@ ccb30bfc:90b6869f

A busca por diversão online segura e variada levou muitos jogadores a conhecer a plataforma 98A, que tem ganhado destaque no Brasil por seu excelente desempenho técnico, suporte ao cliente de qualidade e, claro, uma vasta biblioteca de jogos envolventes.

Ao acessar o 98A, o jogador se depara com uma interface fluida, ideal para quem quer jogar sem complicações. A plataforma foi projetada para funcionar com eficiência tanto em computadores quanto em dispositivos móveis, permitindo jogatinas rápidas e práticas a qualquer momento.

O catálogo de jogos chama a atenção logo de início. São centenas de opções divididas em categorias que vão desde jogos de giro até clássicos de cartas. Cada jogo conta com uma descrição clara, regras bem definidas e modos para iniciantes e avançados. Isso democratiza o acesso, fazendo com que qualquer pessoa possa se divertir, independentemente do seu nível de experiência.

Um dos pontos altos do 98Aé o sistema de bonificações. Novos usuários são recebidos com recompensas logo no cadastro, enquanto os jogadores frequentes acumulam benefícios conforme sua atividade na plataforma. Esses prêmios vão desde bônus de crédito até acesso antecipado a novos lançamentos e torneios temáticos.

Além disso, o ambiente do 98A é fortemente voltado para a comunidade. Através de chats ao vivo e quadros de líderes, os jogadores podem interagir, trocar dicas e acompanhar o desempenho de outros participantes. Isso transforma o simples ato de jogar em uma atividade social e divertida.

A plataforma é completamente adaptada à realidade brasileira, com opções de pagamento locais e atendimento em português. Isso garante uma experiência personalizada, segura e acessível. A equipe de suporte, sempre presente, reforça o compromisso com a excelência no atendimento.

Combinando diversidade, inovação e suporte de qualidade, o 98A se posiciona como uma escolha certeira para quem busca diversão e praticidade em um só lugar.

@ ccb30bfc:90b6869f

O mundo dos jogos online está em constante evolução, e a BRRBet surge como uma das líderes nesse cenário. Com foco no público brasileiro, a plataforma oferece um ambiente completo, seguro e recheado de opções para quem quer relaxar e se divertir de maneira prática.

Logo ao acessar o site, o usuário se depara com um layout moderno, com menus bem organizados e uma estética agradável. Todo o conteúdo está em português, o que facilita a navegação e torna a experiência muito mais amigável para quem está começando agora.

A BRRBet disponibiliza uma seleção de jogos que agrada a todos os gostos. Seja você fã de jogos de cartas, roleta, slots com temas variados ou experiências ao vivo, há sempre algo novo para explorar. Os jogos são fornecidos por estúdios renomados, garantindo qualidade gráfica, fluidez e mecânicas justas.

Outro atrativo da plataforma são as apostas esportivas. A BRRBet cobre diversos campeonatos nacionais e internacionais, permitindo que o usuário aposte em tempo real e acompanhe as estatísticas das partidas diretamente na tela. Isso traz ainda mais emoção para quem acompanha o mundo esportivo.

No aspecto da experiência do usuário, a BRRBet dá show. O processo de registro é rápido, os métodos de pagamento são variados e seguros, e os saques são processados com agilidade. O suporte ao cliente funciona 24 horas por dia, com atendentes preparados para resolver qualquer dúvida.

A plataforma também oferece recompensas aos jogadores, como bônus de boas-vindas, giros grátis e programas de fidelidade que beneficiam os usuários mais ativos. Tudo isso contribui para tornar a experiência contínua, divertida e cheia de surpresas agradáveis.

Outro ponto que merece destaque é o compromisso com o jogo responsável. A BRRBet disponibiliza ferramentas que permitem ao usuário controlar seus gastos e tempo de uso, promovendo uma experiência equilibrada e saudável.

Portanto, se você procura uma plataforma confiável, divertida e feita para o público brasileiro, a BRRBet é uma excelente escolha. Experimente, explore e descubra um novo nível de entretenimento online com uma plataforma que valoriza cada momento do seu tempo.

@ 7c082548:0b32521e

TQ247 là một nền tảng giải trí trực tuyến được thiết kế để mang đến cho người dùng những trải nghiệm mới mẻ và đầy thú vị. Với giao diện người dùng đơn giản, dễ sử dụng và phong cách thiết kế hiện đại, TQ247 mang đến một không gian giải trí tuyệt vời, nơi người tham gia có thể dễ dàng truy cập vào các trò chơi và dịch vụ đa dạng. Từ những trò chơi trí tuệ giúp kích thích tư duy cho đến những trò chơi hành động đầy kịch tính, TQ247 đều đáp ứng được nhu cầu giải trí của người tham gia ở mọi lứa tuổi. Nền tảng này không ngừng cải tiến và cập nhật các tính năng mới, nhằm đem lại những trải nghiệm mượt mà và hấp dẫn hơn nữa cho người tham gia. TQ247 cũng tổ chức thường xuyên các sự kiện và chương trình khuyến mãi, giúp người tham gia có cơ hội nhận được các phần thưởng hấp dẫn và gia tăng hứng thú khi tham gia các hoạt động giải trí.

Bảo mật luôn là yếu tố quan trọng mà TQ247 đặt lên hàng đầu. Nền tảng này sử dụng các công nghệ bảo mật tiên tiến để đảm bảo rằng mọi thông tin cá nhân của người tham gia đều được bảo vệ an toàn tuyệt đối. TQ247 cam kết không chia sẻ thông tin người dùng với bất kỳ bên thứ ba nào và luôn đảm bảo rằng mọi giao dịch tài chính diễn ra trên nền tảng đều được mã hóa và xử lý cẩn thận. Hệ thống bảo mật của TQ247 luôn được nâng cấp liên tục để đối phó với các mối nguy hiểm và các lỗ hổng bảo mật mới, giúp người tham gia có thể hoàn toàn yên tâm khi tham gia vào các hoạt động giải trí. Bên cạnh đó, dịch vụ chăm sóc khách hàng của TQ247 luôn hoạt động 24/7, với đội ngũ nhân viên tận tình, sẵn sàng hỗ trợ và giải đáp mọi thắc mắc của người tham gia, đảm bảo rằng mọi vấn đề đều được xử lý một cách nhanh chóng và hiệu quả.

Không chỉ chú trọng đến các yếu tố về bảo mật và chất lượng dịch vụ, TQ247 còn đặc biệt quan tâm đến việc xây dựng một cộng đồng người tham gia thân thiện và gắn kết. Nền tảng này thường xuyên tổ chức các hoạt động giao lưu, các sự kiện đặc biệt và chương trình khuyến mãi hấp dẫn để người tham gia có cơ hội gặp gỡ, kết nối và chia sẻ những trải nghiệm giải trí tuyệt vời. TQ247 hiểu rằng việc tạo ra một cộng đồng mạnh mẽ và tích cực không chỉ giúp người tham gia có những phút giây vui vẻ mà còn tạo cơ hội học hỏi và phát triển. Nền tảng này luôn lắng nghe và tiếp nhận ý kiến phản hồi từ cộng đồng người tham gia để cải thiện và nâng cao chất lượng dịch vụ, từ đó đáp ứng tốt hơn nhu cầu của người dùng. Chính sự kết hợp hoàn hảo giữa các trò chơi thú vị, bảo mật an toàn và cộng đồng người tham gia năng động đã giúp TQ247 trở thành một trong những nền tảng giải trí trực tuyến đáng tin cậy và được yêu thích hiện nay.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Nostr: a quick introduction, attempt #2

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

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

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

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

@ 7c082548:0b32521e

KO66 là nền tảng giải trí trực tuyến nổi bật, được nhiều người tham gia yêu thích nhờ sự đa dạng trong các trò chơi và hoạt động giải trí. Với giao diện trực quan, dễ sử dụng và các tính năng tiện ích, KO66 mang đến cho người tham gia những trải nghiệm thú vị và mượt mà. Người dùng có thể dễ dàng truy cập vào các trò chơi hấp dẫn, từ các trò chơi trí tuệ đến những thử thách hành động đầy kịch tính. Hệ thống trò chơi trên KO66 luôn được cập nhật liên tục, đảm bảo rằng người tham gia luôn có những trải nghiệm mới mẻ và không bị nhàm chán. Ngoài các trò chơi giải trí, KO66 còn cung cấp các dịch vụ khác như các sự kiện và chương trình khuyến mãi hấp dẫn, tạo ra cơ hội để người tham gia có thể trải nghiệm nhiều hoạt động giải trí thú vị và đầy hứng khởi.

Bảo mật là một yếu tố quan trọng mà KO66 luôn chú trọng, nhằm đảm bảo sự an toàn cho thông tin cá nhân và các giao dịch tài chính của người tham gia. Nền tảng này sử dụng các công nghệ bảo mật tiên tiến để mã hóa dữ liệu, giúp bảo vệ người tham gia khỏi các mối đe dọa và rủi ro từ các bên thứ ba. Các thông tin cá nhân và giao dịch tài chính luôn được xử lý một cách cẩn thận và bảo mật tuyệt đối. Người tham gia có thể hoàn toàn yên tâm khi tham gia các hoạt động trên KO66, vì nền tảng này luôn đặt sự an toàn và bảo mật của người dùng lên hàng đầu. Ngoài ra, KO66 còn cung cấp dịch vụ chăm sóc khách hàng chuyên nghiệp và tận tình, với đội ngũ nhân viên luôn sẵn sàng hỗ trợ giải đáp mọi thắc mắc và giúp đỡ người tham gia trong mọi tình huống. Dịch vụ hỗ trợ khách hàng của KO66 hoạt động 24/7, đảm bảo người dùng luôn nhận được sự hỗ trợ nhanh chóng và kịp thời.

Ngoài việc chú trọng đến chất lượng dịch vụ và bảo mật, KO66 còn đặc biệt quan tâm đến việc xây dựng cộng đồng người tham gia gắn kết và tích cực. Nền tảng này tổ chức các sự kiện giao lưu và các chương trình khuyến mãi hấp dẫn, giúp người tham gia có cơ hội kết nối, chia sẻ kinh nghiệm và khám phá thêm nhiều hoạt động giải trí mới mẻ. Các sự kiện này không chỉ mang lại những phần thưởng giá trị mà còn tạo ra không gian giao lưu, học hỏi, giúp cộng đồng người tham gia ngày càng trở nên năng động và sáng tạo. KO66 luôn lắng nghe và tiếp thu ý kiến phản hồi từ người tham gia để cải thiện và nâng cao chất lượng dịch vụ, từ đó đáp ứng tốt hơn nhu cầu giải trí của người dùng. Chính sự kết hợp giữa các trò chơi hấp dẫn, bảo mật an toàn và các hoạt động cộng đồng sôi động đã giúp KO66 trở thành một nền tảng giải trí trực tuyến đáng tin cậy và ngày càng được ưa chuộng.

@ 502ab02a:a2860397

เราได้อ่านเรื่อง EVERY eggwhite ไปแล้วคิดว่าเขาจะหยุดแค่นี้ไหมครับ 555555 ไม่มีทางครับ การคืบคลานต้องมีต่อไป วันนี้จะมาในตอนที่ชื่อว่า

EVERY Egg ไข่ยุคใหม่ที่ไม่ต้องใช้แม่ไก่อีกต่อไป ลองนึกภาพ "ไข่เจียว" ที่ไม่มีแม่ไก่เกี่ยวข้องแม้แต่ขนไก่สักเส้น...ใช่เลยจ้ะ โลกตอนนี้ไปถึงจุดที่ ไข่ สามารถผลิตได้จาก “ยีสต์” ที่ถูกดัดแปลงพันธุกรรม เพื่อให้มันสร้าง “โปรตีนไข่” แบบเดียวกับในธรรมชาติ โดยไม่ต้องผ่านแม่ไก่ ไม่ต้องมีเปลือก และแน่นอน...ไม่มีเสียงขันตอนเช้าอีกต่อไป

ผู้เล่นที่น่าจับตาที่สุดคือบริษัท EVERY Company จาก Silicon Valley เจ้าเดิมที่เปิดตัวผลิตภัณฑ์ใหม่ในชื่อ EVERY Egg ซึ่งเป็น “ของเหลว” ที่หน้าตาเหมือนวิปไข่ไก่ แต่เบื้องหลังคือกระบวนการผลิตระดับไซไฟ! พวกเขาใช้เทคนิคที่เรียกว่า precision fermentation หรือ “การหมักแม่นยำ” เพื่อสั่งให้ยีสต์สร้างโปรตีน ovalbumin (โปรตีนหลักในไข่ขาว) และ lysozyme (สารฆ่าเชื้อแบคทีเรียตามธรรมชาติในไข่) ออกมา จากนั้นก็เอามาผสม เติมแต่ง แต่งกลิ่น เติมสี ใส่สารกันเสียเล็กน้อย...ปิ๊ง! ได้ไข่ที่ไม่มีไข่ ได้ใจประชาชนที่กินสารอาหารแบบคลั่งตัวเลข

จุดขายที่ EVERY Company ใช้ในการนำเสนอ EVERY Egg สลุตมาเป็นตับ ตับ ตับ แบบนี้ครับ 1. High quality egg protein ใช้โปรตีน ovalbumin ที่ได้จากกระบวนการ fermentation ด้วย precision fermentation จากยีสต์สายพันธุ์ Pichia pastoris ซึ่งเป็น โปรตีนหลักในไข่ขาวธรรมชาติและเคลมว่าให้คุณสมบัติเทียบเท่าหรือดีกว่าไข่จากไก่ในเรื่องโครงสร้างโปรตีนและการทำงานในอาหาร เช่น การตีขึ้นฟู (foaming) และการอิมัลซิไฟ คุณเอ๊ยยยย ฟลัฟฟลี่สุดๆ 555 2. No hens used เป็น selling point หลักที่สื่อสารหนักมากในเชิง “ไม่เบียดเบียนสัตว์” ดูมีคุณธรรม จึงถูกจัดเป็นมังสวิรัติ (vegan-friendly) แม้จะได้จากจุลินทรีย์ที่ออกแบบให้ผลิตโปรตีนที่เหมือนจากสัตว์ จุดนี้ล่อใจผู้บริโภควีแกนและกลุ่มที่ต่อต้านฟาร์มอุตสาหกรรมอย่างเต็มๆ พร้อมถวิลหา 3. No cholesterol ยังเป็นจุดขายหลักได้ตลอดกาลกับการครอบงำให้กลัวคอเลสเตอรอล เพราะผลิตจากจุลินทรีย์ ไม่ใช่จากสัตว์จริง ๆ จึงไม่มีคอเลสเตอรอลเลย ซึ่งเป็นข้อได้เปรียบเทียบกับไข่ไก่ที่มีคอเลสเตอรอลตามธรรมชาติ 4. No saturated fat พอๆกันครับ ยังเป็นจุดขู่จุดขายได้ตลอดกาลเช่นเดียวกับคอเลสเตอรอล โปรตีนที่ผลิตจากยีสต์ไม่มีไขมันอิ่มตัวเช่นเดียวกับผลิตภัณฑ์จากสัตว์จริง 5. No artificial flavors แหม่ พยายามสร้างภาพลักษณ์ว่าเป็น clean label ไม่ใช้แต่งกลิ่นหรือสารเติมแต่งรส (แม้จะเป็นผลิตภัณฑ์ที่ผ่านกระบวนการขั้นสูงมากก็ตาม) 6. No salmonella จุดที่คนโคตรกลัวเลยในไข่ สังเกตุไหมว่า จัดหนักจัดเน้นขยี้ความกลัวของคนได้ทุกจุด อย่างอันนี้เนื่องจากไม่มีสัตว์เข้ามาเกี่ยวข้องในการผลิต ทำให้โอกาสปนเปื้อนเชื้อซัลโมเนลลาที่พบบ่อยในไข่สดแทบเป็นศูนย์ เป็นจุดขายด้านความปลอดภัยอาหาร (food safety) ที่เขาเน้นมาก

เท่านี้ยังไม่พอครับ คำถามที่คนต้องสงสัยแน่นอนคือ ชนิดของกรดอมิโนหละครบไหม pain point ของชาววีแกน เนื่องจาก EVERY Company ใช้เทคนิค “Precision Fermentation” โดยใส่ยีนจากไก่ลงไปในยีสต์ เพื่อให้ผลิต ovalbumin ได้เหมือนในธรรมชาติ จึงทำให้โครงสร้างของกรดอะมิโนในโปรตีนนี้ เหมือนไข่จริงแทบ 100% โปรตีน ovalbumin ที่ใช้ผลิต เป็น primary protein จึงถือว่าเป็น โปรตีนมาตรฐาน (reference protein) ในทางโภชนาการ เพราะมี กรดอะมิโนจำเป็นทั้ง 9 ชนิด ในปริมาณที่เพียงพอ ได้แก่ Leucine, Lysine, Valine, Isoleucine, Threonine, Methionine, Phenylalanine, Tryptophan, Histidine

แต่... แม้จะมีกรดอะมิโนครบ ก็ยังมีเรื่องให้คิด โปรตีนนี้ ไม่มาจากธรรมชาติ โดยตรง แต่ผ่านการผลิตจากสิ่งมีชีวิตดัดแปลงพันธุกรรม (GMO yeast) ยังไม่มีข้อมูลชัดเจนเรื่อง bioavailability (การดูดซึม) เมื่อเทียบกับไข่จริง และที่สำคัญ คือการบริโภค “complete protein” ไม่ได้แปลว่า ปลอดภัยในระยะยาว ถ้าพื้นฐานมันคือ GMO จากแลปที่ไม่มีวิวัฒนาการร่วมกับมนุษย์ แน่นอนว่ามันยังต้องการ "ตลาดทดลอง" เพื่อทดลองและเก็บข้อมูลประกอบสินค้าในระยะเวลานึง เข้าใจไหม "หนูๆ"

คำถามคือ โปรตีนแท้...หรือแค่ “เลียนแบบ” EVERY Egg บอกว่าเขาสร้างโปรตีนเหมือนไข่เป๊ะชนิดที่ว่าเชฟชื่อดังยังแยกไม่ออก (ถ้าไม่ดูฉลาก) สามารถนำไปทอด ทำไข่คน ไข่เจียว โอ๊มเล็ต ได้เหมือนไข่จริงทุกประการ แถมยังไม่มีคอเลสเตอรอล ไม่มีไขมันอิ่มตัว มีแต่ “โปรตีนล้วนๆ” แบบคลีนๆ

แต่ตรงนี้แหละที่มันเริ่ม น่าสงสัย เพราะการไม่มีไขมันเลย มันก็คือการตัดเอา matrix ทางโภชนาการ ที่ธรรมชาติออกแบบมาให้เราย่อยง่าย ดูดซึมวิตามินได้ดี และช่วยให้เรารู้สึกอิ่มแบบธรรมชาติ ไข่แท้จากไก่ ไม่ใช่แค่แหล่งโปรตีน แต่มันคือ “ของขวัญจากธรรมชาติ” ที่มีทั้ง choline, lutein, zeaxanthin, วิตามิน A, D, E, B12, โอเมก้า-3, ไขมันดี และเลซิธิน อยู่ครบทุกอนู ช่วยทั้งสมอง ดวงตา และตับ

ในขณะที่ EVERY Egg คือ “ไข่ที่เราอยากให้มันเป็น” มากกว่า “ไข่ที่ธรรมชาติอยากให้เราได้กิน”

บริษัท The EVERY Company ได้ร่วมมือกับเชฟระดับสุดยอดมากมาย ซึ่งการร่วมมือครั้งนี้มีเป้าหมายเพื่อแสดงให้เห็นว่าโปรตีนไข่ที่ผลิตจากกระบวนการ precision fermentation ของ EVERY Egg สามารถตอบสนองมาตรฐานสูงสุดของวงการอาหารชั้นเลิศได้ เรามาดูตัวอย่างกันครับว่า มีที่ไหนบ้าง

1. Eleven Madison Park โดย เชฟ Daniel Humm (มิชลิน3 ดาว ที่นิวยอร์ก) EVERY Egg เปิดตัวครั้งแรกในปี 2023 ที่ร้าน Eleven Madison Park ซึ่งเป็นร้านอาหารระดับมิชลิน 3 ดาว ในนิวยอร์ก โดยเชฟ Daniel Humm ได้สร้างสรรค์เมนูพิเศษที่ใช้ EVERY Egg เป็นส่วนประกอบหลัก เช่น ออมเล็ต ค็อกเทล และของหวาน เพื่อแสดงถึงความสามารถของผลิตภัณฑ์นี้ในการตอบสนองมาตรฐานสูงสุดของวงการอาหารชั้นเลิศระดับ fine dining มิชลิน

2. Chantal Guillon (ร้านมาการองฝรั่งเศสในซานฟรานซิสโก) EVERY Company ได้ร่วมมือกับร้านขนม Chantal Guillon ในการผลิตมาการองที่ใช้ EVERY EggWhite™ ซึ่งเป็นโปรตีนไข่ขาวที่ผลิตจากกระบวนการ precision fermentation โดยไม่มีการใช้ไข่จากไก่เลย ผลิตภัณฑ์นี้ได้รับการยอมรับว่าให้รสชาติและเนื้อสัมผัสที่เทียบเท่ากับไข่ขาวธรรมชาติ

3. The Vegetarian Butcher เป็นแบรนด์ในเครือ Unilever ตามที่ได้เคยให้ข้อมูลไปแล้ว EVERY Company ได้จับมือกับ The Vegetarian Butcher ซึ่งเป็นแบรนด์อาหารมังสวิรัติในเครือ Unilever เพื่อพัฒนาและผลิตผลิตภัณฑ์ที่ใช้โปรตีนไข่จาก EVERY Egg โดยมีเป้าหมายในการลดการใช้สัตว์ในห่วงโซ่อาหารและส่งเสริมความยั่งยืนในอุตสาหกรรมอาหาร

4. Grupo Palacios ผู้ผลิต Spanish Omelet รายใหญ่ของโลก EVERY Company ได้ร่วมมือกับ Grupo Palacios ซึ่งเป็นผู้ผลิต Spanish Omelet รายใหญ่ของโลก โดยนำ EVERY Egg มาใช้ในผลิตภัณฑ์ของตน เพื่อเป็นทางเลือกที่ปลอดภัยและยั่งยืนต่อไข่ไก่ธรรมชาติ ซึ่งอาจมีปัญหาเรื่องการปนเปื้อนและความไม่แน่นอนในการผลิต

Fiat Egg บนเส้นทางเดียวกับ Fiat Food เฮียชวนให้มองภาพใหญ่เหมือนเวลาเรายืนอยู่บนดาดฟ้าแล้วมองลงไปที่ตลาด... ผลิตภัณฑ์อย่าง EVERY Egg ไม่ใช่แค่การสร้าง “ของใหม่” แต่มันคือการ เปลี่ยนแปลงพื้นฐานของอาหาร ด้วยแนวคิดแบบ “Fiat” เป๊ะ Fiat Food คืออาหารที่ไม่ได้เกิดจากธรรมชาติ แต่ถูก “กำหนดให้มีคุณค่า” โดยอุตสาหกรรม Fiat Money คือเงินที่ไม่ได้มีมูลค่าในตัวเอง แต่รัฐบาลบอกให้เรายอมรับมันเป็นเงิน

ในโลกนี้ ถ้า “ไข่” ไม่ต้องมาจากแม่ไก่ “นม” ไม่ต้องมาจากเต้า และ “เนื้อ” ไม่ต้องมาจากวัว แต่ใช้แค่สารเคมี + ยีสต์ + กราฟ + กลิ่นสังเคราะห์ = “ของกินได้” แล้วมันจะเหลือความเป็น อาหารแท้ (real food) อยู่อีกไหม?

เบื้องหลังที่เราควรถามให้ลึก แม้ว่า EVERY จะอ้างว่าโปรตีนจากยีสต์ของเขา “ปลอดภัยและยั่งยืน” แต่ยังไม่มีข้อมูลด้าน long-term health impact ยังไม่มีข้อมูลว่ายีสต์ GMO ที่ใช้ จะกระตุ้นภูมิแพ้หรือมีสารตกค้างหรือไม่ ยังไม่รู้ว่าสารแต่งกลิ่น รส และตัวพาอื่นๆ ที่ใส่ใน EVERY Egg จะส่งผลอะไรกับ microbiome หรือฮอร์โมนของเราในระยะยาว แต่นั่นก็คงมาพร้อมกับคำตอบหรูๆหล่อๆว่า "ขอให้มั่นใจในกระบวนการผลิตที่ทันสมัยและดีเยี่ยม" . . . ตามเคย

และที่น่าสนใจคือ...ผลิตภัณฑ์ EVERY Egg ยังไม่ได้รับการรับรอง GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) อย่างเป็นทางการจาก FDA จึงยังไม่สามารถวางจำหน่ายในร้านค้าปลีกทั่วไปได้ บริษัทกำลังร่วมมือกับบริษัทอาหารข้ามชาติในการเปิดตัวผลิตภัณฑ์ในปีนี้ แต่ยังไม่มีข้อมูลชัดเจนเกี่ยวกับการวางจำหน่ายในร้านค้าปลีกทั่วไป​ แต่ส่วนตัวเฮียคิดว่าไม่น่ากังวล น่าจะผ่านฉลุยแหละ 5555

ไข่สังเคราะห์ = ความหวัง? หรือกับดักในรูปของนวัตกรรม? เราคงไม่ปฏิเสธว่ามีหลายคนบนโลกที่แพ้ไข่จริง หรือห่วงใยเรื่องสวัสดิภาพสัตว์ รวมถึงต้องการความ "บริสุทธิ์" "สกัด" "เข้มข้น" แต่คำถามคือ...จะดีกว่าไหมถ้าเราหาทางผลิต ไข่จริงจากไก่ที่เลี้ยงแบบธรรมชาติ ในระบบ regenerative farming แทนที่จะพยายามสร้างโปรตีนปลอมขึ้นมาแข่ง? ทุกครั้งที่มีของใหม่ที่ดูดี สะอาด และ “คลีน” เฮียอยากให้ทุกคน ถามกลับในใจว่า “คลีน” แค่ในห้องแล็บ หรือ “คลีน” ในธรรมชาติจริงๆ?

