diversa, puoi semplicemente richiederla. Potresti chiedere a DALL-E di produrre alcuni preset modificabili per le sue impostazioni ispirati da famosi artisti di schizzi. Quando clicchi sul preset Leonardo da Vinci, imposta i cursori per disegni prospettici altamente dettagliati in inchiostro nero. Se clicchi su Charles Schulz, seleziona fumetti tecnicolor 2D a basso dettaglio.

Una bicicletta della mente proteiforme

La metafora modello-come-persona ha una curiosa tendenza a creare distanza tra l’utente e il modello, rispecchiando il divario di comunicazione tra due persone che può essere ridotto ma mai completamente colmato. A causa della difficoltà e del costo di comunicare a parole, le persone tendono a suddividere i compiti tra loro in blocchi grandi e il più indipendenti possibile. Le interfacce modello-come-persona seguono questo schema: non vale la pena dire a un modello di aggiungere un return statement alla tua funzione quando è più veloce scriverlo da solo. Con il sovraccarico della comunicazione, i sistemi modello-come-persona sono più utili quando possono fare un intero blocco di lavoro da soli. Fanno le cose per te.

Questo contrasta con il modo in cui interagiamo con i computer o altri strumenti. Gli strumenti producono feedback visivi in tempo reale e sono controllati attraverso manipolazioni dirette. Hanno un overhead comunicativo così basso che non è necessario specificare un blocco di lavoro indipendente. Ha più senso mantenere l’umano nel loop e dirigere lo strumento momento per momento. Come stivali delle sette leghe, gli strumenti ti permettono di andare più lontano a ogni passo, ma sei ancora tu a fare il lavoro. Ti permettono di fare le cose più velocemente.

Considera il compito di costruire un sito web usando un grande modello. Con le interfacce di oggi, potresti trattare il modello come un appaltatore o un collaboratore. Cercheresti di scrivere a parole il più possibile su come vuoi che il sito appaia, cosa vuoi che dica e quali funzionalità vuoi che abbia. Il modello genererebbe una prima bozza, tu la eseguirai e poi fornirai un feedback. “Fai il logo un po’ più grande”, diresti, e “centra quella prima immagine principale”, e “deve esserci un pulsante di login nell’intestazione”. Per ottenere esattamente ciò che vuoi, invierai una lista molto lunga di richieste sempre più minuziose.

Un’interazione alternativa modello-come-computer sarebbe diversa: invece di costruire il sito web, il modello genererebbe un’interfaccia per te per costruirlo, dove ogni input dell’utente a quell’interfaccia interroga il grande modello sotto il cofano. Forse quando descrivi le tue necessità creerebbe un’interfaccia con una barra laterale e una finestra di anteprima. All’inizio la barra laterale contiene solo alcuni schizzi di layout che puoi scegliere come punto di partenza. Puoi cliccare su ciascuno di essi, e il modello scrive l’HTML per una pagina web usando quel layout e lo visualizza nella finestra di anteprima. Ora che hai una pagina su cui lavorare, la barra laterale guadagna opzioni aggiuntive che influenzano la pagina globalmente, come accoppiamenti di font e schemi di colore. L’anteprima funge da editor WYSIWYG, permettendoti di afferrare elementi e spostarli, modificarne i contenuti, ecc. A supportare tutto ciò è il modello, che vede queste azioni dell’utente e riscrive la pagina per corrispondere ai cambiamenti effettuati. Poiché il modello può generare un’interfaccia per aiutare te e lui a comunicare più efficientemente, puoi esercitare più controllo sul prodotto finale in meno tempo.

La metafora modello-come-computer ci incoraggia a pensare al modello come a uno strumento con cui interagire in tempo reale piuttosto che a un collaboratore a cui assegnare compiti. Invece di sostituire un tirocinante o un tutor, può essere una sorta di bicicletta proteiforme per la mente, una che è sempre costruita su misura esattamente per te e il terreno che intendi attraversare.

Un nuovo paradigma per l’informatica?

I modelli che possono generare interfacce su richiesta sono una frontiera completamente nuova nell’informatica. Potrebbero essere un paradigma del tutto nuovo, con il modo in cui cortocircuitano il modello di applicazione esistente. Dare agli utenti finali il potere di creare e modificare app al volo cambia fondamentalmente il modo in cui interagiamo con i computer. Al posto di una singola applicazione statica costruita da uno sviluppatore, un modello genererà un’applicazione su misura per l’utente e le sue esigenze immediate. Al posto della logica aziendale implementata nel codice, il modello interpreterà gli input dell’utente e aggiornerà l’interfaccia utente. È persino possibile che questo tipo di interfaccia generativa sostituisca completamente il sistema operativo, generando e gestendo interfacce e finestre al volo secondo necessità.