สรุปแบบไม่ต้องตีลังกาคิดได้ว่า EVERY Egg คือก้าวใหม่ของเทคโนโลยีอาหารที่กำลังวิ่งไปข้างหน้าแบบไม่เหลียวหลัง แต่ในฐานะที่เฮียเชื่อใน real food, nutrient density และความฉลาดของธรรมชาติ เราอาจต้องเตือนใจไว้ว่า...การใช้ยีสต์ดัดแปลงพันธุกรรมมาผลิต “ไข่เทียม” ไม่ใช่ความผิด แต่ก็ไม่ใช่ความจำเป็นไหม เพราะแท้จริงแล้ว เรามี “ไข่” ที่สมบูรณ์แบบอยู่ในธรรมชาติแล้ว...แค่ไม่ควรปล่อยให้อุตสาหกรรมทำลายภาพลักษณ์ของมัน เพื่อขายของที่ “เหมือนไข่” แต่ไม่มีชีวิต

คำถามเดิมครับ วันนึงเมื่อถึงจุดที่คุณไม่ได้เลือก แล้วมันมีให้แค่นี้ วันนั้นจะทำอย่างไร วันแห่งความ "บริสุทธิ์" "สกัด" "เข้มข้น" ที่เราถวิลหา ??? #pirateketo #กูต้องรู้มั๊ย #ม้วนหางสิลูก #siamstr

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Why relay hints are important

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

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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

How to do curation and businesses on Nostr

Suppose you want to start a Nostr business.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Run a relay that does all the magic

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

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

---

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

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

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

@ 3eba5ef4:751f23ae

加密洞见

secp256k1lab：一个不安全的 Python 库，如何让比特币更安全

一些比特币开发者长期以来一直认为应该有一个统一的、可重用的加密 BIP 参考 secp256k1 代码标准。Blockstream 研究团队发布了 secp256k1lab (GitHub Repo)—— 一个新的、故意不安全的 Python 库，用于原型开发、实验和 BIP 规范的制定。

该库并不用于生产的（因为没有常数时间防护，因此易受侧道攻击），但填补了一个空白：提供了一个干净且一致的 secp256k1 功能参考实现，包括 BIP-340 风格的 Schnorr 签名、ECDH 以及底层的域/群运算。该库的目标是：通过避免重复的、一次性的实现，让未来编写 BIP 变得更简单、更安全。对于 BIP 作者来说，这意味着更少的自定义代码和规范问题，以及一条更清晰的从原型到正式提案的路径。

使用基于时间的一次性密码（TOTP）在软件钱包中进行密码验证和访问控制

本文介绍了一种在比特币软件钱包中，使用基于区块的时间同步一次性密码（TOTP, Time-based One-Time Password）机制进行密码验证和钱包访问控制的方法。 与传统的 TOTP 系统不同，这种方法将区块链数据——特别是比特币的区块高度和区块哈希 ——同一个安全存储的加密信息结合，来生成一个动态变化的 6 位数验证码，具备以下安全属性：

• 双重保护：结合了设备持有性和基于区块链衍生的、基于时间的数据（blockchain-derived time-based data）。

• 抗重放攻击：验证码随每个新区块（约 10 分钟一个周期）更新。

• 最小攻击面：无需输入或复制密码短语。

• 硬件加密保护秘密信息：移动端应用的秘密信息存储在不可导出的安全硬件中。

比特币特征矩阵：跟踪比特币产品/服务的互操作性

Bitcoin Opentech 在此页汇集并跟踪比特币相关产品/服务的互操作性。

汇集各种比特币软分叉提案的网站

bitcoin.softforks.org 网站汇集了各种比特币软分叉提案，包含组件、实现原语等关键软分叉信息，以及使用该分叉的使用案例和用户等。

以太坊社区热议 RISC-V 替代 EVM，CKB-VM 经验倍受关注

Vitalik 近日在 Ethereum 的论坛上提出了将用 RISC‑V 代替 EVM 的设想，并提到 CKB-VM 的设计作为参考范例，引发了两个社区对 RISC-V 技术决策的关注和探讨。随着讨论的展开，CKB-VM 当年的设计考量又重新被提起，并吸引了更多人回顾和学习相关经验。CKB 是 Nervos Network 的 Layer 1 公链，其支持智能合约的 Cell 模型受比特币 UTXO 模型启发，并使用基于 RISC-V 的 CKB-VM 虚拟机，实现高效且支持多语言的合约执行。了解更多 CKB-VM 详情：

• An Introduction to Nervos CKB-VM

• 基于 RISC-V 打造的区块链虚拟机——CKB-VM 诞生记（一）

• CKB-VM 的灵感、设计和优势——CKB-VM 诞生记（二）

• 如何在 CKB-VM 上愉快的玩耍——CKB-VM 诞生记（三）

在 Ark 中集成 Taproot Assets 的概念验证

Ark Labs 分享了如何将 Taproot 资产集成到 Ark 的链下批处理层中：在 Ark 标准交易流程上，引入了 tVTXO（tokenized Virtual Transaction Output）——嵌入 Taproot 资产承诺的虚拟输出。tVTXO 的行为与任何其他 VTXO 一样，可在 Ark 的链下层花费，可预先签名以实现单边退出，但它包括两个关键附加功能：

• 资产承诺（Asset Commitments）：使用 Taproot 的内部密钥和 TapTree 结构嵌入到 PkScript 中。

• 传输证明文件（Transfer Proof Files）是一条加密见证的确定性链，通过链下树跟踪资产的包含路径。这些证明可以通过链上元数据激活，从而退出 Taproot Asset 生态。

Erk：改进 Ark 协议，无需用户轮次交互

Erk 是 Ark 协议的一种新颖变体，引入了具有可重新绑定签名的「退款交易」（refund transactions），允许用户提前提供可应用于未来输出的签名。然后，服务器可以安全地刷新 VTXO，而无需用户在每一轮都处于联机状态。这解决了 Ark 的关键限制之一——要求用户在 VTXO 到期之前上线。

Erk 的另一个强大功能是「永久离线刷新」——用户可以按顺序批量预签名未来的刷新。通过 watchtower 监控协议，用户可以在资金保持安全的情况下无限期地保持离线状态。

Robosats：无 KYC 闪电网络 P2P 交易，支持人民币通过微信交易

RoboSats 是一个无 KYC 的开源闪电网络交易平台，使用LN Hodl invoices 最大限度地减少托管和信任要求。用户通过 Tor 浏览器操作，体验简单且交易费用低廉的 P2P 交易。

平台目前也支持通过微信进行人民币。

项目 GitHub 和教程.

值得关注的几个闪电网络基础设施项目

OpenSats 的这篇文章重点关注闪电网络在基础设施上的推进，提到以下项目：

• Lighting Splicing: 允许用户在不停机的情况下动态调整通道容量。通过消除关闭和重新打开通道的需要，Splicing 即减少了摩擦和成本，又简化了流动性管理。

• Validating Lightning Signer (VLS): 通过将密钥存储和交易验证转移给外部签名者，来解决闪电网络传统的、将私钥直接存储在节点上用于交易签名的方式的风险，从而确保即使闪电节点遭到入侵，攻击者也无法访问或滥用私钥来窃取资金。

• BLAST (Big Lightning Automated Simulation Tool): 目标是为闪电网络提供稳定的建模和仿真框架，为研究和开发人员和节点运营商提供更准确地反映真实网络状况的大规模测试环境。

• Lampo: 提供了一个基于 Lightning 开发工具包（LDK）构建的模块化、社区驱动的开发工具和节点实现方案。

• Lnprototest: 提供了一个基于 Python 的测试库，可帮助开发人员验证不同实现中的协议合规性，确保交叉兼容性并防止回归，以免影响实际用户。

Citrea 推出基于 BitVM 的信任最小化双向挂钩桥 Clementine

Rollup 项目 Citrea 在比特币测试网上部署了 Clementine Bridge，这是比特币测试网上第一个完整的 BitVM 桥设计。Clementine 桥是 Citrea 基于 BitVM 的信任最小化双向挂钩方案，核心组件包括：

• 比特币和 Citrea 的轻客户端证明

• BitVM 中的零知识证明验证器

只要 BitVM 设置中的单个验证器是诚实的，Clementine 就会保持安全。这是对现有解决方案（开放和封闭联合）的重大改进。Clementine 桥的设计和 Citrea 的去信任轻客户端一起，最大限度减少了对 Citrea 双向挂钩的信任要求，且无需软分叉。

详情可参考 Clementine 白皮书，以及特征简介。

RISC-V 成为 BitVMX 验证系统最佳选择的五个关键原因

作为 BitVMX 的主要开发者的 Fairgate Labs 概述了 RISC-V 成为 BitVMX 验证系统最佳选择的五大关键：

• 开放且通用：RISC-V 作为标准，无 IP 障碍

• 成熟的工具支持：编译器和调试器的丰富生态系统

• 操作码简单

• 支持高级语言

• 支持通用验证

精彩无限，不止于链

违规却挡不住需求：深圳的 LuckyMiner 在争议中推动家用小型矿机普及

LuckyMiner 是一家深圳的比特币挖矿初创公司，它们生产家用迷你矿机正越来越受欢迎。LuckyMiner 模仿的主要对象是美国产的开源的小型矿机 Bitaxe。虽然开源，但 Bitaxe 适用于 CERN-OHL-S-2.0 规则，要求任何修改都需公开，而 LuckyMiner 并未遵循此规则。

这条推文的发帖人称跟 LuckyMiner 的创始人吃了饭，后者并不遮掩 LuckyMiner 违反了许可，并表示，除了零售的 LuckyMiner 之外，它们也为 B 端客户生产符合开源许可的 Bitaxes，并且同时仿造 braiins 的挖矿设备。

在对负担得起的家用采矿设备的需求不断增长的推动下，LuckyMiner 已经取得了成功。虽然存在争议，但低成本矿工的崛起表明草根阶层对比特币感兴趣，尤其是在亚洲努力应对日益增长的威权主义和金融压迫的时候。

反对销毁受易量子攻击的比特币

关于如何处理易受攻击的地址里的比特币，Jameson Lopp 在此前的文章中，表示它反对恢复这些代币，并主张原地销毁，以防止资金被量子计算的获胜者拿走。

而 UTXO Management 的 Guillaume Girard 在此反驳了 Lopp 的主张，出于以下考虑：

• 侵犯财产权：未经持有者同意就销毁这些币，违反了财产权原则。强制让这些币不可使用，破坏了比特币中对所有权和控制权的基本尊重

• 伦理问题：尽管销毁易受攻击的币是为了防止未来量子攻击者盗币，但实际上也会无差别地惩罚那些遗失钱包或不了解量子威胁的用户。这种做法在伦理上存在严重问题，因为不给用户自救的机会。

他提出了一些更具建设性的替代方案来取代销毁策略：

• Hourglass（沙漏机制）：旨在减轻“没收式销毁”和“市场抛售”这两种方式带来的负面影响。它通过限制量子攻击事件可能引发的供应冲击，既不烧毁币，也不导致市场被抛压所淹没。

这一方案由 Hunter Beast 提出，试图成为“破坏性最小”的解决方案，目前正在开发者社区中接受评估。此外，Hunter Beast 也已经提出了 BIP 360，以引入抗量子密码学（PQC）并新增一种比特币地址类型。

让旧矿机继续发挥余热：边挖矿边供暖的未来可能

BitMEX 对 Heatbit Trio 比特币挖矿加热器做了测评。该产品本质上是一个旧矿机，配备有一个安静的风扇，适用于房间供暖。

作者表示 Heatbit 的商业模式很吸引人，结合挖矿机和加热器的领域也值得长期关注。因为从长远来看，部分由于摩尔定律的物理限制，ASIC 效率的提高速度将下降，因此 ASIC 可以经济地开采比特币更长的时间（如 10 年）。随着涉及的新风险技术的减少，生产成本也应该会下降。当这种情况发生到足够程度时，将比特币挖矿与加热设备相结合可能是有意义的，例如，游泳池、商用锅炉、住宅锅炉以及商用和住宅电加热系统。

开放、即时和无国界支付：稳定币未来

a16z 的该报告探讨了稳定币会如何颠覆全球支付行业，以及谁将从中受益最大等问题。

作者将稳定币的到来称为赚钱的「WhatsApp 时刻」，因为它使国际交易几乎免费、即时、开放。此外，文章指出只有两种稳定币是被认可的：法币或资产支持的稳定币，而 「策略支持的合成美元 」（Strategy-backed synthetic dollars, SBSD）并不被承认是可靠的价值储存或交换媒介。

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

About Nostr, email and subscriptions

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Nostr is not decentralized nor censorship-resistant

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

Nostr today is indeed centralized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

See also:

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

@ fd0bcf8c:521f98c0

Bitcoin

It stands alone. Immutable. Unyielding. It records without mercy. Each transaction cuts deep. Some carry wealth. Others just data. The debate rages on.

OP_RETURN

It divides us all. Bloat versus freedom. Money versus use. Simple versus complex.

Nodes

They bear heavy weight. Each byte costs something. Storage grows. Bandwidth drains. Money defenders stand guard.

"Our purpose is clear...Money serves one master." —Mises

Not art.

Not storage.

Not games.

The fee-payers

They disagree. "I paid. I belong." The miners take their cut. The highest fee wins. No questions asked. The protocol allows it.

"Accept what exists."—Marcus Aurelius

The chain is neutral. Always neutral.

What is a transaction?

None agree. Value transfer only? Or any valid data? The white paper speaks. "Electronic cash system." Yet code evolved. It grew teeth. It allows more now.

"Shitcoin"

Cuts both ways. A dangerous word. It keeps focus. It maintains unity. But it wounds creation. Makes builders desperate. They force ideas onto Bitcoin. They use OP_RETURN poorly. They bloat what needs no bloating. Seneca saw this coming...

"Fear makes suffering worse."

Innovation needs proper soil. Not forced transplants.

Money debates sharpen knives. Is Bitcoin gold? Is it currency? Mantras echo loudly.

"Digital gold."

_"Spend dollars, saving Bitcoin." _

"Never sell your Bitcoin."

Bitcoin becomes idol. Not tool. Mises would disapprove, "Money must move." Without exchange, it dies. If none spend, why fight bloat?

Rhetoric

It hurts us. "Shitcoin" closes minds. Forces square pegs round. Drives experiments home. To Bitcoin they return. Bearing misshapen plans.

"Knowledge exists in dispersion," Hayek warns.

Let ideas find homes. Let Bitcoin be Bitcoin.

Fees

They bring new problems. Users flee high costs. They seek cheaper chains. The wealthy still play games. They can afford the bloat. The poor cannot compete. The rich inscribe at will. Rothbard saw this trap, "Markets need equal rules."

Fee markets favor wealth. Always have. Always will.

Nodes must still run. Validators must validate. Decentralized. Resistant. Strong. The burden grows heavier. But principles matter most.

The battle

It continues. Hard words. Hard choices.

Bitcoin endures all. Money or platform? Gold or currency? The answers shift. The chain grows. Block by block. Byte by byte.

We need clearer words. Cleaner definitions. Less pride. More thought. Let Bitcoin be what it is. Not what we demand.

Bitcoin is human.

Not magical. Not divine. Fallible like its makers. A young experiment still. It could fail tomorrow.

"Nothing is too big to fail." —Satoshi

Our rhetoric needs maturity. Our definitions need clarity. Bitcoin needs humility. From all who touch the code.

@ 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.

@ b69b97fa:982d77f6

O livro de Gênesis, o primeiro da Bíblia, revela o início da história da criação e da redenção. A tradição reformada atribui a autoria humana de Gênesis a Moisés, inspirado por Deus. Escrito por volta de 1446–1406 a.C. enquanto o povo de Israel se preparava para entrar na terra prometida, Gênesis foi dado para “instruir os israelitas sobre o propósito de Deus para eles como nação” e mostrar como seus primórdios se ligam ao plano de salvação. Desde as primeiras linhas o texto enfoca a soberania divina: “Nas primeiras linhas de Gênesis…desdobra-se o poder e a autoridade divina na formação do mundo” . Esse pano de fundo inspirador abre o livro, preparando o coração do leitor para entender como Deus age desde o começo da criação até a aliança com os patriarcas.

Temas principais em Gênesis

• Criação e soberania de Deus: Gênesis relata que “no princípio Deus criou os céus e a terra” (Gn 1:1) e apresenta o Senhor como Criador onipotente. A narrativa mostra que o mundo tem um propósito – Deus ordenado e bom – e que o homem é formado à imagem de Deus, conferindo ao ser humano dignidade única. Desde o início vemos que Deus é soberano sobre toda a história, como apontado em estudos bíblicos: “a narrativa da criação desdobra o poder e a autoridade divina na formação do mundo”.

• A Queda do homem: Com Adão e Eva, o pecado entra no mundo (Gn 3). O texto registra que a desobediência rompeu a comunhão entre a humanidade e Deus, trazendo culpa, medo e sofrimento a todas as relações. A Bíblia explica que “o pecado introduz no mundo a culpa e o medo, marcas profundas” e provoca consequências como violência e separação de Deus. Essa queda fundamenta em Gênesis a doutrina do pecado original e explica por que o mundo ficou quebrado. Mas logo após a Queda Deus faz promessas redentoras – uma decepção de um começo ao mostrar também a graça que virá.

• Aliança com o povo de Deus: Em Gênesis, Deus estabelece pactos importantes. Ao salvar Noé, Deus renova a criação e promete nunca mais destruir a terra com água (Gn 9), selando um arco-íris como sinal de aliança. Depois, chama Abraão e promete: “far-te-ei uma grande nação… em ti serão benditas todas as famílias da terra” (Gn 12:2–3). Essa promessa a Abraão – de que os descendentes dele seriam muitos e abençoariam o mundo – é o fundamento da aliança abraâmica. Nas palavras de estudiosos, “o conceito de aliança… começa com a promessa feita a Abraão, na qual Deus se compromete a fazer dele uma grande nação… abençoando-o e tornando-o uma bênção para todas as nações”. Assim, Gênesis mostra Deus escolhendo e guiando um povo através de acordos firmados por Sua graça.

• Promessa do Redentor: Mesmo depois da Queda, Deus anuncia a salvação futura. Logo após a queda de Adão, Ele diz à serpente que fará inimizade entre a “semente da mulher” e a do inimigo, e que “essa lhe ferirá a cabeça” (Gn 3:15). Essa profecia inicial – chamada de protoevangelho – antecipa a vinda de um Redentor. Gênesis, portanto, já aponta a esperança de redenção: como interpretações reformadas explicam, Deus “revelou Seu pacto da graça… prometendo um Salvador (Gn.3:15), aquele que restauraria o reino recentemente destruído”. Esse fio vermelho continua na aliança com Abraão: a bênção prometida a ele (“em ti serão benditas todas as famílias da terra”) vislumbra a obra de Cristo para todas as nações. Em resumo, Gênesis apresenta a teia de criação, pecado e aliança na qual Deus já coloca as sementes de Sua salvação.

Cristo anunciado em Gênesis

Ao ler Gênesis à luz de Cristo, vemos vários anúncios e figuras do Messias:

• Protoevangelho (Gn 3:15): Logo depois da queda, Deus promete que a “semente da mulher” ferirá a cabeça da serpente. Essa é a primeira promessa de redenção bíblica . Ela estabelece “a expectativa de um Redentor, que seria um descendente… de Adão e Eva” . Em outras palavras, mesmo no Éden, Deus começava a revelar Seu plano de salvar o mundo. Ao longo da narrativa, essa semente se identifica com Cristo, que derrotaria o pecado e a morte.
• Promessa a Abraão: Deus disse a Abraão que “em tua descendência… seriam abençoadas todas as nações” (Gn 12:3). O Novo Testamento esclarece que essa “descendência” se refere a Cristo. Como ensina um comentário bíblico: “A ‘semente’ mencionada… refere-se à vinda do Redentor, que os cristãos identificam como Jesus Cristo. Em Gênesis 12 vemos a continuação da promessa do Redentor através da descendência de Abraão”. Assim, Jesus é o cumprimento da promessa dada a Abraão (cf. Gl 3:16).

• Tipos de Cristo em Gênesis: Vários personagens e eventos de Gênesis prefiguram Jesus:

  • José: Amado por seu pai, mas traído e vendido por prata, José sofre injustamente nas mãos dos irmãos. Depois é exaltado e acaba salvando muitas pessoas durante a fome. Esse paralelo com Jesus é marcante: Cristo era amado pelo Pai (Mateus 3:17), rejeitado pelo seu povo, traído por 30 moedas de prata, sofreu injustamente e acabou salvando o mundo do pecado. José é o tipo perfeito de “servo sofredor” que Deus exalta para trazer salvação.

  • Abraão e Isaque: Abraão demonstrou fé ao aceitar sacrificar seu filho Isaque em obediência a Deus (Gn 22). Deus proveu um carneiro substituto no lugar de Isaque. Essa cena figura o grande sacrifício de Deus oferecendo Seu Filho como Cordeiro do pecado. Como nota um estudo, o quase-sacrifício de Isaque “simboliza o sacrifício de Deus com Jesus”.

  • Adão e o “último Adão”: A Bíblia chama Jesus de o “último Adão” (1Co 15:45). Onde Adão trouxe morte (pelo pecado), Cristo traz vida eterna. A queda do primeiro homem abriu caminho à necessidade do Salvador; Cristo, o último Adão, repara o que foi quebrado. Este paralelo é mencionado em estudos bíblicos: “Adão: Jesus é chamado de o ‘último Adão’… pois trouxe vida onde Adão trouxe morte”.

Cada um desses elementos mostra que Gênesis não é apenas história antiga, mas um começo anunciado da obra de Cristo. Desde as promessas a Adão e Abraão até as figuras de José e Isaac, vemos Deus preparando o caminho para o Redentor.

Aplicações práticas para a vida cristã hoje

• Fé e confiança em Deus: Gênesis exalta a fé dos patriarcas como exemplo para nós. Abraão é chamado de “pai da fé” porque creu nas promessas de Deus mesmo sem ver todos os detalhes. A Bíblia diz de Abraão: “Abrão creu no Senhor, e isso lhe foi creditado como justiça” (Gn 15:6). Esse acontecimento mostra que a justificação do cristão não vem de obras, mas de crer em Deus. Somos encorajados a confiar nas promessas divinas como Abraão fez – crer que Deus cumprirá o que prometeu, mesmo em meio à espera. Como observa um estudo, mesmo sem saber para onde Deus o levava, Abraão “obedeceu prontamente, demonstrando uma confiança inabalável no plano divino”. Em nossa vida, confiar em Deus sem ver o fim da história é um exercício de fé constante, inspirado pelo exemplo de Abraão.

• Obediência e perseverança: Gênesis ensina que a verdadeira fé se manifesta na obediência. Ao ser chamado para uma terra desconhecida, Abraão saiu da sua terra por ordem de Deus. Ao quase sacrificar Isaque, ele mostrou obediência sem entender todos os detalhes. José, mesmo injustiçado, permaneceu íntegro no Egito e Deus o usou para realizar grandes coisas. Assim, aprendemos a servir a Deus fielmente, mesmo em situações difíceis. O blog Fé e Reflexões resume bem: “a verdadeira fé se revela não quando entendemos tudo, mas quando obedecemos e confiamos que Deus tem um plano perfeito para nossas vidas”. Somos chamados a confiar em Deus e fazer o que Ele pede, sabendo que Ele guia cada passo, mesmo quando não vemos a rota completa.

• Esperança na redenção: Desde o princípio, Gênesis afirma que Deus já tinha um plano de salvação. O “protoevangelho” de Gn 3:15 é um lembrete de que Deus promete reverter o mal em bem. Como salienta a Escritura, mesmo após a queda “Deus não os destruiu, mas revelou Seu pacto da graça… prometendo um Salvador (Gn 3:15)”. Para o cristão de hoje, isso dá esperança firme: sabemos que Deus já venceu o pecado e a morte por meio de Jesus Cristo. Não importa o tamanho do problema ou do pecado, Deus é soberano e fiel para cumprir suas promessas. As histórias de Gênesis nos ensinam que Deus continua trabalhando para restaurar o que foi perdido. José entendeu isso ao dizer aos irmãos: “vocês intentaram o mal contra mim, mas Deus o tornou em bem” (Gn 50:20). Em nossa vida diária, podemos seguir em frente com a confiança de que o Senhor está conosco, transformando dificuldades em bênçãos e conduzindo-nos a um futuro de redenção.

Conclusão

O livro de Gênesis molda nossa visão de Deus como Criador soberano, fiel em suas promessas e Senhor da história. Essas páginas iniciais mostram que Deus é onipotente (ele criou tudo) e, ao mesmo tempo, misericordioso (prometeu um Redentor quando nós falhamos). Para nós hoje, essa mensagem é encorajadora: o mesmo Deus que falou com Adão, Noé e Abraão é o Deus que fala conosco e cumpre cada promessa. Assim, podemos viver com fé, sabendo que Cristo está no centro de tudo o que Gênesis anuncia. A história de Gênesis aponta para Jesus – e em Cristo “toda a criação será restaurada” (Rm 8:21) – dando-nos esperança e paz no caminho da vida. Confiemos no Senhor, pois Ele é fiel para realizar em nós o que prometeu desde o princípio.

Fontes: Esta reflexão reuniu ensinamentos bíblicos fundamentados na teologia reformada. As Escrituras de Gênesis e os comentários de autores reformados foram citados para apoiar cada ponto (por exemplo, Gn 3:15, Gn 15:6, Gn 22, e passagens de Paulo). As lições extraídas refletem tanto a simplicidade da narrativa quanto a profundidade do plano de salvação que vem de Deus.

@ 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.

@ 3eba5ef4:751f23ae

Crypto Insights

secp256k1lab: An Insecure Python Library That Makes Bitcoin Safer

Some Bitcoin developers have long believed in the need for a unified, reusable cryptographic BIP reference standard for secp256k1. Blockstream Research has released secp256k1lab — an intentionally insecure new Python library designed for prototyping, experimentation, and BIP specifications.

This library is NOT intended for production use (it lacks constant-time protections and is thus vulnerable to side-channel attacks). However, it fills a gap by providing a clean and consistent reference implementation of secp256k1 functionality, including BIP-340 style Schnorr signatures, ECDH, and low-level field/group operations. Its goal: to make future BIP authoring simpler and more secure by avoiding redundant, one-off implementations. For BIP authors, this means less custom code, fewer specification bugs, and a clearer path from prototype to proposal.

Block-Based Time-Based One-Time Passwords for Secure Passphrase Validation in Bitcoin Wallets

This article introduces a method for passphrase validation and Bitcoin software wallet access control using a block-based time-based one-time password (TOTP) system.

Unlike traditional TOTP systems, this method uses blockchain data — specifically Bitcoin block height and block hash — combined with securely stored cryptographic secrets to generate a 6-digit dynamic verification code with the following security properties:

• Two-Factor Protection: Combines device possession and blockchain-derived time-based data.

• Replay Resistance: Codes change with every block (~10-min cycle).

• Minimal Attack Surface: Passphrase never typed or copied.

• Hardware-Backed Secrets: Mobile app secret stored in non-exportable secure hardware.

Bitcoin Feature Matrix: Tracking Interoperability of Bitcoin Products/Services

You can use this page on Bitcoin Opentech to track interoperability among Bitcoin products and services.

Tracking Bitcoin Soft Fork Proposals in One Place

bitcoin.softforks.org aggregates various Bitcoin soft fork proposals, including components, implementation primitives, use cases, and users.

Ethereum Community Explores Replacing EVM with RISC-V — Spotlight on CKB-VM Experience

Vitalik recently proposed the idea of replacing the EVM with RISC-V on the Ethereum forum, citing the design of CKB-VM as a reference. This has sparked active discussion in both communities around RISC-V as a technical direction. As the conversation deepens, the original design decisions behind CKB-VM have resurfaced, drawing renewed interest and encouraging more developers to study its architecture and lessons.

CKB is the Layer 1 blockchain of the Nervos Network. Its smart contract model, called the Cell model, is inspired by Bitcoin’s UTXO system. It uses the RISC-V–based CKB-VM to enable efficient and multi-language smart contract execution. Find more details in:

• An Introduction to CKB VM

• A Blockchain VM Built on RISC-V (The Birth of CKB-VM Part 1)

• CKB-VM: Its Inspiration, Design, and Strengths (The Birth of CKB-VM, Part 2)

• How to Have Fun with CKB-VM (The Birth of CKB-VM, Part 3)

Integrating Taproot Assets into Ark

Ark Labs shared their proof-of-concept of integrating Taproot Assets into the off-chain batching layer of Ark. They introduced tVTXOs (tokenized Virtual Transaction Outputs) — virtual outputs that embed Taproot Asset commitments.

tVTXOs behave like regular VTXOs, spendable off-chain and pre-signable for unilateral exits, but with two additional features:

• Asset Commitments: Embedded in PkScript using Taproot’s internal key and TapTree structure.

• Transfer Proof Files: A cryptographically linked, deterministic chain of off-chain proofs tracking asset inclusion. These can be activated via on-chain metadata to exit the Taproot Asset ecosystem.

Erk: An Ark Protocol Upgrade Removing User Round Interactions

Erk is a novel variant of the Ark protocol that introduces refund transactions with rebindable signatures. This allows users to pre-sign outputs that the server can safely refresh without needing the user to be online for each round — addressing one of Ark’s limitations.

Another feature of Erk is “perpetual offline refresh” — users can bulk pre-sign future refreshes. With watchtowers monitoring the protocol, users can stay offline indefinitely while their funds remain safe.

Robosats: No-KYC Lightning P2P Trading

RoboSats is an open-source, no-KYC Lightning P2P exchange using LN Hodl invoices to minimize custodial requirements and trust. Operated via the Tor browser, it offers a simple and low-fee user experience.

Find more in their GitHub repo and user guide.

Advancements in Lightning Infrastructure

OpenSats highlights several key Lightning infrastructure advancements:

• Lightning Splicing: Allows dynamic channel capacity adjustment without downtime, simplifying liquidity management and reducing costs.

• Validating Lightning Signer (VLS): Shifts key storage and transaction validation to an external signer. Even if a node is compromised, the attacker can’t access or misuse private keys.

• BLAST (Big Lightning Automated Simulation Tool): Designed to provide a stable modeling and simulation framework of the Lightning Network for developers and node operators.

• Lampo: A modular, community-driven development toolkit and node implementation built on Lightning Dev Kit (LDK).

• Lnprototest: A Python-based testing library to help developers validate protocol adherence across different implementations.

Citrea Launches Clementine: A BitVM-Based Trust-Minimized 2-Way Peg Bridge

Rollup Citrea has deployed Clementine Bridge on Bitcoin testnet — the first fully BitVM-based bridge design on Bitcoin testnet. Clementine is Citrea’s trust-minimized, two-way peg solution powered by:

• Bitcoin and Citrea’s light client proofs

• Zero-knowledge proof verifier in BitVM

As long as one single verifier in the BitVM setup is honest, Clementine remains secure — a major improvement over existing approaches (e.g., open and closed federations). Paired with Citrea’s trustless light client, Clementine minimizes trust in Citrea’s bridge design and doesn’t require a soft fork.

Find more details in Clementine Whitepaper and Feature Overview.

Five Reasons RISC-V Is the Best Architecture for the BitVMX Proving System

Fairgate Labs, the main developers behind BitVMX, outlined five key reasons why RISC-V is the optimal choice for BitVMX:

• Open and Universal: RISC-V as a standard with no IP barriers

• Mature Tooling: A rich ecosystem of compilers and debuggers

• Opcode Simplicity

• High-Level Language Support

• Universal Verification

Top Reads on Blockchain and Beyond

Demand Outpaces Licensing: LuckyMiner Drives Home Mining Boom Amid Controversy

LuckyMiner, a Bitcoin mining startup based in Shenzhen, China, is gaining traction with its mini miners. Their products are clones of the open-source Bitaxe miners from the U.S. However, Bitaxe is licensed under CERN-OHL-S-2.0, which requires all modifications to be open-sourced—something LuckyMiner has not complied with.

According to this post, LuckyMiner's founder openly admitted to violating the license and claimed that while their LuckyMiner devices for retail customers don’t comply with the open-source terms, they also produce fully license-compliant Bitaxes for business clients, while simultaneously cloning mining equipment from Braiins.

Against Burning Quantum-Vulnerable Bitcoins

Jameson Lopp has previously argued in favor of burning bitcoin in vulnerable addresses, to prevent funds from being taken by those who win the quantum computing race.

Guillaume Girard from UTXO Management disagrees, offering these counterpoints:

• Property rights violation: Burning coins without the owner’s consent undermines the very principle of property rights. Forcing coins into unspendability erodes the core Bitcoin ethos of ownership and control.

• Ethical concerns: While burning these coins may prevent quantum theft, it also punishes users who lost wallets or don’t understand the quantum threat—offering no chance for recovery.

Instead of burning, he proposes more constructive steps:

• Hourglass: Mitigates the downsides of both “confiscatory” and “liquidation” approaches – by limiting the potential supply shock of a quantum event, without burning coins or flooding markets.

This solution, proposed by Hunter Beast, aims to be the “least damaging” option and is currently under review by developers. Additionally, Hunter Beast has already proposed BIP 360 to bring Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) to Bitcoin with a new address type.

Old Miners, New Heat: Mining-as-Heating Might Just Work

BitMEX reviewed the Heatbit Trio—a Bitcoin miner repurposed into a room heater redesigned with a quiet fan.

The reviewer found the Heatbit concept commercially appealing and believes the heating-mining hybrid space is worth watching. The rate of improvement in ASIC efficiencies will decline (partly due to the limits of Moore’s Law), such that ASICs can economically mine Bitcoin for much longer—possibly up to 10 years. With fewer new technical risks, production costs should also drop. When that happens, integrating mining with heating systems may become practical.

Open, Instant, Borderless Payments: Stablecoins and Their Future

This a16z report explores how stablecoins are poised to change the global payments landscape—and who stands to benefit most.

The report sees stablecoins the "WhatsApp moment for money," enabling international transfers nearly free and instant. It also stresses that only two types of stablecoins are considered trustworthy: fiat-backed or asset-backed. The so-called Strategy-Backed Synthetic Dollars (SBSDs) are NOT considered to be a reliable store of value or medium of exchange.

@ 6fc114c7:8f4b1405

Losing access to your cryptocurrency can feel like losing a part of your future. Whether it’s a forgotten password, a damaged seed backup, or simply one wrong transfer, the stress can be overwhelming. But there’s a silver lining — Crypt Recver is here to help! With our expert-led recovery services, you can reclaim your lost Bitcoin and other cryptos safely and swiftly.

Why Trust Crypt Recver? 🤝 🛠️ Expert Recovery Solutions At Crypt Recver, we specialize in resolving some of the most complex wallet-related issues. Our team of skilled engineers has the tools and expertise to tackle:

Partially lost or forgotten seed phrases Extracting funds from outdated or invalid wallet addresses Recovering data from damaged hardware wallets Restoring coins from old or unsupported wallet formats You’re not just getting a service; you’re gaining a partner in your cryptocurrency journey.

🚀 Fast and Efficient Recovery We understand that time is critical in crypto recovery. Our optimized systems ensure that you can regain access to your funds quickly, aiming for speed without sacrificing security. With a 90%+ success rate, you can trust us to fight against the clock on your behalf.

🔒 Privacy is Our Priority Your confidentiality matters. Every recovery session is handled with the utmost care, ensuring all processes are encrypted and confidential. You can rest easy, knowing your sensitive information stays private.

💻 Advanced Technology Our proprietary tools and brute-force optimization techniques allow for maximum efficiency in recovery. No matter how challenging your case may be, our technology is designed to give you the best chance at getting your crypto back.

Our Recovery Services Include: 📈 Bitcoin Recovery: Lost access to your Bitcoin wallet? We help recover lost wallets, private keys, and passphrases. Transaction Recovery: Mistakes happen — whether it’s an incorrect wallet address or a lost password, let us handle the recovery. Cold Wallet Restoration: If your cold wallet is failing, we can safely extract your assets and migrate them into a secure, new wallet. Private Key Generation: Lost your private key? Don’t worry. Our experts can help you regain control using advanced methods — all while ensuring your privacy remains intact. ⚠️ What We Don’t Do While we can handle many scenarios, there are some limitations. For example, we cannot recover funds stored in custodial wallets, or cases where there is a complete loss of four or more seed words without any partial info available. We’re transparent about what’s possible, so you know what to expect.

Don’t Let Lost Crypto Hold You Back! ⏳ Did you know that 3 to 3.4 million BTC — nearly 20% of the total supply — are estimated to be permanently lost? Don’t become part of that statistic! Whether it’s due to a forgotten password, sending funds to the wrong address, or damaged drives, we can help you navigate through it all.

🛡️ Real-Time Dust Attack Protection Protecting your privacy goes beyond just recovery. Our services include dust attack protection, which keeps your activity anonymous and your funds secure. Our suite will shield your identity from unwanted tracking, ransomware, and phishing attempts.

🎉 Start Your Recovery Journey Today! Are you ready to reclaim your lost crypto? Don’t wait until it’s too late!

👉 Request Wallet Recovery Help Now!

📞 Need Immediate Assistance? Connect with Us! For real-time support or questions, reach out to our dedicated team on:

✉️ Telegram: Chat with Us on Telegram 💬 WhatsApp: Message Us on WhatsApp Crypt Recver is your trusted partner in the world of cryptocurrency recovery. Let us turn your challenges into victories. Don’t hesitate — your crypto future starts now! 🚀✨

Act fast and secure your digital assets with Crypt Recver!Losing access to your cryptocurrency can feel like losing a part of your future. Whether it’s a forgotten password, a damaged seed backup, or simply one wrong transfer, the stress can be overwhelming. But there’s a silver lining — Crypt Recver is here to help! With our expert-led recovery services, you can reclaim your lost Bitcoin and other cryptos safely and swiftly.

# Why Trust Crypt Recver? 🤝

🛠️ Expert Recovery Solutions

At Crypt Recver, we specialize in resolving some of the most complex wallet-related issues. Our team of skilled engineers has the tools and expertise to tackle:

• Partially lost or forgotten seed phrases
• Extracting funds from outdated or invalid wallet addresses
• Recovering data from damaged hardware wallets
• Restoring coins from old or unsupported wallet formats

You’re not just getting a service; you’re gaining a partner in your cryptocurrency journey.

🚀 Fast and Efficient Recovery

We understand that time is critical in crypto recovery. Our optimized systems ensure that you can regain access to your funds quickly, aiming for speed without sacrificing security. With a 90%+ success rate, you can trust us to fight against the clock on your behalf.

🔒 Privacy is Our Priority

Your confidentiality matters. Every recovery session is handled with the utmost care, ensuring all processes are encrypted and confidential. You can rest easy, knowing your sensitive information stays private.

💻 Advanced Technology

Our proprietary tools and brute-force optimization techniques allow for maximum efficiency in recovery. No matter how challenging your case may be, our technology is designed to give you the best chance at getting your crypto back.

Our Recovery Services Include: 📈

• Bitcoin Recovery: Lost access to your Bitcoin wallet? We help recover lost wallets, private keys, and passphrases.
• Transaction Recovery: Mistakes happen — whether it’s an incorrect wallet address or a lost password, let us handle the recovery.
• Cold Wallet Restoration: If your cold wallet is failing, we can safely extract your assets and migrate them into a secure, new wallet.
• Private Key Generation: Lost your private key? Don’t worry. Our experts can help you regain control using advanced methods — all while ensuring your privacy remains intact.

⚠️ What We Don’t Do

While we can handle many scenarios, there are some limitations. For example, we cannot recover funds stored in custodial wallets, or cases where there is a complete loss of four or more seed words without any partial info available. We’re transparent about what’s possible, so you know what to expect.

# Don’t Let Lost Crypto Hold You Back! ⏳

Did you know that 3 to 3.4 million BTC — nearly 20% of the total supply — are estimated to be permanently lost? Don’t become part of that statistic! Whether it’s due to a forgotten password, sending funds to the wrong address, or damaged drives, we can help you navigate through it all.

🛡️ Real-Time Dust Attack Protection

Protecting your privacy goes beyond just recovery. Our services include dust attack protection, which keeps your activity anonymous and your funds secure. Our suite will shield your identity from unwanted tracking, ransomware, and phishing attempts.

🎉 Start Your Recovery Journey Today!

Are you ready to reclaim your lost crypto? Don’t wait until it’s too late!

👉 Request Wallet Recovery Help Now!

📞 Need Immediate Assistance? Connect with Us!

For real-time support or questions, reach out to our dedicated team on:

• ✉️ Telegram: Chat with Us on Telegram
• 💬 WhatsApp: Message Us on WhatsApp

Crypt Recver is your trusted partner in the world of cryptocurrency recovery. Let us turn your challenges into victories. Don’t hesitate — your crypto future starts now! 🚀✨

Act fast and secure your digital assets with Crypt Recver!

@ 000002de:c05780a7

A lot of typing has been done comparing various right wing figures and people like Donald Trump and Elon Mush to Fascism and Nazism. It is frankly pretty absurd at this point. I'd be with them if they were just talking about these people being authoritarians. They clearly are in many ways. I'm not a fan.

But very little is said in a "non-partisan" way about the left. This is gonna be short and is meant to peak your curiosity to go and do some research for yourself.

The economist Milton Friedman famously said.

"After the fall of communism, everybody in the world agreed that socialism was a failure. Everybody in the world, more or less, agreed that capitalism was a success. And every capitalist country in the world apparently deduced from that what the West needed was more socialism."

This was said a long time ago and it is still the case. People espouse socialist ideas without even a concern about being called out for it. The same is NOT true of fascism or even traditional American patriotism.

But many of you may not realize just how deep the rot of socialism goes. Most people agree that the USSR committed terrible acts and was a failure. Before the creation of the USSR two socialists movements fought for power and control, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. The primary difference between the two groups was how to bring about socialism. The Bolsheviks led by Lenin favored a more radical revolutionary force led by a small group. The Mensheviks, led by Julius Martov, preferred a larger, more democratic rise to power. They supported a more gradual rise of socialism. In October of 1917 the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in a bloody revolution.

Even to this day there are two different minds around how to bring about socialism. In the US the Menshevik approach is the one more popular. People like Bernie and AOC are this type of socialist. But make no mistake. They want to bring about a socialist utopian society. The type of system we have seen fail time and time again.

A few years ago I heard about another socialist movement and was frankly shocked that I had never heard about it before. In 1890 Britain a group of socialists formed an organization called the Fabian Society. The Fabians were/are socialists. But they believe in gradual incrementalism to bring about socialism. So what did the do you ask? They were at the center of the founding of the Labour party in the UK. Now, you might say. Big deal. But here's the weird thing. The Fabian Society's coat of arms was literally a wolf in sheep's clothing

They sought to bring about socialism covertly through democratic processes by presenting themselves as more moderate politicians. They have worked for decades to bring about socialism in the UK. If you don't count Margret Thatcher's era they've done a pretty great job. The UK is a mess.

So what does this have to do with May Day or Labor day for that matter? Well, socialists are at the center of every labor movement and celebrations like May day. Socialist ideas have been pumped into the government textbooks in the US for decades. Teachers are instructed in Universities full of believers in this wolf in sheep's clothing movement of democratic socialism.

Socialism leads to death and poverty. I'm not here to say that the US economy is the example for what the world should do. I'm a free market guy. We live in a corporatism led economy where the state partners with corporations to screw many in the US as well as the world. But I can tell you this. Socialism would be even worse.

The famous and infamous Russian anarchist Emma Goldman upon returning from her visit to the USSR was broken hearted. She had been a supporter of the revolution, but when she saw it with her own eyes she had a change of heart.

The compassion that seems to be a part of socialism is a lie. You can't institutionalize compassion. It has to come from the people, not a system. We should care for our brothers and sisters. But WE have to do it. We can't take from one group and give to another. We can't surrender our liberties to those that say they will take care of it for us. We have to do it. Capitalism is amoral. The free market is amoral. Both require us to be moral and show the way.

I hope this sparks your interest into looking into the history around socialist movements across the globe. I don't doubt that some have good motives, but the results are disastrous for the masses.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/968901

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Anglicismos estúpidos no português contemporâneo

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

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

Palavras que existem em português com sentido diferente

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

Aportuguesamentos desnecessários

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

Expressões

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

Ver também

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Drivechain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does the above procedure mean?

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

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

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

What? 6 months to get my money back?

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

Why bother with this at all?

Drivechains solve many different problems:

It enables experimentation and new use cases for Bitcoin

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

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

It solves conflicts and infighting

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

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

It solves "scaling"

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

Use your imagination.

It solves the blockchain security budget issue

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

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

It keeps Bitcoin decentralized

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

Can miners steal?

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

Will miners steal?

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

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

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

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

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

What do we do if miners steal?

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

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

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

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

Because it is impossible.

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

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

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

What about the Blockstream sidechains whitepaper?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also

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

@ 2183e947:f497b975

Most darknet markets (DNMs) are designed poorly in the following ways:

1. Hosting

Most DNMs use a model whereby merchants fill out a form to create their listings, and the data they submit then gets hosted on the DNM's servers. In scenarios where a "legal" website would be forced to censor that content (e.g. a DMCA takedown order), DNMs, of course, do not obey. This can lead to authorities trying to find the DNM's servers to take enforcement actions against them. This design creates a single point of failure.

A better design is to outsource hosting to third parties. Let merchants host their listings on nostr relays, not on the DNM's server. The DNM should only be designed as an open source interface for exploring listings hosted elsewhere, that way takedown orders end up with the people who actually host the listings, i.e. with nostr relays, and not with the DNM itself. And if a nostr relay DOES go down due to enforcement action, it does not significantly affect the DNM -- they'll just stop querying for listings from that relay in their next software update, because that relay doesn't work anymore, and only query for listings from relays that still work.

2. Moderation

Most DNMs have employees who curate the listings on the DNM. For example, they approve/deny listings depending on whether they fit the content policies of the website. Some DNMs are only for drugs, others are only for firearms. The problem is, to approve a criminal listing is, in the eyes of law enforcement, an act of conspiracy. Consequently, they don't just go after the merchant who made the listing but the moderators who approved it, and since the moderators typically act under the direction of the DNM, this means the police go after the DNM itself.

A better design is to outsource moderation to third parties. Let anyone call themselves a moderator and create lists of approved goods and services. Merchants can pay the most popular third party moderators to add their products to their lists. The DNM itself just lets its users pick which moderators to use, such that the user's choice -- and not a choice by the DNM -- determines what goods and services the user sees in the interface.

That way, the police go after the moderators and merchants rather than the DNM itself, which is basically just a web browser: it doesn't host anything or approve of any content, it just shows what its users tell it to show. And if a popular moderator gets arrested, his list will still work for a while, but will gradually get more and more outdated, leading someone else to eventually become the new most popular moderator, and a natural transition can occur.

3. Escrow

Most DNMs offer an escrow solution whereby users do not pay merchants directly. Rather, during the Checkout process, they put their money in escrow, and request the DNM to release it to the merchant when the product arrives, otherwise they initiate a dispute. Most DNMs consider escrow necessary because DNM users and merchants do not trust one another; users don't want to pay for a product first and then discover that the merchant never ships it, and merchants don't want to ship a product first and then discover that the user never pays for it.

The problem is, running an escrow solution for criminals is almost certain to get you accused of conspiracy, money laundering, and unlicensed money transmission, so the police are likely to shut down any DNM that does this. A better design is to oursource escrow to third parties. Let anyone call themselves an escrow, and let moderators approve escrows just like they approve listings. A merchant or user who doesn't trust the escrows chosen by a given moderator can just pick a different moderator. That way, the police go after the third party escrows rather than the DNM itself, which never touches user funds.

4. Consequences

Designing a DNM along these principles has an interesting consequence: the DNM is no longer anything but an interface, a glorified web browser. It doesn't host any content, approve any listings, or touch any money. It doesn't even really need a server -- it can just be an HTML file that users open up on their computer or smart phone. For two reasons, such a program is hard to take down:

First, it is hard for the police to justify going after the DNM, since there are no charges to bring. Its maintainers aren't doing anything illegal, no more than Firefox does anything illegal by maintaining a web browser that some people use to browse illegal content. What the user displays in the app is up to them, not to the code maintainers. Second, if the police decided to go after the DNM anyway, they still couldn't take it down because it's just an HTML file -- the maintainers do not even need to run a server to host the file, because users can share it with one another, eliminating all single points of failure.

Another consequence of this design is this: most of the listings will probably be legal, because there is more demand for legal goods and services than illegal ones. Users who want to find illegal goods would pick moderators who only approve those listings, but everyone else would use "legal" moderators, and the app would not, at first glance, look much like a DNM, just a marketplace for legal goods and services. To find the illegal stuff that lurks among the abundant legal stuff, you'd probably have to filter for it via your selection of moderators, making it seem like the "default" mode is legal.

5. Conclusion

I think this DNM model is far better than the designs that prevail today. It is easier to maintain, harder to take down, and pushes the "hard parts" to the edges, so that the DNM is not significantly affected even if a major merchant, moderator, or escrow gets arrested. I hope it comes to fruition.

@ 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.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

início

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

Ele ficou em silêncio por alguns instantes.

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

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

---

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

---

Nostr GitHub Telegram Donate

@ 34f1ddab:2ca0cf7c

In the world of cryptocurrency, the stakes are high, and losing access to your digital assets can be a nightmare. But fear not — Crypt Recver is here to turn that nightmare into a dream come true! With expert-led recovery services and cutting-edge technology, Crypt Recver specializes in helping you regain access to your lost Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Why Choose Crypt Recver? 🤔 🔑 Expertise You Can Trust At Crypt Recver, we combine state-of-the-art technology with skilled engineers who have a proven track record in crypto recovery. Whether you’ve forgotten your passwords, lost your private keys, or dealt with damaged hardware wallets, our team is equipped to help.

⚡ Fast Recovery Process Time is of the essence when it comes to recovering lost funds. Crypt Recver’s systems are optimized for speed, enabling quick recoveries — so you can get back to what matters most: trading and investing.

🎯 High Success Rate With over a 90% success rate, our recovery team has helped countless clients regain access to their lost assets. We understand the intricacies of cryptocurrency and are dedicated to providing effective solutions.

🛡️ Confidential & Secure Your privacy is our priority. All recovery sessions at Crypt Recver are encrypted and kept entirely confidential. You can trust us with your information, knowing that we maintain the highest standards of security.

🔧 Advanced Recovery Tools We use proprietary tools and techniques to handle complex recovery scenarios, from recovering corrupted wallets to restoring coins from invalid addresses. No matter how challenging the situation, we have a plan.

Our Recovery Services Include: 📈 Bitcoin Recovery: Have you lost access to your Bitcoin wallet? We can help you recover lost wallets, private keys, and passphrases. Transaction Recovery: Mistaken transfers, lost passwords, or missing transaction records — let us help you reclaim your funds! Cold Wallet Restoration: Did your cold wallet fail? We specialize in extracting assets safely and securely. Private Key Generation: Forgotten your private key? We can help you generate new keys linked to your funds without compromising security. Don’t Let Lost Crypto Ruin Your Day! 🕒 With an estimated 3 to 3.4 million BTC lost forever, it’s critical to act swiftly when facing access issues. Whether you’ve been a victim of a dust attack or have simply forgotten your key, Crypt Recver offers the support you need to reclaim your digital assets.

🚀 Start Your Recovery Now! Ready to get your cryptocurrency back? Don’t let uncertainty hold you back!

👉 Request Wallet Recovery Help Today!

Need Immediate Assistance? 📞 For quick queries or support, connect with us on:

✉️ Telegram: Chat with Us on Telegram 💬 WhatsApp: Message Us on WhatsApp Trust Crypt Recver for the Best Crypto Recovery Service — Get back to trading with confidence! 💪In the world of cryptocurrency, the stakes are high, and losing access to your digital assets can be a nightmare. But fear not — Crypt Recver is here to turn that nightmare into a dream come true! With expert-led recovery services and cutting-edge technology, Crypt Recver specializes in helping you regain access to your lost Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

# Why Choose Crypt Recver? 🤔

🔑 Expertise You Can Trust

At Crypt Recver, we combine state-of-the-art technology with skilled engineers who have a proven track record in crypto recovery. Whether you’ve forgotten your passwords, lost your private keys, or dealt with damaged hardware wallets, our team is equipped to help.

⚡ Fast Recovery Process

Time is of the essence when it comes to recovering lost funds. Crypt Recver’s systems are optimized for speed, enabling quick recoveries — so you can get back to what matters most: trading and investing.

🎯 High Success Rate

With over a 90% success rate, our recovery team has helped countless clients regain access to their lost assets. We understand the intricacies of cryptocurrency and are dedicated to providing effective solutions.

🛡️ Confidential & Secure

Your privacy is our priority. All recovery sessions at Crypt Recver are encrypted and kept entirely confidential. You can trust us with your information, knowing that we maintain the highest standards of security.

🔧 Advanced Recovery Tools

We use proprietary tools and techniques to handle complex recovery scenarios, from recovering corrupted wallets to restoring coins from invalid addresses. No matter how challenging the situation, we have a plan.

# Our Recovery Services Include: 📈

• Bitcoin Recovery: Have you lost access to your Bitcoin wallet? We can help you recover lost wallets, private keys, and passphrases.
• Transaction Recovery: Mistaken transfers, lost passwords, or missing transaction records — let us help you reclaim your funds!
• Cold Wallet Restoration: Did your cold wallet fail? We specialize in extracting assets safely and securely.
• Private Key Generation: Forgotten your private key? We can help you generate new keys linked to your funds without compromising security.

Don’t Let Lost Crypto Ruin Your Day! 🕒

With an estimated 3 to 3.4 million BTC lost forever, it’s critical to act swiftly when facing access issues. Whether you’ve been a victim of a dust attack or have simply forgotten your key, Crypt Recver offers the support you need to reclaim your digital assets.

🚀 Start Your Recovery Now!

Ready to get your cryptocurrency back? Don’t let uncertainty hold you back!

👉 Request Wallet Recovery Help Today!

Need Immediate Assistance? 📞

For quick queries or support, connect with us on:

• ✉️ Telegram: Chat with Us on Telegram
• 💬 WhatsApp: Message Us on WhatsApp

Trust Crypt Recver for the Best Crypto Recovery Service — Get back to trading with confidence! 💪

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

On "zk-rollups" applied to Bitcoin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 2cb30c36:cc7ecec1

Test

This is a test

@ 63616fef:5e05fd6a

How to achieve net zero:

1) Vastly reduce reliable electric generation 2) Optimize for unreliable, and intermittent power generation

Long form article posted via untype.app

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

The problem with ION

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

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

One thing I know is:

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

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

See also

• Excerpt of discussion about DIDs and ION

@ 088436cd:9d2646cc

The arrival of the coronavirus brought not only illness and death but also fear and panic. In such an environment of uncertainty, people have naturally stocked up on necessities, not knowing when things will return to normal.

Retail shelves have been cleared out, and even online suppliers like Amazon and Walmart are out of stock for some items. Independent sellers on these e-commerce platforms have had to fill the gap. With the huge increase in demand, they have found that their inventory has skyrocketed in value.

Many in need of these items (e.g. toilet paper, hand sanitizer and masks) balk at the new prices. They feel they are being taken advantage of in a time of need and call for intervention by the government to lower prices. The government has heeded that call, labeling the independent sellers as "price gougers" and threatening sanctions if they don't lower their prices. Amazon has suspended seller accounts and law enforcement at all levels have threatened to prosecute. Prices have dropped as a result and at first glance this seems like a victory for fair play. But, we will have to dig deeper to understand the unseen consequences of this intervention.

We must look at the economics of the situation, how supply and demand result in a price and how that price acts as a signal that goes out to everyone, informing them of underlying conditions in the economy and helping coordinate their actions.

It all started with a rise in demand. Given a fixed supply (e.g., the limited stock on shelves and in warehouses), an increase in demand inevitably leads to higher prices. Most people are familiar with this phenomenon, such as paying more for airline tickets during holidays or surge pricing for rides.

Higher prices discourage less critical uses of scarce resources. For example, you might not pay $1,000 for a plane ticket to visit your aunt if you can get one for $100 the following week, but someone else might pay that price to visit a dying relative. They value that plane seat more than you.

*** During the crisis, demand surged and their shelves emptied even though

However, retail outlets have not raised prices. They have kept them low, so the low-value uses of things like toilet paper, masks and hand sanitizer has continued. Often, this "use" just takes the form of hoarding. At everyday low prices, it makes sense to buy hundreds of rolls and bottles. You know you will use them eventually, so why not stock up? And, with all those extra supplies in the closet and basement, you don't need to change your behavior much. You don't have to ration your use.

At the low prices, these scarce resources got bought up faster and faster until there was simply none left. The reality of the situation became painfully clear to those who didn't panic and got to the store late: You have no toilet paper and you're not going to any time soon.