All’inizio, l’interfaccia generativa sarà un giocattolo, utile solo per l’esplorazione creativa e poche altre applicazioni di nicchia. Dopotutto, nessuno vorrebbe un’app di posta elettronica che occasionalmente invia email al tuo ex e mente sulla tua casella di posta. Ma gradualmente i modelli miglioreranno. Anche mentre si spingeranno ulteriormente nello spazio di esperienze completamente nuove, diventeranno lentamente abbastanza affidabili da essere utilizzati per un lavoro reale.

Piccoli pezzi di questo futuro esistono già. Anni fa Jonas Degrave ha dimostrato che ChatGPT poteva fare una buona simulazione di una riga di comando Linux. Allo stesso modo, websim.ai utilizza un LLM per generare siti web su richiesta mentre li navighi. Oasis, GameNGen e DIAMOND addestrano modelli video condizionati sull’azione su singoli videogiochi, permettendoti di giocare ad esempio a Doom dentro un grande modello. E Genie 2 genera videogiochi giocabili da prompt testuali. L’interfaccia generativa potrebbe ancora sembrare un’idea folle, ma non è così folle.

Ci sono enormi domande aperte su come apparirà tutto questo. Dove sarà inizialmente utile l’interfaccia generativa? Come condivideremo e distribuiremo le esperienze che creiamo collaborando con il modello, se esistono solo come contesto di un grande modello? Vorremmo davvero farlo? Quali nuovi tipi di esperienze saranno possibili? Come funzionerà tutto questo in pratica? I modelli genereranno interfacce come codice o produrranno direttamente pixel grezzi?

Non conosco ancora queste risposte. Dovremo sperimentare e scoprirlo!

Tradotto da:\ https://willwhitney.com/computing-inside-ai.htmlhttps://willwhitney.com/computing-inside-ai.html

@ b83a28b7:35919450

Avi Burra’s 24 is an ambitious and intricately woven narrative that blends mystery, philosophy, and technology into a modern odyssey. At its heart, the novel is a deeply personal story about grief, identity, and legacy, but it also serves as a meditation on the interplay between cryptography, art, and human connection. Burra’s debut novel is as much a puzzle as it is a journey of self-discovery, with its protagonist, Oliver Battolo, unraveling a twenty-four-word seed phrase left behind by his enigmatic father—a key to both a vast Bitcoin fortune and deeper truths about life.

---

The Plot: A Cryptographic Quest

The novel begins with Oliver grappling with the death of his father, Nate Battolo. At Nate’s funeral, Oliver discovers a cryptic message instructing him to find twenty-four words. These words form the seed phrase to a Bitcoin wallet. Guided by Maren, a spiritual healer and family friend, Oliver learns “time projection,” a meditative technique that allows him to access symbolic memories and alternate realities. Through these projections and real-world encounters, Oliver uncovers the twenty-four words while unraveling his father’s hidden life as an early contributor to Bitcoin.

As the narrative progresses, Oliver uncovers shocking truths about his father’s role in the early days of Bitcoin. Alongside this technological intrigue are surrealist elements tied to Jonathan Bryce’s cryptographic paintings, which serve as both literal and metaphorical keys to unlocking Nate’s secrets.

---

Themes: A Philosophical Mosaic

Burra masterfully interweaves several themes throughout 24, including: - Grief and Legacy: The novel explores how Oliver processes his father’s death while uncovering Nate’s hidden life. The journey forces him to reconcile his father’s flaws with his brilliance. - Identity and Reinvention: From Nate’s transformation into “Nate Battolo” at Princeton to Oliver’s own self-discovery, the novel examines how identities are shaped by choices and circumstances. - Philosophy and Non-Duality: The enigmatic Noncemeister—a surreal guide representing collective consciousness—teaches Oliver about interconnectedness and non-duality, echoing traditions like Advaita Vedanta and Zen Buddhism. - Cryptography Meets Art: Jonathan Bryce’s paintings symbolize hidden knowledge waiting to be deciphered, blending surrealist aesthetics with cryptographic principles. - Moral Complexity: The Bitcoin fortune represents both opportunity and burden, forcing Oliver to grapple with ethical dilemmas about wealth, surveillance, and personal responsibility.