However, if prices had been allowed to rise, a number of effects would have taken place that would have coordinated the behavior of everyone so that valuable resources would not have been wasted or hoarded, and everyone could have had access to what they needed.

On the demand side, if prices had been allowed to rise, people would have begun to self-ration. You might leave those extra plies on the roll next time if you know they will cost ten times as much to replace. Or, you might choose to clean up a spill with a rag rather than disposable tissue. Most importantly, you won't hoard as much. That 50th bottle of hand sanitizer might just not be worth it at the new, high price. You'll leave it on the shelf for someone else who may have none.

On the supply side, higher prices would have incentivized people to offer up more of their stockpiles for sale. If you have a pallet full of toilet paper in your basement and all of the sudden they are worth $15 per roll, you might just list a few online. But, if it is illegal to do so, you probably won't.

Imagine you run a business installing insulation and have a few thousand respirator masks on hand for your employees. During a pandemic, it is much more important that people breathe filtered air than that insulation get installed, and that fact is reflected in higher prices. You will sell your extra masks at the higher price rather than store them for future insulation jobs, and the scarce resource will be put to its most important use.

Producers of hand sanitizer would go into overdrive if prices were allowed to rise. They would pay their employees overtime, hire new ones, and pay a premium for their supplies, making sure their raw materials don't go to less important uses.

These kinds of coordinated actions all across the economy would be impossible without real prices to guide them. How do you know if it makes sense to spend an extra $10k bringing a thousand masks to market unless you know you can get more than $10 per mask? If the price is kept artificially low, you simply can't do it. The money just isn't there.

These are the immediate effects of a price change, but incredibly, price changes also coordinate people's actions across space and time.

Across space, there are different supply and demand conditions in different places, and thus prices are not uniform. We know some places are real "hot spots" for the virus, while others are mostly unaffected. High demand in the hot spots leads to higher prices there, which attracts more of the resource to those areas. Boxes and boxes of essential items would pour in where they are needed most from where they are needed least, but only if prices were allowed to adjust freely.

This would be accomplished by individuals and businesses buying low in the unaffected areas, selling high in the hot spots and subtracting their labor and transportation costs from the difference. Producers of new supply would know exactly where it is most needed and ship to the high-demand, high-price areas first. The effect of these actions is to increase prices in the low demand areas and reduce them in the high demand areas. People in the low demand areas will start to self-ration more, reflecting the reality of their neighbors, and people in the hotspots will get some relief.

However, by artificially suppressing prices in the hot spot, people there will simply buy up the available supply and run out, and it will be cost prohibitive to bring in new supply from low-demand areas.

Prices coordinate economic actions across time as well. Just as entrepreneurs and businesses can profit by transporting scarce necessities from low-demand to high-demand areas, they can also profit by buying in low-demand times and storing their merchandise for when it is needed most.

Just as allowing prices to freely adjust in one area relative to another will send all the right signals for the optimal use of a scarce resource, allowing prices to freely adjust over time will do the same.

When an entrepreneur buys up resources during low-demand times in anticipation of a crisis, she restricts supply ahead of the crisis, which leads to a price increase. She effectively bids up the price. The change in price affects consumers and producers in all the ways mentioned above. Consumers self-ration more, and producers bring more of the resource to market.

Our entrepreneur has done a truly incredible thing. She has predicted the future, and by so doing has caused every individual in the economy to prepare for a shortage they don't even know is coming! And, by discouraging consumption and encouraging production ahead of time, she blunts the impact the crisis will have. There will be more of the resource to go around when it is needed most.

On top of this, our entrepreneur still has her stockpile she saved back when everyone else was blithely using it up. She can now further mitigate the damage of the crisis by selling her stock during the worst of it, when people are most desperate for relief. She will know when this is because the price will tell her, but only if it is allowed to adjust freely. When the price is at its highest is when people need the resource the most, and those willing to pay will not waste it or hoard it. They will put it to its highest valued use.

The economy is like a big bus we are all riding in, going down a road with many twists and turns. Just as it is difficult to see into the future, it is difficult to see out the bus windows at the road ahead.

On the dashboard, we don't have a speedometer or fuel gauge. Instead we have all the prices for everything in the economy. Prices are what tell us the condition of the bus and the road. They tell us everything. Without them, we are blind.

Good times are a smooth road. Consumer prices and interest rates are low, investment returns are steady. We hit the gas and go fast. But, the road is not always straight and smooth. Sometimes there are sharp turns and rough patches. Successful entrepreneurs are the ones who can see what is coming better than everyone else. They are our navigators.

When they buy up scarce resources ahead of a crisis, they are hitting the brakes and slowing us down. When they divert resources from one area to another, they are steering us onto a smoother path. By their actions in the market, they adjust the prices on our dashboard to reflect the conditions of the road ahead, so we can prepare for, navigate and get through the inevitable difficulties we will face.

Interfering with the dashboard by imposing price floors or price caps doesn't change the conditions of the road (the number of toilet paper rolls in existence hasn't changed). All it does is distort our perception of those conditions. We think the road is still smooth--our heavy foot stomping the gas--as we crash onto a rocky dirt road at 80 miles per hour (empty shelves at the store for weeks on end).

Supply, demand and prices are laws of nature. All of this is just how things work. It isn't right or wrong in a moral sense. Price caps lead to waste, shortages and hoarding as surely as water flows downhill. The opposite--allowing prices to adjust freely--leads to conservation of scarce resources and their being put to their highest valued use. And yes, it leads to profits for the entrepreneurs who were able to correctly predict future conditions, and losses for those who weren't.

Is it fair that they should collect these profits? On the one hand, anyone could have stocked up on toilet paper, hand sanitizer and face masks at any time before the crisis, so we all had a fair chance to get the supplies cheaply. On the other hand, it just feels wrong that some should profit so much at a time when there is so much need.

Our instinct in the moment is to see the entrepreneur as a villain, greedy "price gouger". But we don't see the long chain of economic consequences the led to the situation we feel is unfair.

If it weren't for anti-price-gouging laws, the major retailers would have raised their prices long before the crisis became acute. When they saw demand outstrip supply, they would have raised prices, not by 100 fold, but gradually and long before anyone knew how serious things would have become. Late comers would have had to pay more, but at least there would be something left on the shelf.

As an entrepreneur, why take risks trying to anticipate the future if you can't reap the reward when you are right? Instead of letting instead of letting entrepreneurs--our navigators--guide us, we are punishing and vilifying them, trying to force prices to reflect a reality that simply doesn't exist.

In a crisis, more than any other time, prices must be allowed to fluctuate. To do otherwise is to blind ourselves at a time when danger and uncertainty abound. It is economic suicide.

In a crisis, there is great need, and the way to meet that need is not by pretending it's not there, by forcing prices to reflect a world where there isn't need. They way to meet the need is the same it has always been, through charity.

If the people in government want to help, the best way for the to do so is to be charitable and reduce their taxes and fees as much as possible, ideally to zero in a time of crisis. Amazon, for example, could instantly reduce the price of all crisis related necessities by 20% if they waived their fee. This would allow for more uses by more people of these scarce supplies as hoarders release their stockpiles on to the market, knowing they can get 20% more for their stock. Governments could reduce or eliminate their tax burden on high-demand, crisis-related items and all the factors that go into their production, with the same effect: a reduction in prices and expansion of supply. All of us, including the successful entrepreneurs and the wealthy for whom high prices are not a great burden, could donate to relief efforts.

These ideas are not new or untested. This is core micro economics. It has been taught for hundreds of years in universities the world over. The fact that every crisis that comes along stirs up ire against entrepreneurs indicates not that the economics is wrong, but that we have a strong visceral reaction against what we perceive to be unfairness. This is as it should be. Unfairness is wrong and the anger it stirs in us should compel us to right the wrong. Our anger itself isn't wrong, it's just misplaced.

Entrepreneurs didn't cause the prices to rise. Our reaction to a virus did that. We saw a serious threat and an uncertain future and followed our natural impulse to hoard. Because prices at major retail suppliers didn't rise, that impulse ran rampant and we cleared the shelves until there was nothing left. We ran the bus right off the road and them blamed the entrepreneurs for showing us the reality of our situation, for shaking us out of the fantasy of low prices.

All of this is not to say that entrepreneurs are high-minded public servants. They are just doing their job. Staking your money on an uncertain future is a risky business. There are big risks and big rewards. Most entrepreneurs just scrape by or lose their capital in failed ventures.

However, the ones that get it right must be allowed to keep their profits, or else no one will try and we'll all be driving blind. We need our navigators. It doesn't even matter if they know all the positive effects they are having on the rest of us and the economy as a whole. So long as they are buying low and selling high--so long as they are doing their job--they will be guiding the rest of us through the good times and the bad, down the open road and through the rough spots.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

rosetta.alhur.es

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

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

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

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

@ 318ebaba:9a262eae

Heute soll es funktionieren

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Thoughts on Nostr key management

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

Here are some ideas that work in tandem:

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

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

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

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

---

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

@ 2ed3596e:98b4cc78

The Bitcoin Well Affiliate program is here! You can earn a bitcoin bonus of 21% of revenue generated from transactions every time someone you refer transacts on our platform. Bitcoin Well Affiliates can also complete bounty tasks to earn sats, such as Bitcoin Well video tutorials. The Affiliate program is our way of aligning incentives with our mission to enable independence. 

How to apply for the Bitcoin Well Affiliate program

The Affiliate program is big folks in and bitcoin or folks with a LOT of experience with bitcoin and self-custody wallets; the most important quality is a passion for orange-pilling!  

Bitcoin Well Affiliates earn more than double our referral commission (21% of revenue generated from transactions), get a custom Bitcoin Well Affiliate webpage to help you get referrals and unlock bounty tasks for bonus sats. You can apply to join the Affiliate program by clicking here.

How to earn your Bitcoin Well Referral bonus

To refer a customer to Bitcoin Well, have them sign up using your Bitcoin Well referral link, this can be found in your Bitcoin Well account under Rewards > Referrals. Your referred customers also get a sign up bonus of 1,000 Bitcoin Well. You get 500 points for each referral, too. 

Your personal referral link will be https://bitcoinwell.com/app/ref/YOUR_WELLTAG. A person can also be referred by typing in your welltag in the Referral Code field on the sign up page. 

The best part? Sats are AUTOMATICALLY paid to your designated Lightning Wallet.

Who is eligible to refer to Bitcoin Well?

The Bitcoin Well Affiliate program is available to anyone! However, our services are only available in Canada and the United States. 

The Affiliate program includes referrals to business and High Net Worth Individuals that use our OTC desk.  

How to hunt Affiliate bounty tasks and earn sats

Affiliates can hunt bounty tasks by making Bitcoin Well tutorials and uploading them to Youtube or X in exchange for sats.

Bounty tasks such as How to buy bitcoin (USA) on Bitcoin Well are a fantastic resource to generate referrals and boost traffic to your pages. Affiliate bounty tasks earn you 21,000-105,000 sats per video. \ \ Affiliate bounty tasks are only available to approved Bitcoin Well Affiliates. Read our Affiliate Bounty article for more details on submitting Affiliate bounties. 

How does the Bitcoin Well referral program work?

The Bitcoin Well Affiliate and referral programs pay you automatically for your referral’s activities.  

\ For example, today we have a 1.2% spread on standard portal transactions (buy, sell, pay bills). This means for every $100 someone spends on the platform we make $1.20, you’ll earn $0.24, automatically paid in sats. If they are using a Lite Account, with a 3% spread, you will earn $0.61 on that transaction, automatically paid in sats. 

Referral bonuses don’t have an expiration date, cause we are all in bitcoin for the long haul! 

The 21% revenue share for whales that end up purchasing through our OTC desk goes a long way, potentially in the thousands of referrals dollars per transaction. We do not place a cap on referral bonuses, so the bigger the whale, the bigger the referral bonus you earn!

How and when do I get paid?

Your referral bonuses are automatically paid out to the designated Lightning Wallet in your referral page. If you prefer, you can select a manual payout where you can withdraw your payouts at any time via LNURLw. \ \ OTC referral bonuses are processed around the middle of each month to your referral Lightning wallet.

What if I am not a fit for the Affiliate Program? Can I still earn from referrals?

Not everyone is the right fit for the Affiliate program, and that’s okay! Maintaining a far-reaching social presence is tough work. \ \ Thankfully, regular customers can still earn unlimited commissions from referrals at a 10% rate! This means for every $100 someone spends on the platform we make $1.20, you’ll earn $0.12, automatically paid in sats. The more your referrals transact, the more sats go to your Lightning wallet!

What makes Bitcoin Well different

Bitcoin Well is on a mission to enable independence. We do this by making it easy to self custody bitcoin. By custodying their own money, our customers are free to do as they wish without begging for permission. By creating a full ecosystem to buy, sell and use your bitcoin to connect with the modern financial world, you are able to have your cake and eat it too - or have your bitcoin in self custody and easily spend it too 🎂 

Create your Bitcoin Well account now →

Invest in Bitcoin Well

We are publicly traded (and love it when our customers become shareholders!) and hold ourselves to a high standard of enabling life on a Bitcoin standard. If you want to learn more about Bitcoin Well, please visit our website!

@ c0c42bba:a5feb7b5

Wisdom for the Fourth Decade

🔥

Turning 40 is like hitting the “I should really know better by now” milestone. It’s a time when you look back at your past self, shake your head, and chuckle (or cringe) at your youthful blunders.

Here are 15 truths you should embrace by this significant age, each one a guide to a more fulfilling, empowered life.

Leverage Is Key

Ever wonder why your colleague who seems to be on perpetual coffee breaks makes ten times more than you? It's not black magic. They have leverage—whether it's through technology, skills, or knowing how to delegate their way out of everything. Find your leverage and watch your value skyrocket.

Distraction: The Silent Killer

In our world of incessant notifications and cat videos, distraction is the enemy. It’s like having a mosquito in the room when you're trying to sleep. Cultivate a habit of deep work. Guard your attention like it's the last piece of cake at a party—fiercely.

Beware of Unqualified Advice

Taking advice from someone who hasn’t achieved what you want is like asking a cat for swimming lessons. Be selective with whose counsel you follow. Choose mentors who have walked the path and let their experiences be your map.

Own Your Life

Here’s the blunt truth: no one is coming to save you. Your problems, your life, are 100% your responsibility. Embrace this ownership. Empower yourself to be the hero of your own story. Don’t wait for a knight in shining armor—be your own rescue mission.

Action Over Self-Help Books

You don’t need to turn your living room into a self-help library. You need action. Self-discipline beats all the motivational quotes in the world. Commit to taking steps, however small, towards your goals. It's the doing, not just the knowing, that transforms dreams into reality.

The Power of Sales Skills

Unless your college degree is as specific as a neurosurgeon’s, your ticket to higher earnings in the next 90 days is learning sales. It’s a skill that opens doors, creates opportunities, and accelerates financial growth faster than you can say "commission."

No One Cares (In a Good Way)

Stop worrying about what others think—they’re too busy worrying about themselves. Take bold steps, make your moves, and create your chances. The world is too preoccupied with its own drama to scrutinize yours.

Collaborate with the Brilliant

When you meet someone smarter than you, don’t let your ego turn it into a competition. Collaborate with them. Two heads (especially two brilliant ones) are better than one, and together you can achieve remarkable things.

The Smoking Deception

Smoking has zero benefits. It’s like trying to improve your driving skills by riding a tricycle. If you want to sharpen your focus and enhance your thinking, ditch the habit. Your lungs—and your future self—will thank you.

Comfort: A Dangerous Addiction

Comfort is like quicksand. It feels nice until you’re stuck and can’t move. Regularly challenge yourself. Step out of your comfort zone because growth and fulfillment lie just beyond the boundaries of what feels easy.

Guard Your Privacy

Not everyone needs to know your life story, your plans, or what you had for breakfast. Maintain a sense of mystery. It’s not about being secretive; it’s about keeping some things just for yourself.

Alcohol: A Costly Vice

Alcohol impairs your judgment and lowers your inhibitions. It’s like paying someone to mess up your life. Avoid it. Clear thinking and control over your actions are priceless.

Keep Your Standards High

Don’t settle for less just because it’s available. High standards attract high-quality opportunities and people. Know your worth and hold out for what aligns with your values and goals.

Prioritize Your Chosen Family

The family you create is more important than the one you were born into. Nurture these relationships. They are your ride-or-die, your squad, your home team. Invest in them as they will be the cornerstone of your support system.

Take Nothing Personally

To save yourself from a myriad of mental burdens, learn not to take things personally. Most of the time, people’s actions are a reflection of their reality, not yours. This mindset shift will free you from unnecessary stress and emotional turmoil.

Embrace These Lessons

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

lnurl-auth explained

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

Relationship between lnurl-auth and other lnurl protocols

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

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

How does it work

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• What about BitID?

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

• What about LSAT?

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

A Causa

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

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

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

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

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

em scrap para T.P.

@ 1408bad0:4971f2ca

Raised by Wolves is another sci-fi flick where Earth faces an extinction level event and lots of cool androids.

The series has some exciting action points showing a side of AI androids used as super weapons against humanity. If you were thinking to get an AI girlfriend, you might have a change of mind.

We see some pretty cool androids, but the awesome Necromancer is pretty spectacular and powerful and you wonder if anything can stop them. However, bizarrely, at times they are also apparently weak and despite their power, the religious group doesn't shy away from confrontation without any real weapons.

It would have been good if they had explored this side more and some of the advanced tech available like which gave the atheista super strength and speed to combat them.

The series has a feel like Foundation to it, but much less polished and maybe more negative and dreary at times. Instead of exploring exciting themes, it descends into mindless trivialities and bizarre gory rituals like killing a hideous pregnant animal and parading the dead baby corpse around.

They arrive on a mysterious but quite dreary planet and things start to set the scene.

The androids themselves are quite well played. The "Mother" is as expected in these woke times the strong and powerful one. The "Father" is the beta male serving her and the kids. It's all quite bizarre in a way.

When they first land they use some tech to make a base quickly and easily, but it disappoints how basic it all is. This is then compounded when the religious group arrive and instead of using modern tech to make a base as you might expect, instead turn into the Amish and make everything from wood. Oh yes, there are trees on this planet, but no really nice food.

The oddness continues and grows throughout the season as the androids become more human and spoiler alert , the most ridiculous storyline emerges as mother becomes pregnant and also really annoying. She starts attaching other bits and creatures to her to suck their blood out for her baby.

Despite all my criticisms, it has been an interesting first series but very disappointing in many ways compared to Foundation.

@ fdd4dcaf:34a25ae0

Cryptocurrency is a digital or virtual currency that uses cryptography for security and is decentralized, meaning it's not controlled by any government or financial institution.

Key Features 1. Decentralized: Cryptocurrencies operate independently of central banks and governments. 2. Digital: Cryptocurrencies exist only in electronic form. 3. Secure: Cryptocurrencies use advanced cryptography for secure transactions. 4. Limited supply: Most cryptocurrencies have a limited supply, which can help maintain their value.

Popular Cryptocurrencies 1. Bitcoin (BTC): The first and most well-known cryptocurrency. 2. Ethereum (ETH): A popular platform for decentralized applications (dApps). 3. Other altcoins: Litecoin, Ripple, Dogecoin, and many more.

Uses 1. Payments: Cryptocurrencies can be used for online transactions. 2. Investments: Some people invest in cryptocurrencies as a store of value or for potential growth. 3. Decentralized applications: Cryptocurrencies can power dApps and smart contracts.

Risks and Challenges 1. Volatility: Cryptocurrency prices can fluctuate rapidly. 2. Security risks: Cryptocurrency exchanges and wallets can be vulnerable to hacking. 3. Regulatory uncertainty: Cryptocurrency regulations vary by country and are subject to change.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

A biblioteca infinita

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

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

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

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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

IPFS problems: Shitcoinery

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

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

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

See also

• Bitcoin, the only non-shitcoin

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

30. November 2022

Sehr geehrter Herr Bindseil und Herr Schaff von der Europäischen Zentralbank,

Ich schreibe Ihnen heute, am Tag der Veröffentlichung Ihres EZB-Blog-Berichts „Bitcoin's Last Stand", sowohl mit Belustigung als auch mit Bestürzung. Ich amüsiere mich darüber, wie albern und hilflos Sie beide erscheinen, indem Sie sich auf müde und längst widerlegte Erzählungen über Bitcoin und seine Nutzlosigkeit und Verschwendung stützen. Und ich bin beunruhigt, weil ich von zwei sehr gut ausgebildeten und etablierten Mitgliedern Ihres Fachgebiets eine viel differenziertere kritische Sichtweise auf den aufkeimenden Bitcoin und die Lightning Skalierungslösung erwartet hätte.

Sie haben sich mit Ihren dilettantischen Versuchen, Angst, Unsicherheit und Zweifel an einem globalen Open-Source-Kooperationsprojekt zu säen, das als ein ständig wachsendes Wertspeicher und -übertragungssystem für viele Millionen Menschen weltweit fungiert, wirklich einen Bärendienst erwiesen. Ein System, das jedes Jahr von mehr und mehr Menschen genutzt wird, da sie von seiner Effektivität und seinem Nutzen erfahren. Und ein System, das noch nie gehackt oder geknackt wurde, das funktioniert, um die „Banklosen" zu versorgen, besonders in den Ländern und Orten, wo sie von finsteren totalitären Regierungen schwer unterdrückt oder von der finanziell „entwickelten" Welt einfach im Stich gelassen wurden. In der Tat ist Bitcoin bereits gesetzliches Zahlungsmittel in El Salvador und der Zentralafrikanischen Republik, und erst gestern erhielt er in Brasilien den Status eines „Zahlungsmittels".

Es entbehrt nicht einer gewissen Ironie, wenn ich schreibe, dass Sie das Ziel so gründlich verfehlen, insbesondere weil die Bank- und Finanzsysteme, zu denen Sie gehören, für eine Energie- und Materialverschwendung verantwortlich sind, die um Größenordnungen größer ist als die Systeme und Ressourcen, die das Bitcoin-Netzwerk antreiben und erhalten. Ich bin mir sicher, dass Sie sich der revolutionären kohlenstoff- und treibhausgasreduzierenden Effekte bewusst sind, die Bitcoin-Mining-Anlagen haben, wenn sie neben Methan-emittierenden Mülldeponien und/oder Ölproduktionsanlagen angesiedelt sind. Und ich weiß, dass Sie auch gut über solar- und windbetriebene Bitcoin-Mining-Cluster informiert sind, die dabei helfen, Mikronetze in unterversorgten Gemeinden einzurichten.

Ich könnte noch weiter darüber sprechen, wie das Lightning-Netzwerk implementiert wird, um Überweisungszahlungen zu erleichtern sowie Finanztechnologie und Souveränität in Gemeinden in Laos und Afrika südlich der Sahara zu bringen. Aber lassen Sie mich zu dem Teil kommen, der einen gewöhnlichen Menschen wie mich einfach zutiefst traurig macht. Bitcoin ist, wie Sie sehr wohl wissen (trotz Ihrer dummen und veralteten Verleumdungen), ein technologisches Netzwerk, das nicht auf nationaler oder internationaler Verschuldung oder der Laune von Politikern basiert oder durch sie entwertet wird. Es ist ein System, das jenseits der Kontrolle einer einzelnen Person, eines Landes oder einer Gruppe von Ländern liegt. Wenn Bitcoin sprechen könnte (was er in der Tat ungefähr alle zehn Minuten tut, durch das elektro-mathematische Knistern und Summen des Wahrheitsfeuers), würde er diese Worte aussprechen:

„Über allen Völkern steht die Menschlichkeit".\ \ Als Bankiers der Europäischen Union, als Menschen von der Erde, als biologische Wesen, die denselben Gesetzen des Verfalls und der Krankheit unterliegen wie alle anderen Wesen, wäre es da nicht erfrischend für Sie beide, das Studium und die Teilnahme an einer Technologie zu begrüßen, die die Arbeit und die Bemühungen der sich abmühenden Menschen auf unserem Planeten bewahrt, anstatt sie zu entwerten? Wie die Bitcoin-Kollegin Alyse Killeen wiederholt gesagt hat: „Bitcoin ist FinTech für arme Menschen".

Ich bin dankbar für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit und hoffe, dass Sie über Bitcoin nachdenken und es gründlicher studieren werden.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Cosmo Crixter

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Why IPFS cannot work, again

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

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

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

This is IPFS.

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

No incentives.

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

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

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

---

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

Related

• How IPFS is broken

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Who will build the roads?

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

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

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

Erschienen in Citadel21 Vol. 18 | Veröffenlichung 21. Juli 2022\ Autor: FractalEncrypt\ Übersetzt von: Sinautoshi am 15.12.2022 - 767561

„Hast du das Recht, deinen eigenen Verstand zu verändern? Hast du das Recht, deinen eigenen Computer zu verändern? Was sind deine Rechte, und was sind deine eigenen? Was sind die Grenzen der Gesellschaft und was sind die Grenzen des Einzelnen?" - Kevin Paul Herbert

Bitcoin und Psychedelika sind gleichzeitig die mächtigsten, aber am wenigsten verstandenen Technologien auf dem Planeten.

\ Sie ergänzen sich zu revolutionären Technologien, die für ein tiefgreifendes persönliches Wachstum genutzt werden können. Sie helfen uns, selbstbestimmte Grenzen in unserem Leben zu definieren, wenn es um die Frage geht, wer die Herrschaft über die Dinge hat, die wir denken, die Software, die wir benutzen, und die Handlungen, die wir ausführen. Sie können dazu genutzt werden, die Zukunft des Einzelnen und damit auch die der Welt zu gestalten.  Viele nutzen diese Werkzeuge heute, um ein besseres, produktiveres Leben zu führen. Sowohl Psychedelika als auch Bitcoin bewirken einen Paradigmenwechsel bei den Nutzern. Das sind keine einfachen Veränderungen. Diese grundlegenden und dauerhaften Veränderungen können die Art und Weise, wie man mit der Welt interagiert, völlig verändern. Souveräne Menschen können sie nutzen, um auf messbare und unermessliche, materielle und immaterielle Weise zu großem Reichtum zu gelangen. Wie bei jedem Werkzeug gibt es auch hier Gefahren, aber der richtige Gebrauch in Verbindung mit Sinn und Verstand führt zu den besten Ergebnissen.

Wie bei allen Werkzeugen sind auch diese nicht für jeden geeignet.

\ Während sowohl Bitcoin als auch Psychedelika stark missverstanden werden, können diejenigen, die sich mit kontemplativen Studien beschäftigen, asymmetrische Gewinne erzielen. Fast niemand versteht vollständig, wie diese Dinge funktionieren, nicht einmal diejenigen, die sie regelmäßig besitzen oder nutzen. Ich kann das nicht genug betonen. Selbst Menschen mit Erfahrung haben Schwierigkeiten, das Ausmaß dieser Technologien vollständig zu erfassen. Jameson Lopp, einer der ersten Bitcoin-Entwickler, sagt: „Niemand versteht Bitcoin, und das ist auch gut so". Das Gleiche gilt für Psychedelika. Die Entscheidung, sich mit diesen Technologien zu beschäftigen, ist eine sehr persönliche Entscheidung, die man nicht auf die leichte Schulter nehmen sollte. Wenn du dir die Zeit nimmst, dich eingehend mit diesen Technologien zu befassen, gehörst du zu dem kleinen Prozentsatz der Bevölkerung, der sie verstehen möchte und davon profitieren kann. Jeder muss dies für sich selbst entscheiden, und das gilt hier mehr als anderswo - Wissen ist Macht.

Einführung

\ Es gibt erstaunlich viele Beziehungen zwischen Bitcoin und Psychedelika, die sich auf vielen verschiedenen Ebenen ergeben. Diese Ähnlichkeiten führen zu einer tiefer gehenden Frage:

Sind Bitcoin und Psychedelika Werkzeuge der Selbstsouveränität, weil sie diese Ähnlichkeiten haben, oder sind sie ähnlich, weil sie Werkzeuge der Selbstsouveränität sind?

Um die Antwort zu finden, müssen wir die beiden Werkzeuge einzeln und in Kombination untersuchen. In diesem Artikel gehen wir auf die vielen Ebenen der Übereinstimmung zwischen diesen Technologien ein und ich möchte dich ermutigen, tiefer eizusteigen, wenn dein Interesse geweckt ist. Diese Kaninchenlöcher gehen tief.

Wie bei Bitcoin ist der LSD- und Psilocybin-Quellcode in verschiedenen Implementierungen frei verfügbar. Die Schöpfer von LSD und Bitcoin haben Anleitungen veröffentlicht, damit jeder auf der ganzen Welt die jeweiligen Tools lesen, verstehen und nutzen kann. Jeder kann das LSD-Patent mit den genauen Schritten zur Synthese von reinem LSD frei lesen, und jeder kann den Bitcoin-Quellcode frei lesen und seine eigene Software von Grund auf erstellen. Jeder kann an jedem Ort seine eigene Implementierung erstellen und sich einem bereits weltweit vernetzten Netzwerk von Gleichgesinnten anschließen. Die Werkzeuge sind weithin verfügbar und können von interessierten Bastlern zu Hause aus einer erstaunlichen Anzahl von Standardteilen hergestellt werden. Wenn sie erst einmal installiert sind, kann eine vorsichtige und aufmerksame Person diese Werkzeuge mit großem Nutzen einsetzen. Eine unvorsichtige Nutzung wird schnell und entschieden bestraft, und die Nutzer müssen sich selbst verbessern, nachdem sie ihre Lektion auf die harte Tour gelernt haben. Konsequenzen sind ein fester Bestandteil von Systemen, die Verantwortung verlangen.

Der ehrliche Forscher wird in Bezug auf diese beiden Technologien von Desinformationen geplagt. Bei den Psychedelika gibt es eine endlose Reihe von falschen Behauptungen. Sie reichen von „Chromosomenschäden, die zu missgebildeten Babys führen" bis hin zu „du springst aus dem Fenster und glaubst, du kannst fliegen" oder sogar, dass du „von einer einzigen Dosis dauerhaft verrückt werden kannst". Es gibt auch eine endlose Reihe von falschen Behauptungen über Bitcoin, von staatlichen Eingriffen über den Verbrauch von mehr Energie als Land X bis hin zum Kochen der Ozeane oder „es ist eine langsame, veraltete Technologie". Deshalb müssen unerschrockene Reisende ihre Bullshit-Detektoren schärfen und Experten in Sachen Recherche und logischem Denken werden.

Die Wahrheit ist, dass die Propagandamauern rund um Bitcoin und Psychedelika errichtet wurden, um die Menschen davon abzulenken, sich selbst zu versorgen. Nachgiebige Menschen, die keine Fragen stellen, sind viel leichter zu kontrollieren als Menschen, die für ihre Freiheit eintreten. Ein Großteil der Anti-Psychedelika- und Anti-Bitcoin-Propaganda kommt direkt von der Regierung. Die Fehlinformationen werden in einen Mantel der Seriosität gehüllt und durchdringen schnell die Gesellschaft. Wenn du Medien oder Inhalte konsumierst, schau dir immer die Quelle an. Wer stellt diese Informationen zur Verfügung und zu welchem Zweck? Achte immer auf die Beweggründe und Anreize. Benutze die „Brille des Skeptikers", wenn du diese Instrumente untersuchst. Glaube keiner Behauptung (auch nicht meiner), ohne sie zu belegen und zu dokumentieren. Vertraue nicht, sondern überprüfe.

Während sowohl Psychedelika als auch Bitcoin in den Mainstream-Medien als gefährlich, schädlich und geradezu böse verteufelt wurden, möchte ich hier dafür plädieren, dass diese Dinge gesund sind, gute Familienwerte vermitteln und mächtige Werkzeuge sind, um uns selbst und unsere Beziehungen zu anderen und der Welt zu verändern.

Auch wenn Bitcoin und Psychedelika wertvolle Werkzeuge sein können, sind sie kein Gegenmittel für falsches Denken. Während einige Nutzer diese Werkzeuge nutzen können, um zu handlungsrelevanten Erkenntnissen zu gelangen, sind nicht alle Nutzer so erfolgreich. Diejenigen, die sich von falschem Denken leiten lassen, können sich in den Seitengassen von Shitcoinerei, New-Age-Zauberkram und anderen logischen Irrtümern wiederfinden. Anstatt diese Wege als destruktiv zu erkennen, gaukeln sie sich vor, etwas Revolutionäres entdeckt zu haben. Es ist wichtig, dass du dein bestes Urteilsvermögen einsetzt und eine skeptische Haltung bewahrst, wenn du dich im Leben im Allgemeinen und mit diesen Tools im Besonderen bewegst.

Die Vorteile, die eine bessere Integration dieser Technologien in die moderne Gesellschaft mit sich bringt, sind enorm und könnten die Zukunft der Menschheit auf tiefgreifende Weise verändern.

Bitcoin ermöglicht eine vernetzte Welt mit einer einzigen Währung. Wie die Verwendung einer einzigen Sprache bringt er uns mit einem fließenden und dynamischen globalen Zusammenhalt zusammen. Handel, Reisen, Umzüge, Steuern und Währungsumrechnung. All das wird durch eine bescheidene Technologie vereinfacht, die für alle zugänglich ist.

Für Psychedelika kann die Integration viele Wege gehen. Der hoffnungsvollste ist jedoch der, bei dem die Menschen legalen Zugang zu bekannten Molekülen in bekannter Reinheit und mit verlässlichen Informationen über deren sichere Verwendung haben. Die Schaffung von sicheren Räumen für den Konsum von Psychedelika (wie die temporären autonomen Zonen von Hakim Bey) und ihre Verknüpfung mit psychedelischen Krisenzentren, die an lokalen Universitäten untergebracht sind, würde es der Gesellschaft ermöglichen, von beiden Seiten der psychedelischen Erfahrung zu profitieren. Die Kreativität und Fantasie der autonomen Räume und die Heilung und Transformation, die durch die Betreuung von Menschen in einer psychedelischen Krise möglich sind, haben ein grenzenloses Potenzial. Dieses sorgfältige Erfahrungsmanagement würde dem Nutzer, den Betreuern und der Gesellschaft insgesamt zugute kommen. Die durchdachte Integration dieser beiden Technologien in die moderne Gesellschaft hat das Potenzial, sowohl dem Einzelnen als auch der globalen Gemeinschaft Vorteile zu bringen.

Bildgebende Studien des Gehirns unter Einfluss von LSD und Psilocybin geben interessante Hinweise darauf, dass Psychedelika die Gehirnaktivität erhöhen und neue Bahnen und Verbindungen im gesamten Gehirn aktivieren. Wenn das mit dem Einzelnen passiert, stell dir vor, was mit dem Makrokosmos der Zivilisation passiert.

Jeder Weg birgt Gefahren, und es gibt kein Patentrezept. Wir haben die Werkzeuge; sie mit Geschick, Integrität und Zielstrebigkeit einzusetzen, ist eine Entscheidung. Das Werkzeug wird die Arbeit nicht für dich erledigen. Das ist der Proof of Work-Gedanke in Aktion.

Ein Hinweis zu den hier erwähnten psychedelischen Substanzen: Es gibt zwar viele psychedelische Verbindungen, aber in diesem Artikel konzentriere ich mich auf LSD und Psilocybin. LSD ist zwar das am weitesten verbreitete Psychedelikum, aber es kann eine zentralisierende Wirkung auf die Chemiker haben, die es herstellen. Es bildet sich eine natürliche Vertriebspyramide mit dem Chemiker an der Spitze, den Groß- und Einzelhändlern und schließlich den Endverbrauchern, die die Basis der Pyramide bilden. Diese Pyramide entsteht, weil ein einziges Gramm LSD 10.000 Dosen enthält. Die LSD-Synthese ist für begeisterte Forscher nicht unerreichbar, aber für den „Normalbürger" nicht so leicht zugänglich wie der Anbau von Pilzen. Pilze der Gattung Psilocybe sind viel dezentraler, weil sie ein Werkzeug sind, das von fast jedem und überall auf dem Planeten eingesetzt werden kann. Es wird kein Händler benötigt, nur du, etwas Erde und ein paar Sporen.

Zusammensetzung der Leserschaft

\ Ich gehe davon aus, dass dieser Artikel von Personen mit unterschiedlichem Verständnis für die behandelten Themen gelesen wird. Ich gehe davon aus, dass die Leser in eine der folgenden vier Kategorien fallen;

• Bitcoiner, die Erfahrung mit Psychedelika haben
• Bitcoiners, die keine Erfahrung mit Psychedelika haben
• Menschen mit psychedelischer Erfahrung, die Bitcoin nicht benutzen
• Menschen, die weder mit dem einen noch mit dem anderen Erfahrung haben

Während sich der größte Teil dieses Artikels auf die Vergleiche und Gemeinsamkeiten zwischen Bitcoin und Psychedelika konzentriert, gehen die folgenden kurzen Abschnitte auf jeden einzelnen ein. Für diejenigen, die damit nicht vertraut sind, beschreibe ich kurz, warum ich beide für ein wichtiges Instrument der Selbstbestimmung halte. Sowohl Bitcoin als auch Psychedelika sind Gegenstand von wilden Fehlinformationskampagnen, auf die wir später noch genauer eingehen werden. Ich erwähne das jetzt nur, um darauf hinzuweisen, dass die allgemein zugänglichen Medien zu beiden Themen verwirrend und in vielerlei Hinsicht irreführend sind, wenn du nur ein oberflächliches Verständnis von beiden Themen hast. Man muss sich eingehend mit dem Thema befassen, um den ganzen Schwachsinn zu durchschauen.

Für diejenigen, die noch keine Erfahrung mit Psychedelika haben oder diese nicht kennen

\ LSD und Psilocybin gehören zu den mächtigsten Werkzeugen für die Selbsterkundung, die heute verfügbar sind. Sie sind außerdem ungiftig und nicht gewohnheitsbildend, obwohl sie auch Gefahren bergen. Sie geben dir einen Zugang zu dir selbst, den du auf keine andere Weise erreichen kannst. Kein noch so großer Yoga- oder Meditationstrip kann dir einen LSD-Trip bescheren. Sie gehören zu den sichersten Moleküle auf dem Planeten. Vergleiche zum Beispiel NULL Todesfälle durch LSD und Magic Mushrooms mit über 3.000 Todesfällen pro Jahr durch etwas, das als sicher gilt, wie Aspirin.

Die Bedeutung von Psychedelika als Mittel zur menschlichen Selbsterforschung kann gar nicht hoch genug eingeschätzt werden. Steve Jobs beschrieb die Einnahme von LSD als eines der wichtigsten Dinge in seinem Leben.

"Die Einnahme von LSD war eine tiefgreifende Erfahrung, eines der wichtigsten Dinge in meinem Leben. Es stärkte meinen Sinn für das, was wichtig war - großartige Dinge zu schaffen und sie in den Strom der Geschichte und des menschlichen Bewusstseins einzubringen, so gut ich konnte." - Steve Jobs

\ Roland Griffiths Arbeit an der Johns Hopkins University zeigt, dass Psilocybin Depressionen und Angstzustände bei Patienten mit lebensbedrohlichen Krebserkrankungen erheblich und nachhaltig verringert.

„Das hat mich wie ein Schlag ins Gesicht getroffen. Die Vorstellung, dass Menschen Psilocybin einnehmen und sich ihr Leben innerhalb weniger Stunden komplett verändert. Nicht nur positive Veränderungen von Einstellungen, Verhaltensweisen und Überzeugungen, sondern eine grundlegende psychologische Veränderung an einem Nachmittag. Selbst einige Jahre nach den Experimenten berichten 75 % der Freiwilligen, dass ihre einzige Psilocybin-Dosis eine der bedeutsamsten Erfahrungen ihres Lebens war, wenn nicht sogar DIE bedeutsamste Erfahrung überhaupt."\ - Brian Muraresku

Für alle, die neu sind oder keine Erfahrung mit Bitcoin haben

\ Bitcoin ist eine Null-zu-Eins-Erfindung, die den Regierungen der Welt die Macht entzieht und sie an Einzelpersonen zurückgibt. Es ist eine nie wieder zu wiederholende Entdeckung, die seit einem Jahrzehnt das Leben verändert. Es ist Geld, das durch Mathematik gestützt wird, nicht durch die Versprechen von Politikern.

Hast du dich jemals gefragt, ob Geld für die menschliche Entwicklung und das Wachstum wichtig ist? Wie haben verschiedene Formen von Geld den Verlauf der menschlichen Geschichte verändert? Geld wird gegen die Zeit der Menschen getauscht. Unsere Lebenszeit ist endlich. Eine unendliche Ressource zu verwenden, um für eine endliche Ressource zu bezahlen, ist von Natur aus ungerecht. Im Geld ist Lebensenergie gespeichert.

Das Geld, das wir heute verwenden, ist als Fiat-Geld bekannt, „Geld per Dekret". Mit anderen Worten: „Geld, weil wir es sagen". Fiat-Geld verliert mit der Zeit an Wert, was als „Inflationsrate" bezeichnet wird. Geld, das mit der Zeit an Wert verliert, ist Zeitdiebstahl. Es stiehlt den Wert, für den du bereits gearbeitet und deine Zeit und Energie investiert hast, um ihn zu verdienen. Bitcoin ist Geld, das im Laufe der Zeit nie an Wert verliert. Seine elegante mathematische Ausschüttung ist vorprogrammiert und unveränderlich.

„Du kannst beim Fiat-Standard bleiben, bei dem einige Leute kostenlos unbegrenzt neue Geldeinheiten produzieren können, nur du nicht. Oder du kannst dich für den Bitcoin-Standard entscheiden, bei dem niemand das tun darf, auch du nicht."- Ross Stevens

\ Auch wenn ich keine begutachteten Studien vorweisen kann, habe ich als persönliche Anekdote eine Unterströmung der Selbstverwirklichung bemerkt, die sich stark durch die Bitcoin-Kultur zieht. Viele setzen sich für eine Rückbesinnung auf das Landleben ein, für eine gesunde Ernährung (indem sie schlechte Lebensmittel wie Samenöle und künstliches Fleisch weglassen und sich vermehrt mit minimal oder gar nicht verarbeiteten natürlichen Lebensmitteln ernähren), für Sport, Kunst, Familie und Wellness.

Ich glaube, dass das persönliche Wachstum der Bitcoiner die Ethik widerspiegelt, die im Bitcoin-Netzwerk selbst einprogrammiert ist. Hier sind zwei Beispiele;

Proof of Work - Bitcoinern ist klar, dass ohne Handeln kein Wert geschaffen werden kann. Das gilt für fast jeden Aspekt des Lebens. Um die Vorteile zu erhalten, muss man die Arbeit machen.

Vertraue nicht, sondern verifiziere (Don't Trust, Verify) - der Aspekt des Verifizierens und nicht nur des Akzeptierens jeder angebotenen Version der Wahrheit ist heute wichtiger denn je.

Es gibt noch viel mehr, aber ich hoffe, dass dieser kurze Überblick einen Einblick gibt, warum diese beiden Technologien meiner Meinung nach komplementär und diskussionswürdig sind.

Werkzeuge der Selbstbestimmung

\ Wenn ich sage, dass Bitcoin und Psychedelika Werkzeuge der Selbstbestimmung sind, dann will ich damit sagen, dass es sich um Werkzeuge handelt, die jedem von uns heute zur Verfügung stehen und die wir nutzen können, um unsere eigenen Antworten auf Fragen wie diese zu definieren, zu formen und zu gestalten:

• Was bedeutet es, ein freies und souveränes Individuum zu sein?
• Was darf der Staat regeln?
• Was sind deine Rechte, und was ist dein Eigentum?
• sind die Grenzen der Gesellschaft und
• was sind die Grenzen des Individuums?
• Hast du das Recht, deine eigene Meinung zu ändern?
• Hast du das Recht, deinen eigenen Computer zu verändern?

Unsere Antworten auf Fragen wie diese bestimmen den Verlauf unseres Lebens. Wir können diese Werkzeuge nutzen, um tiefer in unseren Geist und Körper zu blicken oder an die Grenzen des Verständnisses zu gelangen. Der zielstrebige Mensch kann diese Erkenntnisse nutzen, um ein erfolgreicheres Leben zu führen.

Bitcoin ist ein Werkzeug der Information. LSD ist ein Mittel der Erfahrung und der Vorstellungskraft.

Die grünen Rechtecke aus Fiat-Papier haben einen Wert, weil der Staat das sagt. Bitcoin ist das Gegengift zum Fiat-Geld. Vieles andere auf dieser Welt wird uns per Dekret aufgezwungen. Bitcoin hilft dir, Fiat-Geld aus deinem Leben zu entfernen. Psychedelika helfen dir, Fiat-Geld aus deinem Geist und Körper zu entfernen. Zusammen geben sie dir die Macht, in deiner Souveränität aufrecht zu stehen und die ultimative Herrschaft über dein inneres und äußeres Leben zu erlangen.

Es sind Werkzeuge, die wir zu Hause für unseren persönlichen Gebrauch nutzen können und die niemandem schaden. Psychedelika, manchmal auch Entheogene genannt, wecken ein Gefühl für das Göttliche im Inneren. Sie geben den Nutzern direkten Zugang zu mystischen Zuständen, ohne dass Dritte wie organisierte Religionen, Schriften oder Doktrinen dazwischengeschaltet werden müssen. Bitcoin bietet den Nutzern Zugang zu Geld, das durch Mathematik gestützt wird und nicht durch die Versprechen von Ökonomen, Banken oder Politikern. Die Nutzer sind nicht gezwungen, Vermittler zwischen sich und die direkte Erfahrung der Realität zu stellen. Sie sind nicht gezwungen, sich von jemand anderem sagen zu lassen, „wie es ist" oder „wie es sich anfühlt". Sie können es selbst erleben.

Bei Bitcoin haben alle Nutzer die Möglichkeit, einen vollständigen Knotenpunkt (Full-Node) zu betreiben, und damit direkten Zugang zu einem weltweit vernetzten Finanznetzwerk ohne Vermitter oder Zensur. Bei Psychedelika erhalten die Nutzer einen direkten, unvermittelten Zugang zu ihren eigenen vernetzten neuronalen Netzwerken. Es gibt auch global vernetzte soziale Netzwerke, die entstehen, um beide Technologien zu verbreiten, zu diskutieren und zu nutzen, oft in Kombination. Das sind Peer-to-Peer-Netzwerke ohne Anführer, ohne Verantwortliche und ohne Angestellte. Alle Nutzer sind gleichberechtigt.

Die Verwendung von Bitcoin und Psychedelika eröffnet das Verständnis für die Verflechtung verschiedener Disziplinen und Technologien. Politik, Technik, Wirtschaft, Chemie, Psychologie, Spieltheorie, Soziologie und Philosophie sind nur einige der Bereiche, die zusammenkommen, um unser Verständnis für diese Werkzeuge und ihre optimale Nutzung zu verbessern.

Viele Nutzerinnen und Nutzer von Bitcoin und Psychedelika haben festgestellt, dass der Weg zu einem tieferen Verständnis in einer breiten Palette von Themen liegt. Die Kombination des durch Bildung gewonnenen Wissens mit den Erkenntnissen, die wir durch die Nutzung dieser Technologien gewinnen, bringt mehr Tiefe und Verständnis in unser Leben.

„Bitcoin ist amoralisch und absolut neutral gegenüber der Frage, ob du dem Netzwerk beitrittst oder nicht", sagt Mark Maraia. Ich würde das noch erweitern und sagen, dass LSD amoralisch und absolut neutral ist. Die extremen Erfahrungen sind auf deine persönliche Körperchemie, deine Einstellung und das gesamte Wissen und die Erfahrung deines Lebens zurückzuführen. Wir sind die Variablen, Bitcoin und LSD sind die Konstanten. Du bekommst das heraus, was du hineinbringst.

Ich habe viele Bitcoiner gesehen, die in Kaninchenlöcher geraten sind, die zu bedeutenden Veränderungen in ihrem Leben führen. Wie sie essen, arbeiten, Sport treiben, Medien konsumieren und vieles mehr, ändert sich. Tiefgreifende Veränderungen, die sie oft dem Bitcoin und dem Grundsatzdenken zuschreiben. Diese Lebensveränderungen haben wenig oder gar nichts mit Wirtschaft, Geld oder Finanzen zu tun.

Nutzer von Psychedelika machen ähnliche Veränderungen in ihrem Lebensstil durch, die ihren Umgang mit der Welt tiefgreifend verändern. Diese Veränderungen können sich auf die gleiche Weise wie beim Bitcoin manifestieren: Sie verändern die Art und Weise, wie Menschen essen, arbeiten, Sport treiben, Medien konsumieren, miteinander interagieren, usw. Diese bedeutenden Veränderungen im Leben wären ohne den direkten Einsatz einer oder beider der in diesem Artikel besprochenen Technologien vielleicht nie verwirklicht worden.

Wie jedes Werkzeug kann auch dieses missbraucht werden und die Nutzer auf den falschen Weg führen. Wir werden in Kürze mehr über die naiven Irregeleiteten, die Affinitätsbetrüger, die Angreifer und die ganz schlechten Akteure sprechen, die diese Technologien nutzen, und darüber, wie das alles abläuft.

Die Kombination von Bitcoin und Psychedelika

Während jede dieser Technologien für sich genommen lebensverändernd sein kann, eröffnet ihre Kombination einzigartige Möglichkeiten für den Einzelnen und die Menschheit als Ganzes. Bitcoin und Psychedelika sind wie Musikinstrumente, die jeweils mit ihrer eigenen, einzigartigen Frequenz schwingen. Jedes Instrument kann für sich allein ein Lied spielen, aber zusammen vervielfachen sich die symphonischen Möglichkeiten exponentiell. Wenn sie zusammen gespielt werden, schwingen die Frequenzen der Instrumente nahtlos mit und verwandeln sich für immer in tiefere, reichere Lieder.

In meinem eigenen Leben schreibe ich den Psychedelika einen direkten Einfluss auf die Kunst zu, die ich mache. Ohne Psychedelika hätte ich vielleicht Kunst in irgendeiner Form geschaffen, aber sie sähe nicht so aus und wäre nicht von denselben Designentscheidungen und Motivationen geprägt. Mein gesamtes Kunstportfolio ist ein direktes und eindeutiges Ergebnis der intensiven persönlichen Beschäftigung mit revolutionären psychedelischen Technologien wie LSD und Bitcoin. Ich habe Bitcoin durch eine Kombination aus Kunst, Psychedelika und natürlich Bitcoin kennengelernt. Früher habe ich LSD Blotter Art Designs gemacht, Kunst, die in winzige Quadrate perforiert und dann von den Chemikern mit LSD getränkt wurde. Ich habe auch das LSD-Mandala entworfen, das die soziale Geschichte, die Chemie und die Geheimnisse der LSD-Verteilung in einem grafischen Kodex verschlüsselt.

Ein anonymer Bitcoiner aus Brasilien fragte mich 2015, ob ich Bitcoin für meine Kunst nehmen würde, da es für ihn der einfachste Weg sei, internationale Transaktionen durchzuführen. Ich hatte zwar von Bitcoin gehört, wusste aber nicht, wie ich sie annehmen sollte. Ich sagte ihm: „Klar, aber du musst mir sagen, wie ich das einrichten soll". Dieser anonyme Fremde half mir, meine erste Bitcoin-Brieftasche einzurichten, schickte mir 3,1 Bitcoin für meine Kunst und verschwand dann prompt wieder im Internet, ohne dass ich je wieder von ihm gehört hätte. Ich vergaß Bitcoin, aber ein paar weitere „Berührungspunkte" mit Bitcoin im Laufe der Jahre waren wie eine Reihe von Neonpfeilen, die auf eine wichtige Botschaft des Universums hinwiesen.

Im Dezember 2017 machte ich meine erste Bitcoin-Kunst. Dieser Themenwechsel war für mich sehr wichtig, da ich meine Kunst als eine Methode betrachte, meine Botschaft in die Welt zu tragen. Wenn ich mich auf etwas einlasse, nimmt es mein ganzes Leben in Beschlag. Psychedelika waren über ein Jahrzehnt lang mein Thema gewesen, daher war dieser Wechsel für mich von großer Bedeutung.

Ich ließ mich schnell auf den Mist ein und glaubte etwa anderthalb Jahre lang lächerliche Dinge wie „Ethereum ist die Zukunft der Kunst" und andere ebenso zweifelhafte Dinge. Aber wie ich schon sagte, wenn ich mich für etwas interessiere, bin ich davon eingenommen. Ich untersuche es so gründlich, wie ich kann.

Ich fing an, NFTs zu untersuchen, lernte, wie sie kodiert sind und wie sie funktionieren, und je mehr ich lernte, desto desillusionierter wurde ich. Durch die Verwendung einer Reihe von Shitcoins in Kombination mit Psychedelika erkannte ich schnell, dass ich auf dem falschen Weg war. Ich konnte auch den richtigen Weg klar erkennen. Der eine Weg führt mich in die Dunkelheit und Zerstörung, zu Lügen und Betrug, der andere führt zu Wahrheit und Stabilität. Mein Weg ist Bitcoin, einzig und alleine. Ich kann mich nicht länger von den falschen Versprechungen und der Sackgasse in der Müllhalde der Shitcoinerei ablenken lassen.

Es gab eine harte Grenze, eine Schwelle, und ich habe sie im Juni 2019 überschritten. Während ich an einem Hackathon-Projekt für die Bitcoin-Konferenz 2019 arbeitete, machte ich eine psychedelische Erfahrung, die mir einen Strich durch die Rechnung machte. Während ich an einem (wirklich kitschigen) „Super-Bowl-Werbespot für Bitcoin" arbeitete, traf mich der Entschluss auf einmal; ich loggte mich in die Börse ein und tauschte alle meine Shitcoins gegen Bitcoin. Und meine Kunst sollte von nun an nur noch in Bitcoin gemacht werden.

Im folgenden Monat flog ich nach San Francisco zur Bitcoin 2019 Konferenz. An jenem Freitag während der Konferenz hörte ich, wie jemand die Uhr und den kalenderähnlichen Charakter von Bitcoin erwähnte. Ich nahm an diesem Abend LSD und ging zu einem Bitcoin-Entwicklertreffen, das nur wenige Blocks von meinem Hotel entfernt stattfand. Nachdem ich einen ganzen Tag und Abend LSD und Bitcoin-Inhalte konsumiert hatte, verbrachte ich die Nacht damit, die allerersten Konzeptentwürfe für die Bitcoin Full Node Skulptur zu skizzieren. In den nächsten sieben Monaten arbeitete ich unermüdlich, mied Freunde, Fernsehen, Twitter und Schlaf, um immer mehr zu schaffen.

Dabei verband ich Bitcoin und Psychedelika direkt mit dem Wunsch, ein Kunstwerk zu schaffen, das Bitcoin über Zeit, Raum, Geist und die Menschen, die das Netzwerk bilden, abbildet. Dieser Prozess erstreckte sich über die gesamten sieben Monate und ich habe in dieser Zeit LSD auf unterschiedliche Weise eingesetzt. Ich fand es in zwei Bereichen besonders hilfreich:

• Für ganzheitliches, übergreifendes Denken. Um die Visionen zu erhalten und festzuhalten, die ich von der Idee in die Form bringen wollte. Das sind in der Regel höhere Dosen, und ich arbeite während dieser Erfahrung nicht an der Kunst. Ich überdenke das Projekt in meinem Kopf und beobachte, wie es entsteht. Ich mache mir Notizen und mache einfache Skizzen, ohne Druck, halte alles fest.
• Für das Arbeiten in einem Flow-Zustand. Hier hast du direkten Zugang zum kreativen Fluss, während du an der Kunst arbeitest. Die Zeit löst sich auf, und alles fällt weg. Du und der kreative Prozess brennt im Einklang. In diesen Phasen kann eine fantastische Menge an Arbeit in kurzer Zeit erledigt werden.