---

Strengths

Burra excels at creating a layered narrative that balances intellectual depth with emotional resonance. The philosophical musings of the Noncemeister are thought-provoking without being didactic, offering readers insights into non-duality and existentialism. The integration of cryptography into the plot is seamless; even readers unfamiliar with Bitcoin will find themselves intrigued by its implications for freedom and control. Additionally, the novel’s surrealist elements—particularly the time projection episodes—are vividly described and lend the story an otherworldly quality.

The relationship between Oliver and his father is particularly compelling. Through flashbacks and projections, Nate emerges as a complex figure—brilliant yet flawed—whose decisions ripple through Oliver’s life in unexpected ways. This emotional core grounds the novel amidst its more abstract explorations.

---

Weaknesses

While 24 is undeniably ambitious, its complexity may alienate some readers. The dense philosophical passages—though rewarding for those who enjoy intellectual challenges—can feel overwhelming at times. Similarly, the technical details about Bitcoin and cryptography might be difficult for readers unfamiliar with these topics.

The ending leaves several threads unresolved, including the fate of two additional Bryce paintings hinted at in the epilogue. While this ambiguity adds to the novel’s mystique, it may frustrate readers seeking closure.

---

Conclusion

24 is a bold debut that defies easy categorization. Part mystery, part philosophical treatise, part technological exploration—it is a novel that challenges its readers while rewarding their patience. Avi Burra has crafted a story that is as much about finding twenty-four words as it is about finding oneself. With its intricate plot, rich themes, and memorable characters, 24 establishes Burra as a writer to watch.

For readers who enjoy intellectual puzzles wrapped in emotional depth—think Haruki Murakami meets Neal Stephenson—24 is an unforgettable journey worth taking.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

1. Introduction

Modern election systems must balance privacy (no one sees how individuals vote) with public verifiability (everyone can confirm the correctness of the tally). Achieving this in a decentralized, tamper-resistant manner remains a challenge. Nostr (a lightweight protocol for censorship-resistant communication) offers a promising platform for distributing and archiving election data (ballots) without relying on a single central server.

This paper presents a design where:

1. Each voter generates a new ephemeral Nostr keypair for an election.
2. The election authority (EA) blind-signs this ephemeral public key (npub) to prove the voter is authorized, without revealing which voter owns which ephemeral key.
3. Voters cast encrypted ballots to Nostr relays, each carrying an OpenTimestamps proof to confirm the ballot’s time anchor.
4. Re-voting is allowed: a voter can replace a previously cast ballot by publishing a new ballot with a newer timestamp.
5. Only the latest valid ballot (per ephemeral key) is counted.

We combine well-known cryptographic primitives—blind signatures, homomorphic or mix-net encryption, threshold key management, and time anchoring—into an end-to-end system that preserves anonymity, assures correctness, and prevents double-voting.

---

2. Roles and Components

2.1 Voters

• Long-Term (“KYC-bound”) Key: Each voter has some identity-verified Nostr public key used only for official communication with the EA (not for voting).
• Ephemeral Voting Key: For each election, the voter locally generates a new Nostr keypair ((nsec_e, npub_e)).
• This is the “one-time” identity used to sign ballots.
• The EA never learns the real identity behind (\npub_e) because of blinding.

2.2 Election Authority (EA)

• Maintains the official voter registry: who is entitled to vote.
• Blind-Signs each valid voter’s ephemeral public key to authorize exactly one ephemeral key per voter.
• Publishes a minimal voter roll: e.g., “Voter #12345 has been issued a valid ephemeral key,” without revealing which ephemeral key.

2.3 Nostr Relays

• Decentralized servers that store and forward events.
• Voters post their ballots to relays, which replicate them.
• No single relay is critical; the same ballot can be posted to multiple relays for redundancy.

2.4 Cryptographic Framework

1. Blind Signatures: The EA signs a blinded version of (\npub_e).
2. Homomorphic or Mix-Net Encryption: Ensures the content of each ballot remains private; only aggregate results or a shuffled set are ever decrypted.
3. Threshold / General Access Structure: Multiple trustees (EA plus candidate representatives, for example) must collaborate to produce a final decryption.
4. OpenTimestamps (OTS): Attaches a verifiable timestamp proof to each ballot, anchoring it to a blockchain or other tamper-resistant time reference.