Beides miteinander zu verbinden, bedeutet nicht immer, dass man beides zur gleichen Zeit braucht. Ich habe ein Sprichwort: „Erschaffe high, bearbeite nüchtern". Bringe deine Ideen, Fähigkeiten und Leidenschaften in die psychedelische Erfahrung ein und konzentriere all das auf eine bestimmte Mission, ein Ziel. Nutze diese rohe, ungeschliffene Inspiration und forme sie mit einem ruhigen Geist. Den Nutzen aus jedem dieser Zustände zu ziehen, war entscheidend für die Erstellung der Bitcoin Full Node Skulptur.

Während des Prozesses lernte ich viel über Bitcoin und seine Funktionsweise, indem ich versuchte, es visuell zu beschreiben. Man kann nicht beschreiben, was man nicht versteht. Ich habe auch viele Erkenntnisse gewonnen, indem ich verschiedene Aspekte von Bitcoin visualisiert habe. Ich konnte sehen, wie wichtige Teile auf neue Weise zusammenpassen, und mein Verständnis vertiefte sich durch die Fähigkeit, Konzepte geometrisch zu visualisieren.

Jede Reise besteht aus drei Teilen, die jeweils ein paar Stunden dauern. Der Aufschwung, der Höhepunkt und der Abschwung. Jede oder alle (oder keine) dieser Phasen kann für die Kreativität genutzt werden. Wenn die Intensität des Trips nachlässt, ist die Phase des Ausklingens für mich eine äußerst produktive Phase.

Ich erzähle dir von einer meiner Methoden, um LSD für deine Kreativität zu nutzen, wobei ich mir bewusst bin, dass das, was für mich funktioniert, für dich vielleicht nicht funktioniert. Die Methode ist sehr einfach. Sie setzt voraus, dass du gutes LSD in einer bekannten Dosierung auf dem Papier hast. (Und du weißt zuverlässig, wie stark eine Dosis auf dich wirkt).

• Schneide dein LSD je nach Potenz in 3er oder 4er Stücke. Du willst, dass diese Menge ausreicht, um etwas zu spüren. Es sollte keine Dosis unterhalb der Wahrnehmungsschwelle sein.
• Beginne damit, ein Viertel einer Standarddosis zu nehmen. Manchmal reicht das schon aus, dann kannst du hier aufhören.
• Nachdem du 60 Minuten gewartet hast, nimmst du eine weitere Vierteldosis. Du kannst weiterhin jede Stunde eine viertel Dosis einnehmen. Ich habe keine feste Grenze dafür gefunden, wie lange das so weitergehen kann.
• Konzentriere dich bei dieser Erfahrung auf ein bestimmtes Projekt oder Problem.
• Lege eine Zeit und einen Ort fest, an dem du nicht gestört oder abgelenkt wirst.
• Halte alle Werkzeuge bereit, die du brauchst.

Indem du die Dosis über die Zeit verteilst, vermeidest du die Intensität einer krachenden LSD-Welle, die dich auf einmal trifft. Indem du die Dosis verteilst, wird es einfacher, in den psychedelischen Raum zu gelangen und sich darin zurechtzufinden. Es gibt weniger Rucke zwischen dem normalen Wachbewusstsein und der LSD-Gedankenwelt, weil das eine leicht in das andere überzugehen scheint. Außerdem wird die Intensität des Erlebnisses insgesamt abgeschwächt, während es gleichzeitig verlängert wird und leichter zu bewältigen ist.

Auf einer tieferen Ebene werden Psychedelika und Informatik schon seit Jahrzehnten kombiniert, und ich habe viele faszinierende Beispiele gefunden, wie Menschen dies erfolgreich tun.

Ein Computerprogrammierer auf Reddit scheint eine ähnliche Technik zu verwenden, wie ich sie oben beschrieben habe.

„Du kannst auch versuchen zu programmieren, während du auf einer leichteren Dosis bist. Das kann eine ziemlich erstaunliche Erfahrung sein, denn du kannst mit einem Bruchteil eines Tabs trippen und programmieren. Wenn du das machst, nimm dir ein Problem vor, mit dem du anfängst, bevor du trippst, aber hab keine Angst davor, den Gang komplett zu wechseln und etwas völlig anderes, verrücktes und wunderbares zu machen." -u/tosler

\ Wenn du ein Psychedelikum nimmst und über ein Thema nachdenkst, auf das du neugierig bist, kann das zu neuen und neuartigen Ideen und Lösungen führen. Als z. B. der Nobelpreisträger Kary Mullis die PCR erfand, schrieb er die Nobelpreis-Idee direkt seinen Erfahrungen mit LSD zu.

„Hätte ich die PCR erfunden, wenn ich kein LSD genommen hätte? Das bezweifle ich ernsthaft... Ich könnte auf einem DNA-Molekül sitzen und den Polymeren zusehen, wie sie vorbeiziehen. Das habe ich zum Teil auf psychedelischen Drogen gelernt." - Kary Mullis

\ Ein weiteres hervorragendes Beispiel für eine wissenschaftliche Studie über die kreativitätsfördernden Eigenschaften der Kombination von psychedelischen Drogen mit bestimmten Interessens- oder Forschungsgebieten stammt aus einer Studie, die vor der Illegalisierung von LSD durchgeführt wurde. Das ist deshalb wichtig, weil LSD in der Öffentlichkeit noch nicht mit dem negativen Stigma der „Illegalität" oder „Unmoral" behaftet war, da es keine Gesetze gegen den Konsum von LSD gab.

An der Studie nahmen 27 Personen teil, „darunter Ingenieure, Physiker, Mathematiker, Architekten, ein Möbeldesigner und ein Werbegrafiker. Die Probanden wurden angewiesen, ein oder mehrere Probleme auszuwählen, die eine kreative Lösung erforderten und an denen sie wochen- oder monatelang gearbeitet hatten, ohne eine zufriedenstellende Lösung finden zu können."

Und jetzt kommt der Clou: Noch Monate nachdem die Wirkung nachgelassen hatte, blieben die Teilnehmer standhaft: LSD hatte ihnen absolut geholfen, ihre komplexen, scheinbar unlösbaren Probleme zu lösen. Und die Einrichtung stimmte zu.

Kurz nach ihren LSD-Erfahrungen brachten die 27 Männer eine Reihe von Innovationen auf den Weg, die weithin Anerkennung fanden, darunter:

• ein mathematisches Theorem für NOR-Gatter-Schaltungen
• ein konzeptionelles Modell für ein Photon
• eine Vorrichtung zur Strahlsteuerung eines linearen Elektronenbeschleunigers
• ein neues Design für das Vibrationsmikrotom
• eine technische Verbesserung des Magnetbandrekorders
• Entwürfe für eine private Residenz und einen Kunsthandwerker-Einkaufsplatz
• ein Experiment für eine Raumsonde zur Messung der Sonneneigenschaften

Da LSD illegal ist, werden wir vielleicht nie erfahren, wie viele Entdeckungen und Erfindungen das direkte Ergebnis der Kombination von Psychedelika mit der Leidenschaft und den Fähigkeiten eines Menschen sind. Viele Berufstätige hatten und haben immer noch zu viel Angst vor beruflichen oder gesellschaftlichen Konsequenzen aufgrund ihres Konsums von Psychedelika. Glücklicherweise schweigen nicht alle zu diesem Thema. Dennis Wier, ein Computerprogrammierer, hat diese Geschichte erzählt:

"So habe ich 1975 LSD-25 für ein komplexes Programmierprojekt verwendet. Ich arbeitete in New York an der Entwicklung eines Compilers für eine Anwendungssprache namens "MARLAN". An einem bestimmten Punkt des Projekts konnte ich keinen Überblick über die Funktionsweise des gesamten Systems gewinnen. Es war wirklich zu viel für mein Gehirn, all die subtilen Aspekte und Verarbeitungsnuancen im Blick zu behalten, um einen Überblick über die Verarbeitung und das Design zu bekommen. Nachdem ich einige Wochen lang mit diesem Problem gekämpft hatte, beschloss ich, ein wenig Säure zu verwenden, um zu sehen, ob dies einen Durchbruch bringen würde.\ \ Ich nahm nur fünfundsiebzig Mikrogramm, weil ich kein Interesse daran hatte, zu trippen, denn ich hatte ein bestimmtes, begrenztes und eindeutiges Ziel für den Gebrauch von LSD. Während ich durch das LSD stimuliert wurde, konnte ich mir das gesamte System gleichzeitig vor Augen führen. Ich verbrachte einige Zeit damit, mir verschiedene Aspekte des Compilers, der Sprache und der Verarbeitung vor Augen zu führen. Unter dem Einfluss von LSD entdeckte ich drei oder vier Ungereimtheiten im Design und machte mir Notizen, um sie später zu überprüfen.\ \ Nachdem alle Änderungen vorgenommen worden waren, konnte ich die Programmierung dieses riesigen Systems erfolgreich abschließen. Die von mir vorgenommenen Änderungen verringerten künftige Fehler bei der Programmänderung und trugen zur Eleganz des Entwurfs bei. Das System war ein kommerzieller Erfolg für meinen Arbeitgeber und wurde von ihm viele Jahre lang genutzt. Obwohl die Verwendung von LSD eine wichtige Komponente für den Erfolg des Systems war, wusste außer mir niemand von seiner Verwendung."

\ Bill Atkinson, der Erfinder von HyperCard, gab zum ersten Mal öffentlich bekannt, dass die gesamte Idee für seine Softwareerfindung auf einem LSD-Trip entstand, den er bei 1:03:45 in diesem Video anschaulich beschreibt.

„Ich will nicht behaupten, dass jeder Softwareentwickler auf der Welt LSD nehmen sollte, aber bei mir hat es funktioniert." -Bill Atkinson

\ 1987 revolutionierte Apple die Art und Weise, wie Menschen mit ihren Computern interagieren, indem es HyperCard kostenlos zu jedem verkauften PC lieferte. Das Programm wurde dafür gelobt, „die Möglichkeiten der Computerprogrammierung und des Datenbankdesigns in die Hände von Nicht-Programmierern zu legen". Es wurde zu einem der ersten Werkzeuge für das elektronische Publizieren. HyperCard selbst war ein Werkzeug zur Selbstbestimmung, das von einem Programmierer entwickelt wurde, der zwei andere Werkzeuge zur Selbstbestimmung nutzte. Das ist eine sehr interessante Situation, in der die Werkzeuge neue Werkzeuge hervorbringen, die von den Menschen, die sie benutzen, hergestellt werden, und die neuen Werkzeuge sind auf dasselbe Ziel ausgerichtet wie die ursprünglichen Werkzeuge - die Erhöhung der Selbstsouveränität.

Ich möchte ein letztes Beispiel für einen Computerprogrammierer anführen, der LSD und dezentrale Netzwerke für sein Streben nach Selbstbestimmung nutzte. Kevin Paul Herbert, ein autodidaktischer Computerprogrammierer und Softwaredesigner, der Software entwickelt hat, die heute auf Millionen von Internet-Routern weltweit läuft, gab 2008 dieses Interview.

"Psychedelika sind besonders hilfreich bei der Entwicklung neuer Computertechnologien. Sie müssen etwas an der internen Kommunikation in meinem Gehirn verändern. Was auch immer mein innerer Prozess ist, der mich Probleme lösen lässt, er funktioniert anders, oder vielleicht werden andere Teile meines Gehirns benutzt. Wenn ich auf LSD bin und etwas höre, das reiner Rhythmus ist, versetzt mich das in eine andere Welt und in einen anderen Gehirnzustand, in dem ich aufgehört habe zu denken und angefangen habe zu wissen." - Kevin Paul Herbert

\ Ein letztes Zitat von Kevin Herbert geht wirklich auf die tiefgreifenden Fragen ein, die den selbstbestimmten Technologien zugrunde liegen. Vergiss nicht, dass er über all das bereits 2008 nachgedacht hat.

"Was steht für unsere Freiheit? Was steht dafür, was die Regierung regulieren darf und aus welchem Grund?

Wohin uns das führt, hängt davon ab, ob wir bereit sind, ein Modell zu akzeptieren, in dem die Dinge offen sind - einschließlich unseres eigenen Verstandes - oder ein Modell, in dem die Dinge geschlossen sind - einschließlich unseres eigenen Verstandes und der Dinge, über die wir nachdenken können, sowie der Chemikalien, die wir einsetzen können, um unser Denken zu beeinflussen." - Kevin Paul Herbert

\ Sei dir bewusst, dass diese Erfahrungen durch den Lebensweg des Einzelnen geprägt sind. Je mehr du weißt und je mehr Fähigkeiten du hast, desto mehr werden sie den Inhalt deiner psychedelischen Erfahrungen beeinflussen. Was auch immer dein Interesse, deine Leidenschaft oder dein Handwerk ist, wenn du diese Technologien nutzt, um deine Kreationen zu beeinflussen, werden sie sich zweifellos verändern und weiterentwickeln. Auf welche Weise, kann ich nicht sagen - das liegt an dir.

Ich glaube, wir alle sind in der Lage, Meisterwerke zu schaffen. Ein Automechaniker kann so gut sein, dass man ihn für einen Künstler hält. Das Gleiche gilt für einen Koch, einen Anwalt oder einen Lehrer - alle diese Berufe können bis zu einem gewissen Grad meisterhaft ausgeübt werden. Finde deine Leidenschaft, folge ihr und schaffe deine Meisterwerke.

Ich glaube, dass wir mit diesen Werkzeugen der Selbstbestimmung als Individuen wachsen können und die Möglichkeit haben, die Welt um uns herum auf tiefgreifende Weise zu beeinflussen.

Ursprungsgeschichten

\ Ein mysteriöser Cypherpunk hat an Halloween 2008 anonym ein White Paper in einem obskuren Kryptografieforum veröffentlicht. Er oder sie bleibt lange genug dabei, um das revolutionärste Geldsystem der Welt in seinen Kinderschuhen zu halten, und verschwindet dann wieder. Es wird viel darüber diskutiert, ob Satoshi eine Person oder viele ist, männlich oder weiblich, lebendig oder tot. Alles ist von Geheimnissen umhüllt.

Auch die Ursprünge der Psychedelika sind umstritten. Terence McKenna verbreitete die „Stoned-Ape-Theorie", nach der sich gedankenlose Affen durch den Konsum von psychedelischen Pilzen auf dem afrikanischen Kontinent zu Menschen entwickelten. Ob das stimmt oder nicht, die Ursprünge dieser Beziehung gehen zweifellos auf eine Zeit vor der aufgezeichneten Geschichte zurück.

Noch mysteriöser ist die Entstehungsgeschichte von LSD. Die berühmte „Bicycle Day"-Geschichte ist höchstwahrscheinlich eine Erfindung. Eine gründliche Untersuchung der Behauptungen in dieser Geschichte führt zwangsläufig zu dem Schluss, dass die Dinge unmöglich zusammenpassen. Wir sollen glauben, dass eine Kaskade von „Unfällen" zu der unerwarteten Entdeckung der stärksten Substanz geführt hat, die der Menschheit bekannt ist.

Vertraue nicht, überprüfe. Ohne dich zu weit in dieses Kaninchenloch zu führen, stelle ich dir diese Präsentation des LSD-Chemikers Dave Nichols von der Mind States-Konferenz 2004 zur Verfügung, und du kannst hier anfangen zu deine eigenen Nachforschungen azustellen (DYOR). Dr. Nichols ist in seinen Schlussfolgerungen weitaus freundlicher als ich, und ich habe einen separaten Artikel, in dem ich die wahre Geschichte hinter dem Bicycle Day noch viel ausführlicher darstelle. Die Ursprünge von LSD und Bitcoin sind auf ähnliche Weise von Geheimnissen und Legenden umwoben.

Es gibt drei unterschiedliche Versionen in der Entstehungsgeschichte von Bitcoin und LSD:

• Was tatsächlich geschah
• Was uns erzählt wird
• Vollständige Erfindungen und Fehlinformationen über das, was passiert ist

Wie auch immer sie ursprünglich entstanden sind, die unumstößliche Tatsache ihrer Existenz zwingt uns heute dazu, uns damit auseinanderzusetzen, was diese Technologien für jeden Einzelnen von uns und für das weltweite Kollektiv bedeuten.

Der Schöpfer und die Geheimdienste

\ Auch wenn sie umstritten sind, gibt es angebliche Verbindungen zwischen Satoshi Nakamoto und Albert Hoffman, den Schöpfern von Bitcoin und LSD, und Geheimdiensten mit drei Buchstaben wie der CIA und der NSA. Bei Satoshi gibt es sowohl Behauptungen, dass er wegen der CIA in die Bitcoin-Gemeinschaft kam, als auch, dass er sie verließ. Bekanntlich verschwand er ein für alle Mal, als der Bitcoin-Entwickler Gavin Andreson beschloss, sich mit der CIA zu treffen, um sie über Bitcoin aufzuklären. Die NSA hat den SHA-256-Algorithmus entwickelt, der in Bitcoin verwendet wird, was zu weiteren Satoshi-Verschwörungstheorien führt.

Es gibt auch Behauptungen, dass Albert Hofmann, der Erfinder von LSD, ein Mitarbeiter der CIA war oder wurde und mit dem St. Anthony Brand in Port Saint Esprit, Frankreich, im Jahr 1951 in Verbindung gebracht wurde. Es gibt noch viele weitere Behauptungen über Verbindungen der Geheimdienste zu den Erfindern von LSD und Bitcoin, die mehr oder weniger glaubwürdig sind. Diese Behauptungen sind zwar unterhaltsam, können aber in den meisten Fällen weder bewiesen noch widerlegt werden, so dass uns eine rationale Untersuchung nur bedingt weiterbringt.

Die frühe Revolution durch Computer

\ Eine unbestreitbare Verbindung zieht sich durch die einzelnen Revolutionen des Computers, der Psychedelika, der Kryptografie und des Bitcoin. Sie alle sind in einem komplexen Geflecht der Selbstverwirklichung miteinander verbunden. Es ist erstaunlich, dass die frühe Computer-, die öffentliche Kryptografie- und die psychedelische Revolution alle auf denselben Ort und dieselbe Zeit zurückgehen.

Die Zeit von Anfang der 1950er Jahre bis 1965 wurde in der San Francisco Bay Area in Kalifornien zu einem Sammelbecken für selbstgebaute Computer, Mathematiker und LSD. In der Zeit von 1966 bis 1976 wurden sowohl LSD als auch der Personal Computer zu Werkzeugen der Revolution und des persönlichen Wachstums. Um den Verbindungen zwischen LSD und Bitcoin auf die Spur zu kommen, müssen wir in diese Zeit zurückgehen und die Fäden zurückverfolgen, die einen Wandteppich der Transformation durch diese beiden Gemeinschaften webten und sie für immer verbanden.

Da LSD in Kalifornien erst 1966 verboten wurde, gab es einen Zeitraum von über einem Jahrzehnt, in dem Informatik und psychedelische Wissenschaft in akademischen Kreisen nebeneinander existierten.

Zwischen 1950 und Mitte der 1960er Jahre wurden mehr als tausend klinische Abhandlungen, mehrere Dutzend Bücher und sechs internationale Konferenzen über die Therapie mit psychedelischen Drogen veröffentlicht. Diese Geschichte aus dieser Zeit verbindet das frühe Informatikpublikum mit dem frühen Gebrauch von LSD in der Bay Area:

„Von 1961 bis 1965 führte die in der Bay Area ansässige International Foundation for Advanced Study mehr als 350 Menschen zu Forschungszwecken auf LSD-Trips. Einige von ihnen waren wichtige Pioniere in der Entwicklung der Computertechnik, wie z.B. Doug Engelbart, der Vater der Computermaus."

LSD wurde in vielen führenden Computerfirmen der 1950er und 60er Jahre eingesetzt, vom Systemdesign bis hin zum Entwurf von Computerschaltkreisen:

„Einige der frühen Computeringenieure verließen sich beim Entwurf von Schaltkreisen auf LSD, vor allem in den Jahren, bevor sie auf Computern entworfen werden konnten, denn „man musste in der Lage sein, sich eine schwindelerregende Komplexität in drei Dimensionen vorzustellen und alles im Kopf zu behalten. Und sie fanden heraus, dass LSD dabei helfen konnte."

Timothy Leary, Harvard-Professor und bekannter Psychedeliker, wurde zu einem ausgesprochenen Befürworter der Macht des Computers als Werkzeug für persönliches Wachstum. Er sah den PC als eine Technologie an, die den Geist auf ähnliche Weise öffnen kann wie das LSD.

„Der PC ist das LSD der 1990er Jahre". -Timothy Leary

LSD war im Silicon Valley der 1960er Jahre allgegenwärtig. Informatiker, Programmierer und Designer aller großen Unternehmen waren daran beteiligt. Diese Geschichte aus dem Wired Magazine geht auf die Verbindungen zwischen Psychedelika, dem Internet und den Grateful Dead ein. Auch wenn diese Geschichte 25 Jahre vor der Geburt von Bitcoin spielt, klingt der folgende Absatz sehr nach Bitcoin:

„Ein Teil der Magie dieser Transaktion besteht darin, dass es gelungen ist, nützliche Inhalte über Jahrzehnte hinweg über das Netzwerk zu teilen. Aber eine andere, noch erstaunlichere Tatsache ist die Widerstandsfähigkeit der Daten, die von Maschine zu Maschine mit einer Art Lebenskraft weitergegeben wurden. Irgendetwas in ihnen machte sie selbstreplizierend und lebendig, etwas, das darum bettelte, kopiert und geteilt, angehört und gesungen zu werden."

Wir können sehen, dass die Anfänge der Computer- und der psychedelischen Revolutionen beide auf diesen konzentrierten Knotenpunkt von Ort und Zeit zurückgehen. Diese Flüsse scheinen in dieselben Meere zu fließen und denselben Quellen zu entspringen. Es gibt Überschneidungen zwischen den scheinbar getrennten Subkulturen, die sich in den frühen Computer- und Psychedelik-Gemeinschaften gebildet haben. Viele Denker, Autoren, Wissenschaftler und Forscher der damaligen Zeit kamen durch soziale Umstände oder durch ihre Berufe in engen Kontakt.

Der Weg von der Entwicklung von Kontrollinstrumenten für Unternehmen hin zur Entwicklung von Instrumenten für Menschen, die sich der Kontrolle widersetzen, hat sich über Jahrzehnte vollzogen.

\ Wir alle sind Nutznießer der Arbeit psychedelischer Informatikerinnen und Informatiker aus einer nicht allzu fernen Vergangenheit.

Wir haben diese klare Verbindung zwischen der psychedelischen und der Computer-Revolution gesehen und können nun auch die öffentliche Kryptografie-Revolution direkt mit beiden in Verbindung bringen. Die Kryptografie war ein streng gehütetes Geheimnis der staatlichen Geheimdienste, bis Whitfield Diffie und Martin Hellman das geheime Wissen aus der Versenkung holten und es dem Normalbürger zugänglich machten.

Diese Frechheit blieb nicht ohne Folgen. Die Regierung versuchte, die Verschlüsselung zu verbieten, indem sie sie als Kriegsmunition einstufte und das Schreiben und Veröffentlichen von kryptografischem Code illegal machte. Die Verwendung von Kryptografie wäre das Gleiche wie ein Waffenhändler zu sein. Dies führte zu den Verschlüsselungskriegen in den 1980er und 1990er Jahren.

Auch hier befinden wir uns wieder in dieser punktgenauen Verknüpfung von Zeit und Ort. Der Held unserer Geschichte tritt in die Schlacht ein und verändert den Lauf der Menschheitsgeschichte für immer. 1965, nachdem er das MIT verlassen hatte, bekam Whit Diffie dank seiner Kenntnisse über Psychedelika einen Job und reiste 1969 (du hast es erraten) in die San Francisco Bay Area.

1975 veröffentlichte er seine Arbeit zur Public-Private-Key-Kryptografie, die die Grundlage für das gesamte Bitcoin-System bildet.

\ John Markoff beschreibt diese psychedelische Verbindung in seinem Buch „What the Dormouse Said: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry":

"Diffies Bewerbungsgespräch bei der MITRE Corporation fand mit einem angesehenen Mathematiker und Softwareentwickler namens Roland Silver statt, der sein Mentor wurde. Es war ein ungewöhnliches Vorstellungsgespräch, wenn man bedenkt, dass es sich um einen Militärdienstleister handelte. Es fand in Silvers Haus statt, und fast das gesamte Gespräch drehte sich um psychedelische Drogen: wie man sie zubereitet, wo man sie bekommt usw. Diffie hat mit Bravour bestanden."

Diffie war auch ein großer Verfechter der persönlichen Freiheit und Selbstbestimmung. Als er erfuhr, dass die Geheimdienste der Regierung Wissen über kryptografische Mathematik versteckten, wird er mit den Worten zitiert

"Kryptografie ist für die menschliche Privatsphäre unerlässlich! Vielleicht sollten leidenschaftliche Forscher/innen im öffentlichen Sektor versuchen, das Thema zu befreien. Wenn wir uns anstrengen, könnten wir eine Menge von diesem Material wiederentdecken."- Whitfield Diffie

Nachdem Whitfield und Hellmann ihre bahnbrechende Arbeit über die Kryptografie mit öffentlich-privaten Schlüsseln veröffentlicht hatten, fragte ein anderer Forscher aus der Bay Area an, ob sie an einer Zusammenarbeit interessiert seien. Es handelte sich um Ralph Merkle, den Erfinder einer weiteren wichtigen Technologie, die Bitcoin zugrunde liegt: des Merkle-Baums.

Während eines sehr kurzen Moments in der Geschichte leuchtet dieses sehr kleine geografische Gebiet wie ein magisches Ei, das Technologien des Wandels und der Hoffnung hervorgebracht hat.

\ Die tief verwobenen Verbindungen zwischen der Entstehung der Revolutionen der Psychedelika, des Personal Computing und der Kryptografie sind wirklich bemerkenswert. Diese drei Wissenschaften konvergieren in den nächsten Jahrzehnten in Ausdrucksformen der Selbstsouveränität durch digitale Privatsphäre, digitales Geld und digitale Philosophie, die durch „Cypherpunks, die Code schreiben" verwirklicht werden.

Bevor wir uns den historischen Verbindungen zuwenden, wäre ich nachlässig, wenn ich nicht Ross Ulbricht und Silk Road erwähnen würde. Einer der sichtbarsten Aspekte der frühen Bitcoin-Geschichte war die Beziehung zwischen Online-Peer-to-Peer-Marktplätzen, Bitcoin und Psychedelika. Im Jahr 2011 wurde die Welt mit einer neuen Art von „Drogenmarkt" konfrontiert. Dieser neue Online-Marktplatz bot sowohl den Käufern als auch den Verkäufern einzigartige Vorteile.

Viele wissen es nicht, aber Ross baute seine eigenen psychedelischen Pilze an, die das allererste Produkt auf der Silk Road-Website sein sollten. Bevor es etwas anderes gab, gab es Bitcoin und Psilocybe cubensis. Abgesehen von Lazlo's Pizza sind psychedelische Pilze also wohl einer der ersten aufgezeichneten Peer-to-Peer-Tauschgeschäfte von Bitcoin gegen Waren/Dienstleistungen. Auch wenn es einige Papierhandtücher, Tassen und andere banale und vergessene Gegenstände gibt, ist die Verbindung zwischen der Online/P2P/Psychedelic/Cypherpunk-Community unbestreitbar.