---

3. Protocol Lifecycle

This section walks through voter registration, ephemeral key authorization, casting (and re-casting) ballots, and finally the tally.

3.1 Registration & Minimal Voter Roll

1. Legal/KYC Verification
2. Each real-world voter proves their identity to the EA (per legal procedures).

3. The EA records that the voter is eligible to cast one ballot, referencing their long-term identity key ((\npub_{\mathrm{KYC}})).

4. Issue Authorization “Slot”

5. The EA’s voter roll notes “this person can receive exactly one blind signature for an ephemeral key.”
6. The roll does not store an ephemeral key—just notes that it can be requested.

3.2 Generating and Blinding the Ephemeral Key

1. Voter Creates Ephemeral Key
2. Locally, the voter’s client generates a fresh ((nsec_e, npub_e)).
3. Blinding

4. The client blinds (\npub_e) to produce (\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}). This ensures the EA cannot learn the real (\npub_e).

5. Blind Signature Request

6. The voter, using their KYC-bound key ((\npub_{\mathrm{KYC}})), sends (\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}) to the EA (perhaps via a secure direct message or a “giftwrapped DM”).
7. The EA checks that this voter has not already been issued a blind signature.

8. If authorized, the EA signs (\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}) with its private key and returns the blinded signature.

9. Unblinding

10. The voter’s client unblinds the signature, obtaining a valid signature on (\npub_e).

11. Now (\npub_e) is a blinded ephemeral public key that the EA has effectively “authorized,” without knowing which voter it belongs to.

12. Roll Update

13. The EA updates its minimal roll to note that “Voter #12345 received a signature,” but does not publish (\npub_e).

3.3 Casting an Encrypted Ballot with OpenTimestamps

When the voter is ready to vote:

1. Compose Encrypted Ballot
2. The ballot can be homomorphically encrypted (e.g., with Paillier or ElGamal) or structured for a mix-net.

3. Optionally include Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) showing the ballot is valid (one candidate per race, etc.).

4. Obtain OTS Timestamp

5. The voter’s client computes a hash (H) of the ballot data (ciphertext + ZKPs).
6. The client sends (H) to an OpenTimestamps aggregator.

7. The aggregator returns a timestamp proof verifying that “this hash was seen at or before block/time (T).”

8. Create a “Timestamped Ballot” Payload

9. Combine:

   1. Encrypted ballot data.
   2. OTS proof for the hash of the ballot.
   3. EA’s signature on (\npub_e) (the blind-signed ephemeral key).
   4. A final signature by the voter’s ephemeral key ((nsec_e)) over the entire package.

10. Publish to Nostr

11. The voter posts the complete “timestamped ballot” event to one or more relays.
12. Observers see “an event from ephemeral key (\npub_e), with an OTS proof and the EA’s blind signature,” but cannot identify the real voter or see the vote’s contents.

3.4 Re-Voting (Updating the Ballot)

If the voter wishes to revise their vote (due to coercion, a mistake, or simply a change of mind):

1. Generate a New Encrypted Ballot
2. Possibly with different candidate choices.
3. Obtain a New OTS Proof
4. The new ballot has a fresh hash (H').
5. The OTS aggregator provides a new proof anchored at a later block/time than the old one.
6. Publish the Updated Ballot
7. Again, sign with (\npub_e).
8. Relays store both ballots, but the newer OTS timestamp shows which ballot is “final.”

Rule: The final vote for ephemeral key (\npub_e) is determined by the ballot with the highest valid OTS proof prior to the election’s closing.

3.5 Election Closing & Tally

1. Close Signal
2. At a specified time or block height, the EA publishes a “closing token.”

3. Any ballot with an OTS anchor referencing a time/block after the closing is invalid.

4. Collect Final Ballots

5. Observers (or official tally software) gather the latest valid ballot from each ephemeral key.

6. They confirm the OTS proofs are valid and that no ephemeral key posted two different ballots with the same timestamp.

7. Decryption / Summation

8. If homomorphic, the system sums the encrypted votes and uses a threshold of trustees to decrypt the aggregate.
9. If a mix-net, the ballots are shuffled and partially decrypted, also requiring multiple trustees.

10. In either case, individual votes remain hidden, but the final counts are revealed.

11. Public Audit

12. Anyone can fetch all ballots from the Nostr relays, verify OTS proofs, check the EA’s blind signature, and confirm no ephemeral key was used twice.
13. The final totals can be recomputed from the publicly available data.

---

4. Ensuring One Vote Per Voter & No Invalid Voters

1. One Blind Signature per Registered Voter
2. The EA’s internal list ensures each real voter only obtains one ephemeral key signature.
3. Blind Signature
4. Ensures an unauthorized ephemeral key cannot pass validation (forging the EA’s signature is cryptographically infeasible).
5. Public Ledger of Ballots
6. Because each ballot references an EA-signed key, any ballot with a fake or duplicate signature is easily spotted.

---

5. Security and Privacy Analysis

1. Voter Anonymity
2. The EA never sees the unblinded ephemeral key. It cannot link (\npub_e) to a specific person.

3. Observers only see “some ephemeral key posted a ballot,” not the real identity of the voter.

4. Ballot Secrecy

5. Homomorphic Encryption or Mix-Net: no one can decrypt an individual ballot; only aggregated or shuffled results are revealed.

6. The ephemeral key used for signing does not decrypt the ballot—the election’s threshold key does, after the election.

7. Verifiable Timestamping

8. OpenTimestamps ensures each ballot’s time anchor cannot be forged or backdated.

9. Re-voting is transparent: a later OTS proof overrides earlier ones from the same ephemeral key.

10. Preventing Double Voting

11. Each ephemeral key is unique and authorized once.

12. Re-voting by the same key overwrites the old ballot but does not increase the total count.

13. Protection Against Coercion

14. Because the voter can re-cast until the deadline, a coerced vote can be replaced privately.

15. No receipts (individual decryption) are possible—only the final aggregated tally is revealed.

16. Threshold / Multi-Party Control

17. Multiple trustees must collaborate to decrypt final results, preventing a single entity from tampering or prematurely viewing partial tallies.

---

6. Implementation Considerations

1. Blind Signature Techniques
2. Commonly implemented with RSA-based Chaumian blind signatures or BLS-based schemes.

3. Must ensure no link between (\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}) and (\npub_e).

4. OpenTimestamps Scalability

5. If millions of voters are posting ballots simultaneously, multiple timestamp aggregators or batch anchoring might be needed.

6. Verification logic on the client side or by public auditors must confirm each OTS proof’s integrity.

7. Relay Coordination

8. The system must ensure no single relay can censor ballots. Voters may publish to multiple relays.

9. Tally fetchers cross-verify events from different relays.

10. Ease of Use

11. The user interface must hide the complexity of ephemeral key generation, blind signing, and OTS proof retrieval—making it as simple as possible for non-technical voters.

12. Legal Framework

13. If law requires publicly listing which voters have cast a ballot, you might track “Voter #12345 used their ephemeral key” without revealing the ephemeral key. Or you omit that if secrecy about who voted is desired.

14. Closing Time Edge Cases

15. The system uses a block/time anchor from OTS. Slight unpredictability in block generation might require a small buffer around the official close. This is a policy choice.

---

7. Conclusion

We propose an election system that leverages Nostr for decentralizing ballot publication, blinded ephemeral keys for robust voter anonymity, homomorphic/mix-net encryption for ballot secrecy, threshold cryptography for collaborative final decryption, OpenTimestamps for tamper-proof time anchoring, and re-voting to combat coercion.

Key Advantages:

1. Anonymity: The EA cannot link ballots to specific voters.
2. One Voter, One Credential: Strict enforcement through blind signatures.
3. Verifiable Ordering: OTS ensures each ballot has a unique, provable time anchor.
4. Updatability: Voters can correct or override coerced ballots by posting a newer one before closing.
5. Decentralized Audit: Anyone can fetch ballots from Nostr, verify the EA’s signatures and OTS proofs, and confirm the threshold-decrypted results match the posted ballots.

Such a design shows promise for secure, privacy-preserving digital elections, though real-world deployment will require careful policy, legal, and usability considerations. By combining cryptography with decentralized relays and an external timestamp anchor, the system can uphold both individual privacy and publicly auditable correctness.

@ dd664d5e:5633d319

Christmas season hasn't actually started, yet, in Roman #Catholic Germany. We're in Advent until the evening of the 24th of December, at which point Christmas begins (with the Nativity, at Vespers), and continues on for 40 days until Mariä Lichtmess (Presentation of Christ in the temple) on February 2nd.

It's 40 days because that's how long the post-partum isolation is, before women were allowed back into the temple (after a ritual cleansing).

That is the day when we put away all of the Christmas decorations and bless the candles, for the next year. (Hence, the British name "Candlemas".) It used to also be when household staff would get paid their cash wages and could change employer. And it is the day precisely in the middle of winter.