Interessanterweise war der erste Ort, an dem Ross für die Silk Road warb, das psychedelische Pilz-Online-Forum The Shroomery, unter dem Benutzernamen "altoid". Du kannst seinen einzigen Beitrag hier nachlesen.

Die Ebene der Umsetzung

\ Die nächste Ebene, auf der man nach interessanten Parallelen suchen kann, ist die einfachste Ebene der Grundlagen der einzelnen Implementierungen. Bitcoin ist ein Protokoll, ein Satz von Regeln, Anweisungen und Parametern, und es gibt verschiedene Implementierungen von Bitcoin, die mit dem Protokoll kompatibel sind. Die Implementierungen sind die Software, die du ausführst und die es dir ermöglicht, mit dem Netzwerk zu interagieren. Obwohl es eine Standard-„Referenzimplementierung" von Bitcoin gibt, haben die Nutzer die völlige Freiheit, verschiedene Programmiersprachen, Funktionen und Architekturen zu verwenden, um mit demselben Bitcoin-Netzwerk zu interagieren wie alle anderen.

Die meisten Bitcoin-Nutzer schätzen zwar die Möglichkeit, dies zu tun, aber werden wir werden eigene Bitcoin-Implementierung nicht von Grund auf programmieren. Wir werden aus den vielen verfügbaren Implementierungen wählen und entscheiden, ob wir Open-Source- oder Closed-Source-Code verwenden.

Dieses Thema ist zu umfangreich für diesen Artikel, aber ich bin der festen Überzeugung, dass man Bitcoin niemals mit Closed-Source-Code verwenden sollte. Wenn du dich für Open-Source-Code entscheidest, kannst du die Software anhand ihres Quellcodes sowohl überprüfen als auch kompilieren.

Hier gibt es eine Menge Nuancen. Auf dieser Ebene können die „Werkzeuge" von Bitcoin so austauschbar sein wie das Auto, das du fährst, und der Endnutzer hat fast die gleiche Auswahl. Diese Wahl ist wichtig und sollte gut überlegt sein. Das Auto, das du fährst, ist vielleicht an den meisten Tagen unbedeutend, aber eines Tages könnte es aufgrund bestimmter Eigenschaften deine Familie retten.

Wichtig ist, dass unabhängig von der Implementierung, für die sich ein Nutzer entscheidet, die Möglichkeit, seinen eigenen Knotenpunkt zu betreiben, der demokratisierende und wohl auch wichtigste Faktor ist. Jeder sollte in der Lage sein, seinen eigenen Knotenpunkt zu betreiben und dabei Zwischenhändler und Unsicherheiten auszuschalten.

Ein Bitcoin-Knoten ist eine Quelle der Wahrheit - eine vollständige Geschichte von der Gegenwart bis zurück zur Genesis. Indem du deinen eigenen Knotenpunkt betreibst, erhältst du deine eigene direkte Quelle der Wahrheit, die nicht von Banken, Politikern oder Priestern vermittelt wird. Für Bitcoin bedeutet dies, dass die Nutzer mit Sicherheit wissen können, dass ihre eigenen Transaktionen gültig und echt sind - ohne einen Goldbarren einschmelzen zu müssen, um das zu überprüfen, was teure Ausrüstung und Zeit kostet. Wenn der Bitcoin in meiner Wallet ankommt, weiß ich, dass er zu 100% echt ist. Er ist nicht gefälscht und nicht entwertet. Es ist reiner, unverfälschter Bitcoin.

Bei psychedelischen Drogen kannst du sie selbst anbauen, synthetisieren und/oder extrahieren, ohne dass du Zwischenhändler brauchst oder dir Sorgen über Reinheit, Gewicht oder falsche Identifizierung machen musst.

Psychedelika ermöglichen es dir, wie Sama Katharo es formulierte: „dich mit deinem eigenen inneren Knotenpunkt zu verbinden". Die Software der komplexesten und am dichtesten verzweigten Verarbeitungsmaschine, die der Mensch kennt: dein Gehirn. Du kannst sie nutzen, um deine eigene Quelle der inneren Wahrheit zu destillieren. Du kannst die riesigen Gedankenwelten in deinem Kopf erforschen, ohne dass sich ein Psychiater oder eine andere „vertrauenswürdige dritte Partei" einmischen oder ihren Bezugsrahmen auf dich projizieren muss. Psychedelika geben dir die Schlüssel zu deinem eigenen inneren Palast.

Psychedelika gibt es, genau wie Bitcoin, in vielen verschiedenen Varianten, z. B. LSD, MDMA, Psilocybin, DMT, Meskalin oder Cannabis. Es gab auch einen Boom von experimentellen psychedelischen „Forschungschemikalien", die sich über die Darknet-Märkte (und damit auch über Bitcoin) verbreitet haben. Und obwohl der Betrieb eines großen psychedelischen Labors außerhalb der Möglichkeiten und Wünsche der meisten Menschen liegt, können fast alle Erwachsenen die Kontrolle über ihren psychedelischen Weg übernehmen und ihre eigenen Pilze, Kakteen und Cannabis anbauen. Dies kann in verschiedenen Ländern unterschiedliche rechtliche Konsequenzen haben, und jeder Nutzer muss entsprechend entscheiden.

Der Weg zum eigenen Anbau von psychedelischen Drogen ist eine heroische Suche nach Selbsterkenntnis, Vorbereitung, Wachstum und Geduld. Sich die Zeit zu nehmen, um die richtigen Materialien zu verstehen, zu kultivieren, zu pflegen und hervorzubringen, hat unermessliche Vorteile. Diese Vorbereitung und Kontemplation gibt dem Suchenden die Kontrolle darüber, was in unserem Körper passiert.

Auf dem Weg des Bitcoiners, der versucht, seine Zukunft in der Schuldenspirale zu kontrollieren, die sich um uns herum abspielt, gibt es eine ähnliche Heldentat.

Learning by Doing

\ Sowohl bei Bitcoin als auch bei Psychedelika ist es wichtig, dass du sie tatsächlich BENUTZEN kannst, bevor du sie richtig verstehen kannst. Du kannst ein Buch darüber lesen, wie sie funktionieren, was sie bewirken und wie man sie richtig einsetzt, aber dein Verständnis ist unvollständig, solange du sie nicht persönlich erlebt hast. Keine noch so gute Vorbereitung oder Lektüre kann dich auf den weltbewegenden Wirbelsturm vorbereiten, der das Herzstück der psychedelischen Erfahrung ist. Keine noch so gute Lektüre kann dich auf das Gefühl vorbereiten, das du bekommst, wenn du Bitcoin verschickst - eine kostspielige und unumkehrbare Aktion.

Je mehr du sie benutzt, desto besser wirst du mit ihnen vertraut. Je vertrauter du wirst, desto tiefer kannst du in die Erfahrung eintauchen. Das ist Weisheit, die aus Erfahrung entsteht, nicht Wissen, das man durch Lesen erlangt.

"Ein tiefes Verständnis von Bitcoin zu erlangen, ist wie ein tiefer psychedelischer Trip. Denn alles scheint sich um dieses Ideal herum auf unerwartete und ziemlich radikale Weise zu verändern, weil du die Dinge jetzt auf eine ganz andere Art und Weise siehst, als du sie ursprünglich zu sehen glaubtest." - Eric Cason

Endgültigkeit

\ Sowohl bei Psychedelika als auch bei Bitcoin gibt es einen Punkt an dem es keine Rückkehr mehr gibt. Wenn du eine Bitcoin-Transaktion abschickst, kannst du sie nicht mehr zurücknehmen. Sobald du auf „Senden" klickst und das Netzwerk die Transaktion bestätigt, kann keine deiner Handlungen mehr verhindern, dass der Bitcoin sich einmal bewegt. Wenn du dir einen Schuss LSD auf die Zunge legst oder ein paar Gramm Pilze isst, bist du für die nächsten Stunden an diese Erfahrung gebunden. Es gibt kein STRG+Z, keine Wiederholung oder Rückerstattung. Es gibt keinen Ausweg außer dem Durchgang.

Es gibt eine Schwelle, nach deren Überschreiten nichts mehr so ist, wie es einmal war. Diese Endgültigkeit gibt dem Benutzer eine Pause, um seine Handlungen zu überdenken. Ein Fehler oder Fehltritt hat hier unmittelbare Konsequenzen, daher ist es klug und umsichtig, vorsichtig vorzugehen. Es ist von größter Bedeutung, dass du deine Entscheidungen bei der Nutzung dieser Technologien sorgfältig triffst. Mit der Übung kommt die Vertrautheit. Und mit der Vertrautheit kommt das Vertrauen. Diese Technologien fördern bewusstes Handeln und führen zu Überzeugung, wenn sie mit Sorgfalt und Respekt eingesetzt werden.

Die Erlebnisse

\ Die Erfahrungen mit Psychedelika und Bitcoin bringen uns zu denselben grundlegenden Fragen über das Menschsein und die Interaktion mit dem Universum um uns herum.

• Was ist Zeit?
• Was ist Geld?
• Was ist real?
• Was ist Sprache?
• Was ist Arbeit?
• Was ist Energie?
• Ist der Einsatz von Energie gut oder schlecht?
• Wo gehöre ich zu meinen Mitmenschen?

Warum bringen uns diese beiden unterschiedlichen Technologien zu denselben grundlegenden Fragen über die Realität und das Menschsein? Warum inspirieren sie uns dazu, die großen Fragen zu stellen?

Das Konzept der Zeit ist auf mehreren Ebenen tief mit Bitcoin und Psychedelika verwoben. Bitcoin hat die Zeitmessung neu definiert, und die Folgen davon müssen erst noch verstanden werden. Die menschliche Erfahrung von Zeit ist variabel. Wir interpretieren die Zeit durch eine Linse anderer Wahrnehmungen (wenn du Spaß hast, scheint die Zeit schnell zu vergehen, während es dir, wenn du verzweifelt auf etwas wartest, vorkommen kann, als sei jede Sekunde eine Ewigkeit).

Dies wird durch Psychedelika noch verstärkt, da das Konzept der Zeit dehnbar und amorph wird und Neuartigkeit und Zufälligkeit mit der alltäglichen Erfahrung der Zeit wie ein Spiegelbild spielen. Vergleiche dies mit den Blockzeiten von Bitcoin. Blocks sollen alle 10 Minuten kommen, aber manchmal sind sie schneller, manchmal langsamer. Wie die Wellen im Ozean bewegt sich jeder Tick der Bitcoin-Uhr in seinem eigenen Rhythmus, ist aber endlos, wie die Zeit selbst.

Sowohl Bitcoin als auch Psychedelika haben ihren eigenen inneren Zeitrhythmus, der durch den Rhythmus der Uhr nicht beeinflusst oder verändert wird.

Integration: Unerfahrener vs. erfahrener Gebrauch

\ Bei Bitcoin und Psychedelika gibt es ein Spektrum an Vertrautheit, das direkt mit der Zeit und der Arbeit korreliert, die der Nutzer in das Erlernen und die Nutzung der Technologien investiert. Dieses Spektrum reicht von unerfahrenen bis hin zu erfahrenen Nutzern. Die Vorteile beider Technologien können am besten von erfahrenen Nutzern genutzt werden. Menschen, die in der Lage sind, die Erkenntnisse aus ihren Erfahrungen zu nutzen und sie erfolgreich auf ihr Leben anzuwenden, profitieren am meisten.

Diese Fähigkeit, Erkenntnisse zu erkennen, zu nutzen und in die Tat umzusetzen, würde ich als fortgeschrittene Nutzung von Psychedelika bezeichnen. Viele Menschen, die Psychedelika einnehmen, gelangen zu tiefgreifenden Einsichten, die eine große persönliche Bedeutung haben. Wenn die Wirkung nachlässt, setzen unerfahrene Nutzer diese Erkenntnisse jedoch nicht in die Tat um.

Vorteile, Entdeckungen und Erfindungen können sich in einem Funken der Inspiration manifestieren, nur um wenige Augenblicke später wieder vergessen und für immer verloren zu sein.  Manche Nutzer erleben nach einer psychedelischen Erfahrung Veränderungen, aber die sind nur von kurzer Dauer. Sie gewinnen Einsichten und nehmen Veränderungen vor, aber wie viele Neujahrsvorsätze verschwinden diese schnell in der Entropie. Die Veränderungen halten ein paar Wochen, vielleicht einen Monat an, aber schon bald fallen die Nutzer wieder in die Routine des Alltags zurück und schlechte Gewohnheiten, die erkannt und angegangen wurden, kehren zurück.

Die Rückkehr des Alltäglichen und das Aufzwingen der Welt auf unsere Gewohnheiten kann eine mächtige Kraft sein. Psychedelische Drogen und die Erkenntnisse aus den ersten Prinzipien des Bitcoin-Denkens können mächtig sein, müssen aber verstärkt werden. Diese Verstärkung kann in Form von direktem Handeln, tiefem Studium oder Willenskraft erfolgen, aber ich glaube, dass es auch wichtig ist, zur Quelle der Erfahrung zurückzukehren.

Für Bitcoin bedeutet das, Podcasts zu hören, zu lernen, zu programmieren, zu bauen und zu teilen. Bei psychedelischen Drogen bedeutet das, dass du die psychedelische Erfahrung in regelmäßigen Abständen wiederholen musst. Es gibt kein Patentrezept. Du würdest nicht erwarten, dass eine einzige Dosis Aspirin ein Leben lang Schmerzen lindert, und mit Psychedelika ist es genauso. Sie wirken eine Zeit lang, sollten aber nur bei Bedarf verabreicht werden.

Es ist von größter Bedeutung, die während einer psychedelischen Erfahrung gelernten Lektionen oder gewonnenen Erkenntnisse richtig zu verarbeiten. Wenn du während der Erfahrung etwas Wertvolles bekommst, behandle es wie jeden anderen Gegenstand von großem Wert. Du wirst nicht bei jedem Erlebnis Einsichten oder Lebenslektionen erhalten, und das ist in Ordnung. Aber es ist gut, darauf vorbereitet zu sein, wenn sie auftauchen, damit du ihren Wert für dein Leben maximieren kannst.

Selbstvertrauen aufbauen

\ Sowohl Bitcoin als auch Psychedelika können ein tiefes inneres Vertrauen aufbauen. Psychedelische Drogen können sehr herausfordernd sein. Die psychedelische Erfahrung kann in gewisser Weise mit einer Initiation verglichen werden. Manche Menschen erleben auf Psychedelika eine Tod-Wiedergeburt-Erfahrung, und es gibt keine lebensbejahendere Erfahrung als die eines Nahtods.

Psychedelika können auch sehr beängstigend sein, wenn sie ohne die nötige Vorsicht und den nötigen Respekt eingesetzt werden. Aber selbst die furchterregendsten Erfahrungen bringen uns nicht um, und das gibt uns ein Gefühl der Ermächtigung. Auch ohne das Drama des Egotods oder eine beängstigende psychedelische Erfahrung würden viele Menschen einen Teil ihrer psychedelischen Erfahrung als „herausfordernd" bezeichnen. Diese tiefgreifenden inneren Herausforderungen zu durchlaufen, kann das Selbstvertrauen enorm stärken.

Die psychedelische Erfahrung ist auch eine moderne Analogie zu einer inneren „Heldensuche". Sie wird nicht auf die leichte Schulter genommen und ist ein Weg mit großen persönlichen Herausforderungen und Dramen. Die Suche kann zu einer direkten göttlichen, mystischen Erfahrung führen, zu einem Schatz, bevor der Held nach Hause zurückkehrt.

Bitcoin schafft auch ein Vertrauen, das man nur durch Erfahrung gewinnen kann. Diejenigen, die sich seit mehr als einem Jahr mit Bitcoin beschäftigen, sind auf zahlreiche Medienartikel gestoßen, die laut und stolz verkündeten: „Bitcoin ist tot!" Mehr als 450 dieser Artikel wurden in den letzten zehn Jahren veröffentlicht, doch Bitcoin stirbt nie. Er ist einer nicht enden wollenden Flut von technologischen, politischen und ideologischen Angriffen ausgesetzt, aber im Durchschnitt wird alle 10 Minuten ein neuer Bitcoin-Block im Netzwerk erzeugt. Die Uhr tickt weiter. Diese Widerstandsfähigkeit schafft Vertrauen bei den Bitcoinern, und dieses Vertrauen wächst und vertieft sich mit der Zeit.

Auswirkungen auf langfristiges Denken und Planen

\ Das Konzept der „Zeitpräferenz", das von Saifedean Ammous populär gemacht wurde, basiert auf den Entscheidungen, die wir alle treffen, und ihrem Verhältnis zur Zeit. Willst du einen Bitcoin heute oder zehn im nächsten Jahr?

Es gibt zwei Arten von Zeitpräferenzen: hohe und niedrige. Das Denken mit hoher Zeitpräferenz optimiert für die unmittelbare Zukunft (heute, morgen), während das Denken mit niedriger Zeitpräferenz für die lange Zukunft (Jahre, Jahrzehnte, Generationen) optimiert. Das Denken in niedrigen Zeitpräferenzen ist ein Luxus, den sich diejenigen leisten, die ihre unmittelbare Zukunft gesichert haben. Man kann nicht für die Zukunft planen, wenn man nicht weiß, woher die nächste Mahlzeit kommt oder wo man die Nacht verbringen wird.

Zum Denken mit geringen Zeitpräferenzen gehört das Sparen für die Zukunft und die Sicherung des persönlichen Wohlstands durch große persönliche Verantwortung und Bildung. Diejenigen, die in Bitcoin sparen und sie langfristig halten, stellen fest, dass ihr Vermögen um Größenordnungen zunimmt. Niemand hat jemals Bitcoin gekauft, sie vier Jahre lang gehalten und dann Geld verloren. Niemals. Das passiert einfach nicht. Wenn du sie kurzfristig kaufst, kann alles Mögliche passieren, und höchstwahrscheinlich wirst du dein Geld verlieren. Kaufe, halte, sammle und gib sparsam aus.

Diese Lehren aus dem Bitcoin beginnen das Leben der Nutzer zu durchdringen, und schon bald wird diese Art des Denkens auf alle Aspekte des Lebens angewendet. Die Nutzer  bilden sich in verwandten Disziplinen weiter, treiben Sport und ernähren sich gesünder, weil sie nun optimistischer in die Zukunft blicken.

Eine düstere Zukunft, die einst voller Ungewissheit war, wird durch persönliches Handeln in eine Vision der Hoffnung verwandelt, und das ist unbeschreiblich ermutigend.

Es kommt niemand, um dich zu retten. Du musst der Held auf dieser Reise sein.

Psychedelika wirken sich sowohl auf das Denken in niedrigen als auch in hohen Phasen aus und sind für jeden Menschen zutiefst individuell. Ich finde, dass Psychedelika als persönliches Barometer genutzt werden können - ein Werkzeug, um den Verlauf meiner Zukunft vorherzusagen. Indem wir die Vergangenheit nutzen, um aus einzigartigen und unverwirklichten Perspektiven in die Zukunft zu blicken, können wir dieses Werkzeug nutzen, um Pläne für persönliches Wachstum zu entwerfen. Indem ich mich außerhalb meiner alltäglichen Erfahrungen bewege, kann ich mich aus einem ganz neuen Blickwinkel betrachten.

Viele von uns können schnell die Fehler anderer sehen, aber nicht die eigenen? Psychedelika ermöglichen uns einen Perspektivwechsel, der es uns erlaubt, uns selbst und unser Leben aus einem neuen Blickwinkel zu betrachten, in dem wir Fehler, die wir ignoriert, übersehen oder unterdrückt haben, leicht und klar erkennen können.

Ich kann das Ziel und den Weg dorthin sehen. Ich kann sehen, was für mich richtig ist, und ich kann auch andere Wege sehen, die ich einschlagen könnte und wo sie mich in die Irre führen könnten. Die wahre Kraft der Psychedelika besteht darin, diese Einsichten zu erkennen und konsequent danach zu handeln. Viele Menschen nehmen Psychedelika und haben eine großartige Vision, stecken dann aber zwei Wochen später in denselben persönlichen und emotionalen Furchen fest, in denen sie vor der Erfahrung steckten. Das liegt daran, dass es fast keine guten Informationen über die richtige Integration psychedelischer Erfahrungen gibt. Deine beste Lehrerin oder dein bester Lehrer ist es, die Arbeit zu machen, aufmerksam zu sein, sich entsprechend anzupassen und die Ergebnisse zu beobachten. Tatsache ist, dass viele Menschen durch den Konsum von Bitcoin und/oder Psychedelika langfristige positive Veränderungen in ihrem Leben bewirken.

Die Wirkung von Psychedelika findet nicht nur im Kopf statt. Die Wissenschaft hat gezeigt, dass diese Moleküle die Struktur unseres Gehirns physisch verändern. Dieses Bild zeigt, wie Psychedelika das Wachstum von Gehirnzellen fördern und neue Nervenbahnen im Gehirn bilden können. Du denkst anders, weil du anders bist.

Altcoins, Forschungschemikalien und Schadensminimierung

\ Sowohl bei Bitcoin als auch bei Psychedelika gibt es räuberische „Hochstapler" und Affinitätsbetrüger, die auftauchen, um die Gemeinschaft auszunutzen. In beiden Kulturen gibt es eine unehrliche Bevölkerung, die von der Förderung dieser Betrügereien profitiert, und eine ehrliche Bevölkerung, die als Immunsystem fungiert, um diese Gifte zu identifizieren, zu entlarven und zu vertreiben. Bei Bitcoin gibt es eine aktive Kultur, die den Affinitätsbetrug schnell, laut und nachdrücklich aufdeckt. In der Psychedelik gibt es eine ähnliche Kultur, die „Schadensminimierung" genannt wird und in der lautstarke Mitglieder die größere Gemeinschaft vor den Angriffen der schlechten Akteure schützen.

Es gibt eine ganze Galaxie von „Altcoins", die behaupten, dass sie aus dem einen oder anderen Grund besser sind als Bitcoin. Einige der Altcoin-Projekte mögen legitime Experimente mit digitalen Vermögenswerten sein, aber die große Mehrheit sind gefährliche Betrüger, die versuchen, dein Geld durch falsche Versprechungen und technisches Geschwätz zu stehlen.

Diese Altcoins nehmen viele Formen an: Defi, Proof-of-Stake, algorithmische Stablecoins, NFTs und viele andere Worthülsen, die bei näherer Betrachtung nicht das sind, wofür sie werben. Viele dieser Projekte und Altcoins behaupten, sie seien „dezentralisiert", während sie in Wirklichkeit direkte zentralisierende Faktoren verbergen, die den gesamten Sinn des Projekts zunichte machen. In Bitcoin haben wir einen umgangssprachlichen Ausdruck für diese Nicht-Bitcoin-Krypto-Vermögenswerte: Shitcoins.

"Es gibt Bitcoin und es gibt Shitcoin."- Kongressabgeordneter Warren Davidson

\ Eine ganze Galaxie von psychedelischen Molekülen aus dem Frankenstein'schen Zeitalter findet ihren Weg aus skizzenhaften Laboren in Übersee auf die globalen psychedelischen Märkte. Dinge wie 2C-I, DOB, aMT, 25i-NBOMe, Bromo-Dragonfly und JWH-018 sind nur einige der chemischen Substanzen, die derzeit auf dem Weltmarkt erhältlich sind.

Weil diese Chemikalien so selten sind, gibt es nur sehr wenige Daten über ihr Sicherheitsprofil. Skrupellose Dealer kaufen diese billigen Imitate und verkaufen sie als LSD, MDMA oder Meskalin an ahnungslose Kunden. 25i-NBOME wird oft fälschlicherweise als LSD verkauft, aber diese Substanz ist hochgiftig und hat schon mehrere Konsumenten getötet, im Gegensatz zu LSD, das noch nie jemanden getötet hat.

Ich habe ein paar Blotter zur Schadensminimierung erstellt, um diese betrügerische Technik zu bekämpfen. Dies ist ein Beispiel dafür, dass der Aktivismus zur Schadensbegrenzung Parallelen zum „toxischen Bitcoin-Maximalismus" aufweist.

Obwohl es in beiden Gemeinschaften überall Betrüger gibt, ist nicht jeder, der sich mit Altcoins oder Forschungschemikalien beschäftigt, unehrlich oder darauf aus, dir zu schaden. Viele erforschen ernsthaft die Vorzüge und Fallstricke dieser unbekannten Wege, und ich habe nichts dagegen, dass sie das tun. Diese Menschen sind nicht gefährlich für die Gemeinschaft, sondern meist nur für sich selbst.

Auch wenn ich glaube, dass sie fehlgeleitet sind, schaden ihre ehrlichen Erkundungen niemandem. Manche Menschen investieren einen großen Teil ihres Lebens in die Erkundung dieser Pfade und finden vielleicht nie den Weg hinaus. Ich denke jedoch, dass dies für die meisten ein Übergangsstadium ist, in dem sie die Konsequenzen ihres falschen Denkens erfahren und sich selbst korrigieren.

Wenn die Selbsterkundung zur Anpreisung wird, haben wir eine Grenze überschritten. Ich habe etwas dagegen, wenn Menschen falsche Behauptungen aufstellen, die für jeden, der ihnen zuhört, gefährliche Folgen haben, vor allem, wenn sie das nur tun, weil sie davon profitieren.

Sowohl bei Bitcoin als auch bei Psychedelika gibt es ausgetretene Pfade, die zuverlässig und vorhersehbar sind. Andere Wege sind weniger ausgetreten oder sogar unbekannt und bergen neue und einzigartige Gefahren. Die klassischen Psychedelika wie LSD, Pilze, DMT, Meskalin und Cannabis sind gut befahrene, gut dokumentierte und entsprechend gekennzeichnete Wege. Das bedeutet, dass Millionen von Menschen diese Substanzen über Jahrzehnte oder sogar Jahrhunderte hinweg konsumiert haben. Aufgrund ihrer weit verbreiteten, langfristigen Verwendung wissen wir viel über ihre Sicherheit, Wirksamkeit und Dosierung. Diese Psychedelika sind in einer Vielzahl von Umgebungen unglaublich sicher.

Bitcoin ist auch ein weit verbreiteter Weg. Er hat Millionen von Nutzern und ist seit über einem Jahrzehnt in der Praxis erprobt. Bitcoin winkt jeden Tag mit einem Billionen-Dollar-Preis für jeden, der ihn knacken kann, doch niemand hat es je geschafft. Das Gegenteil ist in der Welt der Nicht-Bitcoin-Kryptowährungen der Fall. Fast wöchentlich gibt es einen neuen Defi- oder Smart-Contract-Exploit oder Hack. Der Sommer 2022 hat uns auch gezeigt, wie gefährlich es ist, Dritten zu vertrauen und ein Gegenparteirisiko einzugehen.

Die wichtigste Erkenntnis aus diesem Abschnitt, wenn nicht sogar aus dem ganzen Artikel, ist, dass man sich in der Welt der "Kryptowährungen" auf Bitcoin konzentrieren sollte, wie auf LSD und Psilocybin in der Welt der Psychedelika.\ \ Es gibt viele Ablenkungen und falsche Wege, die dich in die Irre führen. Fallen Sie nicht darauf herein. Sowohl Psychedelika als auch Bitcoin zeigen uns, dass Zeit unser wertvollstes Gut ist. Wenn du den Fokus verlierst, ist es leicht, von der Mission abzuweichen und dich ablenken zu lassen. Wenn du deine Aufmerksamkeit und Energie fokussierst, verbringst du mehr Zeit auf Wegen, die tiefgreifende und messbare Vorteile für dein Leben haben können. Du kannst nicht gewinnen, wenn du nicht spielst. Ablenkungen halten dich komplett vom Spielfeld fern.