Between Christmas Eve and Candlemas are many celebrations, concluding with the Twelfth Night called Epiphany or Theophany. This is the day some Orthodox celebrate Christ's baptism, so traditions rotate around blessing of waters.

The Monday after Epiphany was the start of the farming season, in England, so that Sunday all of the ploughs were blessed, but the practice has largely died out.

Our local tradition is for the altar servers to dress as the wise men and go door-to-door, carrying their star and looking for the Baby Jesus, who is rumored to be lying in a manger.

They collect cash gifts and chocolates, along the way, and leave the generous their powerful blessing, written over the door. The famous 20 * C + M + B * 25 blessing means "Christus mansionem benedicat" (Christ, bless this house), or "Caspar, Melchior, Balthasar" (the names of the three kings), depending upon who you ask.

They offer the cash to the Baby Jesus (once they find him in the church's Nativity scene), but eat the sweets, themselves. It is one of the biggest donation-collections in the world, called the "Sternsinger" (star singers). The money goes from the German children, to help children elsewhere, and they collect around €45 million in cash and coins, every year.

As an interesting aside:

The American "groundhog day", derives from one of the old farmers' sayings about Candlemas, brought over by the Pennsylvania Dutch. It says, that if the badger comes out of his hole and sees his shadow, then it'll remain cold for 4 more weeks. When they moved to the USA, they didn't have any badgers around, so they switched to groundhogs, as they also hibernate in winter.

@ 3b7fc823:e194354f

Privacy in Public Spaces: A Tactical Guide

1. Public Wi-Fi Privacy

Using public Wi-Fi can be convenient, but it's important to take precautions to protect your privacy:

• Use a VPN (Virtual Private Network): A VPN encrypts your internet traffic, making it difficult for hackers to intercept your data.
• Disable Automatic Connections: Prevent your device from automatically connecting to open Wi-Fi networks by turning off this feature in your settings.
• Avoid Sensitive Transactions: Refrain from accessing banking or other sensitive accounts while connected to public Wi-Fi.
• Use Secure Websites: Look for "https://" in the website's URL to ensure it uses encryption.
• Keep Software Updated: Ensure your device's operating system and apps are up-to-date to protect against security vulnerabilities.

2. Surveillance Camera Awareness

Surveillance cameras are common in public spaces. Here are some strategies to maintain your privacy:

• Spotting Cameras:
• Look for Signs: Many establishments post signs indicating the presence of surveillance cameras.
• Camera Placement: Cameras are often placed near entrances, exits, and high-traffic areas. Look for dome-shaped cameras on ceilings or wall-mounted cameras.
• Using Masks and Coverings:
• Face Masks: Wearing a mask can help obscure your facial features from facial recognition systems.
• Hats and Sunglasses: A hat can shield your face from overhead cameras, while sunglasses can hide your eyes.
• Covering Identifying Marks:
• Clothing Choices: Wear clothing that doesn't have distinctive logos or patterns that can easily identify you.
• Blend In: Opt for styles and clothing choices that helps you blend in with your surroundings, reducing your visibility.
• Temporary Coverings: Consider using temporary coverings, such as scarves or hoods, to conceal tattoos or other identifying marks.

3. General Privacy Tips in Public Spaces

• Be Mindful of Your Surroundings: Pay attention to your environment and be aware of any unusual behavior or devices that may be capturing your information.
• Limit Personal Information: Avoid discussing sensitive information in public where it can be overheard.
• Use Encrypted Messaging Apps: Apps like Signal or SimpleX offer end-to-end encryption for your messages, making it harder for eavesdroppers to intercept your conversations.
• Use Privacy Screens: Privacy screens on all of you electronic screens can defend against the over the shoulder peek or side eye.
• Avoiding Behaviors: Be mindful of behaviors that could make you a target, such as frequent visits to certain areas or engaging in conversations that might attract unwanted attention.

Taking these steps can help you maintain your privacy while navigating public spaces and using public Wi-Fi. Remember, staying informed and vigilant is key to protecting your personal information.

---

Advocating for privacy does not finance itself. If you enjoyed this article, please consider zapping or sending monero

82XCDNK1Js8TethhpGLFPbVyKe25DxMUePad1rUn9z7V6QdCzxHEE7varvVh1VUidUhHVSA4atNU2BTpSNJLC1BqSvDajw1

@ 46fcbe30:6bd8ce4d