Es gibt kein "Wundermittel" gegen falsches Denken

\ Viele Nutzer von Psychedelika glauben, dass sich alles innerhalb eines Nachmittags ändern würde, wenn alle Menschen auf der Welt LSD nehmen würden. Bei Bitcoin gibt es den Spruch „Bitcoin repariert dies", der besagt, dass Bitcoin auf magische Weise fast jedes Problem auf der Welt lösen kann. Meiner Erfahrung nach gibt es leider kein Patentrezept für falsches Denken.

Bitcoin hält die Shitcoinerei nicht auf. Psychedelische Drogen machen dich nicht automatisch zu einem guten Menschen.

Nur weil du dich für Bitcoin interessierst, heißt das nicht, dass du gegen Fiat-Denken oder Shitcoinerei immun bist. Und nur weil du Psychedelika nimmst, heißt das nicht, dass du nicht in einem Labyrinth aus fantastischem Denken landest. Es bedeutet auch nicht, dass du deine psychedelischen Erkenntnisse erfolgreich in dein Leben integrieren wirst.

Als ich mit Bitcoin anfing, hatte ich keine Ahnung von der riesigen Welt der Kryptowährungen. Ich dachte, Bitcoin sei die einzige digitale Währung. Ich fand schnell heraus, dass es über tausend verschiedene „Altcoins" gibt. Ich begann zu recherchieren, aber die verfügbaren Quellen waren nicht zuverlässig. Ich sah immer wieder Altcoin-Promoter, die sagten: „Bitcoin ist eine alte, veraltete Technologie", „Bitcoin ist langsam und teuer" und „dieser neue Coin behebt all das".

Noch wichtiger ist, dass diese Betrüger von dem Wunschtraum leben, dass diese neue Münze das gleiche Wachstum wie Bitcoin erfährt und möglicherweise den Nutzen und den Preis von Bitcoin übertrifft. Oft kosten diese Münzen nur ein paar Cent pro Stück, so dass die Verlockung, ein paar Cent in Zehntausende zu verwandeln, wie ein Sirenengesang auf unsere Gier wirkt.

Ich bin darauf hereingefallen und habe über ein Jahr lang auf die harte (und teure) Tour gelernt, dass ich meine Zeit und mein Geld mit einem Haufen Shitcoins verschwendet habe. Das war eine wertvolle, aber teure Lektion. Ich habe sie mir zu Herzen genommen und konzentriere mich jetzt ausschließlich auf Bitcoin. Das hat mein Leben in vielerlei Hinsicht verändert und dafür bin ich für immer dankbar.

Das spricht dafür, dass einige von uns die Dinge auf die harte Tour lernen müssen. Man kann keine Einsicht gewinnen, ohne die Erfahrung gemacht zu haben, Zeit, Energie und Geld zu verlieren. Für manche sind das die Kosten für das Schulgeld. Ich hoffe, dass du aus meinen Fehlern lernen kannst. Ich kann dir empfehlen, die Twitter-Seite von @CoinFessions zu besuchen, wenn du aus den Fehlern anderer lernen willst. Heute bin ich sehr schnell dabei, meine Zeit und Aufmerksamkeit auf meine spezielle Mission zu konzentrieren und so viele Ablenkungen auszuschließen, wie ich abwehren kann.

Hüte dich vor der „Touristen"-Kultur

\ Bezahlte Krypto-Tradinganalyse-Gruppenleitern und Ayahuasca-Schamanen sollten mit größter Skepsis betrachtet werden. In fast allen Fällen sollte man diese Leute meiden. Das gilt auch für Ayahuasca-Tourismus, psychedelische Exerzitien, medizinisch unterstützte psychedelische Behandlungen und jede Situation, in der du deine Souveränität, deinen Platz und dein Umfeld an andere abgibst.

Ich möchte nicht beobachtet, angeleitet oder angesungen werden oder die Protokolle, Glaubenssätze oder Rituale anderer auf mich projiziert bekommen, während ich mich in einem psychedelischen Zustand befinde. Ich möchte die Kontrolle über meine eigene Erfahrung haben und diese Verantwortung nicht an eine vertrauenswürdige dritte Person abgeben. Das Gleiche gilt für das Vertrauen in einen YouTube-Krypto-Trader, der finanzielle Entscheidungen trifft, die mich und meine Familie betreffen. Das wird nicht passieren.

Wenn du irgendwo im Urlaub bist, wissen wir alle, dass es eine „Touristenversion" und eine „echte Version" der Orte gibt, die wir besuchen. Es gibt den Strand, an den du gereist bist, mit dem herrlichen Sand, der Sonne und dem Himmel, und dann gibt es den Laden, der versucht, dir T-Shirts, Muscheln, Schlüsselanhänger und eine Fahrt im Kleinbus zu verkaufen, um die örtlichen Sehenswürdigkeiten zu sehen.

Geh an den Strand und halte dich von den Touristenläden fern. In jeder Kultur gibt es Elemente, die "wahr und rein" für die Ideologien der Bewegung sind. Es gibt aber auch räuberische Mitläufer, die nach Gelegenheiten suchen, die Unwissenheit der Neuankömmlinge über die Feinheiten auszunutzen.

In der Bitcoin-Kultur gibt es das Konzept des „Orangewashings", mit dem man sich als Bitcoiner ausgibt, aber in Wirklichkeit ist man ein Shitcoiner oder Betrüger, der nur so tut, als ob er so tut, als ob er so tut und so redet. Andere machen sich gar nicht erst die Mühe des Orangenwaschens und verkünden stolz, dass Bitcoin alt, langsam, Boomer-Tech und eindeutig minderwertiger als ihre neueste Version ihres Schlangenöls ist.

In der psychedelischen Kultur gibt es immer mehr Menschen, die dein Geld gerne annehmen, um dir im Gegenzug psychedelische Dienstleistungen, Moleküle und sogar Investmentaktien anzubieten. Manche haben tiefere und dunklere Beweggründe für deinen Geist und Körper. Ich würde dir raten, dich von all diesen Angeboten fernzuhalten oder sie zumindest mit großer Skepsis zu betrachten. Ich sage nicht, dass alle Erscheinungsformen dieser Aspekte der Kulturen von Natur aus schädlich sind, sondern dass man immer die Anreize im Auge behalten muss. Wenn du dich auf einen Rückzugsort, einen „Schamanen", einen psychedelischen Arzt oder eine Fachkraft einlässt, dann recherchiere ausgiebig über die Person/das Unternehmen.

Nimm dir die Zeit, eine authentische Kultur zu suchen. Pflege das Echte und lehne das Gefälschte ab.\ \ Du wirst um ein Vielfaches belohnt werden, und zwar auf unvorhersehbare Weise.

Alchemie

\ Ich möchte auf die Verbindung zum alten alchemistischen Wunsch eingehen, Blei in Gold zu verwandeln. Mit Bitcoin verwandeln wir die Fiat-Strukturen der Welt in einen digitalen, kryptografischen Schatz, der sich überall auf der Welt hin teleportieren kann. Dies geschieht wie ein Zauberspruch, indem man bestimmte Wörter in der richtigen Reihenfolge verwendet. Wenn du den Code ausführst, funktioniert er. Indem wir die richtigen Wörter in der richtigen Reihenfolge verwenden, können wir die Welt wesentlich verändern.

Das sind nicht nur Veränderungen in unseren Köpfen. Es sind Veränderungen, die andere sehen, fühlen und unabhängig überprüfen können. Der richtige Computercode kann eine Zugbrücke anheben oder alle Ampeln in der Stadt in perfektem Timing ändern, damit die Autofahrer sicher über die Straßen kommen. Bitcoiner sind Magier und Zauberer, die Computercode statt Zauberbücher benutzen. Psychedelische Chemiker sind Zauberer, die ihre Zaubersprüche in der Sprache der Atome sprechen. Wie Buchstaben, die Wörter in einem Code oder einem Zauberspruch bilden, werden Atome zu Molekülen angeordnet.

Psychedelika verwandeln das fiktive Denken und Leben in neue Perspektiven und mystische Erfahrungen. Pilze sind wie die Alchemisten der Natur - sie verwandeln tote und verfallende Materie, also buchstäblichen Müll, in psychedelische Pilze, eine der elegantesten Erscheinungsformen der Natur.

Bitcoin kann auch Abfall in Schätze umwandeln. Gestrandete Energie, einst eine Last, wird durch Bitcoin in eine digitale Goldmine verwandelt. Bitcoin kann sogar unsere Mülldeponien in wertvolle Bitcoin-Minen verwandeln und so Müll in Schätze verwandeln. Der alchemistische Traum wird wahr, und zwar auf eine Weise, die sich unsere Vorfahren nie hätten vorstellen können.

Die alte Wissenschaft und Chemie der Alchemie findet im digitalen Zeitalter eine neue Form. Wenn du diese Werkzeuge studierst und anwendest, kannst du dein Leben und die Welt um dich herum wirklich und dauerhaft verändern.

"Es handelt sich eindeutig um eine Krise von zwei Dingen: des Bewusstseins und der Konditionierung. Wir haben die technologische Macht, die technischen Fähigkeiten, um unseren Planeten zu retten, Krankheiten zu heilen, die Hungernden zu ernähren und Kriege zu beenden. Aber es fehlt uns an der intellektuellen Vision, an der Fähigkeit, unsere Meinung zu ändern. Wir müssen uns von 10.000 Jahren schlechten Verhaltens befreien. Und das ist nicht einfach." - Terence McKenna

\ ⚡ Unglaublich, du hast den Artikel bis zum Ende gelesen und ich hoffe du konntest etwas Mitnehmen für deine persönliche Reise aus diesem Text.\ \ ⚡ Vielen Dank für deine Aufmerksamkeit. Wenn dir die kostenfreie Übersetzung dieses Artikels gefallen hat, würde ich mich über ein paar Satoshi auf Value for Value Basis freuen.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

How IPFS is broken

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

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

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

And what is the solution for that? A DHT!

DHT?

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

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

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

Connections?

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

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

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

IPFS Apps?

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

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

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

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

IPNS?

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

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

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

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

Archiving content?

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

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

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

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

Future-proof?

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

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

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

Ethereum?

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

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

More about IPFS problems:

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

See also

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

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

Digitales Geld ist nur Text, die ganze Zeit

Bei digitalem Geld geht es im Grunde nur um Zahlen in einem Hauptbuch. Die ganze Zeit über sind es die Zahlen, auf die es ankommt. Lange Zahlen sind einfach nur Zeichenketten im PC und diese werden als Nachrichten in einem Netzwerk, das durch Regeln gebildet wird, an gleichwertige Peers gesendet - das ist Bitcoin, das mit einem einzigartigen dezentralen Zeitstempel-Algorithmus kombiniert wird, der durch die Unfälschbarkeit von Energie gesichert ist. Das Ergebnis ist ein Bargeldnetzwerk mit einem festen, vorprogrammierten Zeitplan für die Geldschöpfung, das den ersten absolut knappen digitalen Inhabervermögenswert schafft.\ \ Diese revolutionären Ideen werden bleiben, genauso wie das Feuer, das Rad, die Elektrizität, das Smartphone, das Internet oder die Zahl Null. Technologie entwickelt sich weiter und was machen lebende Organismen? Sie können mutieren, genau wie Viren, und das hat mich zu dem Schluss gebracht, dass es auch in dieser Hinsicht eine Verbindung gibt und das obwohl Gigi bereits einige der vielen Facetten von Bitcoin beschrieben hat. Für mich ist die Grundlage die Abstraktion, dass Bitcoin nur die Summe aller Menschen ist, die Satoshis besitzen oder anderweitig mit dem Bitcoin-Netzwerk interagieren.\ \ Die Technologien werden in einem bestimmten Tempo angenommen. Allerdings gibt es immer frühe oder späte Entdecker von neuer Technologie. Aber was passiert, wenn es zu einer ernsthaften Bedrohung wird, wenn hartes Geld nicht adoptiert wird? Was passiert, wenn die Geschwindigkeit der Preiszunahme so hoch wird, dass es unmöglich ist, jemanden zu finden, der Satoshi in Fiat tauschen möchte? Was passiert, wenn die Hyperbitcoinisierung morgen beginnt? Was wäre, wenn es eine UpSideProtection™️ gäbe, die diesen Prozess noch mehr beschleunigt und dir Bitcoin zu einem Bruchteil seines wahren Wertes sichert?\ \ Wir alle wünschen uns einen sicheren Übergang, um den Krieg aufgrund einer scheiternden Dollar-Hegemonie zu vermeiden, und tatsächlich gibt es ein Rennen, um den Krieg zu vermeiden. Mein größtes Geschenk ist die Zeit, die ich ich investiere, und die monetäre Energie, die ich in Bitcoin spare, und da ich schon eine Weile dabei bin, sehe ich, dass meine Mitstreiter die gleiche Mission verfolgen. Aber das ist NICHT genug. Wir müssen skalieren. Schneller.\ \ Das Erstaunen über den  Kurzfilm der große Widerstand hat mich zu dem Schluss gebracht, dass wir alle Werkzeuge und Informationen in Form von Lehrern, Podcasts, Büchern und aufklärenden Videos bereits haben. Der Vorteil einer festen Geldmenge wird aber noch nicht von einer kritischen Masse verstanden, sondern nur von einer intoleranten Minderheit. Diese Minderheit wächst von Tag zu Tag. Ihre Inkarnationen sind die DCA-Armee, die Hodler der letzten Instanz, die unbeirrten Stacker, die Cyberhornets, die Memefactory™️ und Mitglieder der 21 Gruppe auf der ganzen Welt.\ \ Wir Bitcoiner sind räumlich getrennt, aber nicht in der Zeit. Getrennt in der Sprache, aber nicht in der Mission. Vereint müssen wir uns zu Wort melden, aufklären und Bitcoin wie einen Virus verbreiten.\ \ Niemand entscheidet, was Bitcoin für dich ist - dieser Virus des Geistes verfestigt sich in unbestechlichen Zahlen, die zu einer wachsenden Zahl an UTXOs in den Geldbörsen führen, nicht in negativen gesundheitlichen Auswirkungen. Bitcoin ist der Virus der Schuldenindustrie, der Virus, der im 21. Jahrhundert zur größten Definanzialisierung und Auflösung des Kredits führen wird. Da wir noch nicht in einer hyperbitcoinisierten Welt leben, müssen wir den Virus effektiver machen. Bitcoin muss mutieren, aber es ist nicht Bitcoin, der tatsächlich mutiert, sondern die Menschen, die ihn benutzen. Sie werden zu toxischen Maximalisten, die den Virus noch stärker verbreiten und alle Shitcoiner während ihrer Anwesenheit geistig infizieren oder argumentativ töten.\ \ Ich habe mich gefragt, wie wir eine Milliarde Menschen dazu ausbilden und überzeugen können, Bitcoin freiwillig zu nutzen und darin zu sparen, so dass sie Bitcoin als primäres Mittel zur Speicherung und Übermittlung von Werten in Raum und Zeit nutzen? Die Hyperbitcoinisierung braucht nur eine einzige, starke positive Rückkopplungsschleife um wirklich in Gang zu kommen, und diese Rückkopplung gibt es bereits, aber nicht in den Köpfen aller. Ab einer bestimmten Schwelle wird die Schwerkraft von Bitcoins gehärteten monetären Eigenschaften einfach zu hoch sein, als dass die Spieltheorie nicht zu dieser Rückkopplung führen würde, vor allem da Bitcoin im Jahr 2024 Gold in Punkto Knappheit übertrifft.\ \ Die Verbreitung der Idee einer festen dezentralen Geldmenge, die der Macht zentraler Kräfte entzogen ist, ist der Virus. Der Weg, das Spiel zu spielen, ist, Stacker zu stapeln, und Stacker stapeln Sats, wodurch die Geldmenge noch dezentralisierter wird und ein Verbot noch absurder wird. Sats sind endlich und unser Spiel ist es auch. Allein eine bestimmte Anzahl von einfachen Leuten, den Plebs, kann den Preis auf 1.000.000 EURO treiben.\ \ Letztendlich wird sich die Welt an das neue Gleichgewicht der Macht zugunsten des Individuums anpassen. Diese Idee in die Köpfe der Massen zu bringen, ist die wichtigste Aufgabe für 2023, die in das nächste Halving Mitte 2024 führt.\ \ Wir müssen unseren Reproduktionswert erhöhen, um die Akzeptanz zu steigern. Die Verwendung von Bitcoin als Zahlungsmittel und eine Kreislaufwirtschaft ist wichtig. Bildung ist wichtig. Apps und Anwendungsfälle sind wichtig. Die Kaufkraft, d.h. die Moskau Zeit, die sich in Richtung Mitternacht (00:00) bewegt, spielt eine Rolle, und all dies hängt zusammen.\ \ Aber wie genau können Plebs eine Milliarde Menschen überzeugen?\ \ Wie genau hat das Corona-Virus eine Milliarde Menschen infiziert?\ \ Peer-to-Peer.\ \ Erhebe deine Stimme, wer auch immer du bist, sprich über Bitcoin, werde aktiv und BUIDL oder lass uns einfach Spaß daran haben, arm zu bleiben und es genießen, jeden Tag bestohlen zu werden.\ \ Lass uns Yellow mehr Freizeit schenken und Bitcoin bis 100k+ aufkaufen und uns damit ins Stackheaven befördern.

"Don't stop believin' HODL on to that feelin' "

Der Rest wird in die unumstößliche Geschichte der Timechain eingraviert.

„Unter dieser Maske gibt es mehr als nur Fleisch. Unter dieser Maske ist eine Idee. Und Ideen sind kugelsicher."  Alan Moore, V wie Vendetta

⚡

Danke für deine Aufmerksamkeit .\ \ #GetShortFiat und #GetOnZero\ \ Es ist immer noch 60 Uhr. Sei weise und stapele unbeirrt. Man kann die Mathematik und Physik nicht austricksen.\ \ Wenn der Post dir Motivation zum Stapeln von Sats oder dem Stapeln von Stackern gemacht hat, freue ich mich, wenn du mir auch etwas beim Stapeln hilfst!

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Jofer

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

The flaw of "just use paypal/coinbase" arguments

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

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

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

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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Bitcoin is a miracle.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

idea: Per-paragraph paywalls

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

This idea came from Colin from the Unhashed Podcast.

Could also work with podcasts and videos.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

SummaDB

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

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

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

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

While a call to /fruits would return

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

POST, PUT and PATCH requests also worked.

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

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

graphql query { fruits { banana { color } } }

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

SummulaDB

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

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

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

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

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

The computed properties complexity

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

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

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

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

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

Screenshots

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

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

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

Was ist ein Meme?

Bevor wir uns in die Materie vertiefen, sollten wir einen genaueren Blick auf die Begriffe werfen, mit denen wir es zu tun haben. Laut dem American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language ist ein Meme „eine Einheit kultureller Informationen, wie z. B. eine kulturelle Praxis oder Idee, die verbal oder durch wiederholte Handlungen von einem Geist zum anderen übertragen wird".

Der Begriff wurde von Richard Dawkins in seinem 1976 erschienenen Buch geprägt und ist eine Anspielung auf das Wort "Gen", die Einheit der biologischen Information, die sexuell von einem Organismus auf einen anderen übertragen wird.

Dawkins erkannte, dass kulturelle Informationen ähnlich wie biologische Informationen sind und sich genauso verbreiten und mutieren, wenn auch auf einer höheren Abstraktionsebene. Genau wie bei biologischen Informationen ist der ultimative Test für kulturelle Informationen das Überleben, und genau wie biologische Informationen müssen sie für die Umwelt geeignet sein, um sich zu verbreiten und am Leben zu gehalten zu werden.

Manche Ideen funktionieren einfach nicht, wenn sie fehl am Platz sind oder die Zeit nicht reif für sie ist. Sie werden schnell sterben, genau wie der sprichwörtliche Fisch auf dem Trockenen. Andere Memes funktionieren vielleicht eine Zeit lang, verblassen aber langsam durch allmähliche Veränderungen in der Umwelt oder brechen plötzlich durch die von ihnen ausgelösten destruktiven Rückkopplungsschleifen zusammen. Wie Gene verbreiten sich Meme langfristig nur dann, wenn sie für den Organismus und seine Umwelt von Nutzen sind.

„In der Wissenschaft der Ökologie lernt man, dass der Mensch nicht ein Organismus in einer Umwelt ist, sondern eine Organismus-Umwelt-Beziehung. Das heißt, ein einheitlicher Bereich des Verhaltens. Wenn man das Verhalten eines Organismus sorgfältig beschreibt, kann man das nicht tun, ohne gleichzeitig das Verhalten der Umwelt zu beschreiben... [...] Der Organismus ist nicht die Marionette der Umwelt, die von ihr herumgeschubst wird. Umgekehrt ist auch die Umwelt nicht die Marionette des Organismus, die vom Organismus herumgeschubst wird. Die Beziehung zwischen ihnen ist, um es mit John Deweys Worten zu sagen, transaktional."\ \ Alan Watts

Was hat das mit Bitcoin zu tun? Nun, du musst dich fragen, wie das Bitcoin-Netzwerk zustande kommt, und wenn du das tust, wirst du feststellen, dass Bitcoin sich nicht allzu sehr von den oben erwähnten Memen und Genen unterscheidet. Bitcoin ist ein instanziierter Computercode, ein digitaler Organismus, der die Menschheit dafür bezahlt, ihn am Leben zu erhalten, wie Ralph Merkle es so treffend formulierte. Die kumulative Arbeit, die in Bitcoins Timechain eingebettet ist, ist das, was Bitcoin real macht und was ihn von gewöhnlicher Information unterscheidet. Und von gewöhnlichen Computerprogrammen, was das betrifft. Genauso wie es einen Unterschied zwischen dir selbst und einem Ausdruck deiner DNA gibt, gibt es einen Unterschied zwischen dem Bitcoin-Code - den Memes, die er sich zu Nutze macht - und der realen Instanziierung von Bitcoin.

Das Bitcoin-Netzwerk instanziiert und validiert sich selbst alle 10 Minuten, Block für Block, wie ein Uhrwerk. Diese Blöcke sind die Informationseinheit, die übertragen wird, und ja, genau wie bei den Memen ist diese Information eine kulturelle Information. Die Tatsache, dass diese Information elektronisch übertragen wird, spielt keine Rolle; sie verkörpert immer noch den Kern der Bitcoin-Kultur, die Seele des Netzwerks. Und genau wie Memes wird diese Information durch wiederholte Aktionen von einem Knotenpunkt zum anderen übertragen. Und davor, von einem Geist zum anderen.

Im ökologischen Sinne handeln wir alle mit Bitcoin, und Bitcoin handelt mit uns. Wenn du von Bitcoin gehört hast, wenn du das Meme „21 Millionen" kennst, dann hat Bitcoin mit dir Geschäfte gemacht. Lange bevor du deine erste Bitcoin-Transaktion gemacht haben.

Memes und ihre Umgebung

Bitcoin sind Menschen, wenn es darauf ankommt. Ja, es ist Software, aber die Menschen müssen die Software ausführen und, was noch wichtiger ist, selbst entscheiden, was Bitcoin ist. Es gibt keine Autorität, wenn es um Bitcoin geht. So muss jeder für sich selbst herausfinden, was Bitcoin ist, und aus der Überschneidung der verschiedenen Standpunkte ergibt sich ein Konsens. Dies ist ein ständiger Prozess, denn es geht nicht nur darum, was Bitcoin derzeit ist, sondern auch darum, was Bitcoin sein könnte. Was Bitcoin sein sollte. Genau darum ging es im Blocksize War. Ein Kampf um die Seele von Bitcoin. Eine Meinungsverschiedenheit über die Zukunft und den ultimativen Zweck von Bitcoin. Ein Unterschied im memetischen Material, der letztendlich zu einer Spaltung des Protokolls führte, was wiederum zu einer Spaltung des Netzwerks und einer Spaltung der Kultur führte.

Aber auch ohne eine Spaltung, selbst wenn ein Konsens besteht, ist die Frage „was Bitcoin ist" nicht eindeutig zu beantworten.

Für dich mag das Lightning Network nicht wichtig sein, und es steht dir frei, eine Vor-SegWit-Version von Bitcoin zu betreiben. Für jemand anderen sind Dickbutts und Fürze auf der Blockchain vielleicht nicht wichtig, und er könnte sich entscheiden, eine Vor-Taproot-Version von Bitcoin zu verwenden (oder eine Version zu verwenden, die Ordnungszahlen (Ordinals) nicht respektiert). Bitcoin ist abwärtskompatibel, und Upgrades sind optional, gerade weil es keine Autorität gibt, die etwas vorschreibt.

So funktioniert Bitcoin, und so wird es immer funktionieren, weshalb Memes wichtig sind und warum es eigentlich durchweg Memes sind.

Um Bitcoin zu nutzen, muss man sich freiwillig entscheiden. Man muss zuerst von der Idee überzeugt werden, von der Idee, Sats zu akzeptieren, damit Fiat fallen zu lassen und Bitcoin zu erwerben. Erst wenn man davon überzeugt ist, dass elektronisches Bargeld mit einer (absolut) festen Menge nützlich sein könnte, wird man es akzeptieren oder damit sparen.

Das Meme „21 Millionen" kommt zuerst, und nachdem unsere Gehirne ausreichend von der Idee infiziert wurden, werden wir deshalb die Software starten, die die 21 Millionen ins Leben rufen.

Natürlich kommen manche Leute - ich glaube, die meisten - auf Umwegen zum Bitcoin. Du denkst, dass es sich um einen spekulativen Vermögenswert handelt, etwas, das existiert, um mehr Dollar zu verdienen, d. h. um mehr Papiergeld zu verdienen. Oder du entdeckst ihn über Online-Glücksspiele oder andere Wege, und auf diese Weise kommen sie zu ihren ersten Sätzen. Aber selbst wenn du auf Umwegen zu Bitcoin kommst, selbst wenn Bitcoin vor deiner Haustür ankommt, ohne dass du verstehst, womit du es zu tun hast, musst du lernen, Bitcoin selbstbestimmt zu nutzen, oder du wirst es nicht schaffen.

Bitcoin auf eine selbstsouveräne Art und Weise zu nutzen, bedeutet, dass du die Memes von Bitcoin absorbieren musst. Zum Beispiel musst du die „21 Millionen" übernehmen und ihnen zustimmen, sonst hast du keinen Bitcoin, sondern einen Shitcoin in den Händen. Bitcoin am Laufen zu halten bedeutet, Bitcoin auszuleben, was wiederum bedeutet, seine eigenen Schlüssel zu besitzen, seinen eigenen Knoten zu betreiben und den zentralen Konsensparametern zuzustimmen, die Bitcoin zu Bitcoin machen.

Mit der Zeit wird ein horizontaler Meme-Transfer stattfinden. Bitcoin wird auf dich abfärben. Du wirst nicht nur den Ideen ausgesetzt sein, die in Bitcoin eingebettet sind; nein, du wirst ein Teil davon sein und das Meme leben, indem du die Satoshi Tag für Tag und Block für Block hältst.

Oder du wirst es nicht. Wenn du mit den Ideen, die in den Konsensparametern von Bitcoin eingebettet sind, nicht einverstanden sind, hast du zwei Möglichkeiten: Du kannst dich abspalten oder unter dem Bitcoin Derangement Syndrom leiden. Man kann sich natürlich auch an die Umwelt anpassen und in Symbiose mit ihr leben, was bedeutet, sich mit dem in Bitcoin eingebetteten memetischen Material zu arrangieren - es zu akzeptieren und ihm langsam zuzustimmen.

Wenn man die zuvor skizzierte ökologische Sichtweise anwendet, bilden Bitcoin und die Bitcoiner selbst den Organismus-Umwelt und beeinflussen sich gegenseitig in 10-Minuten-Intervallen. Das Knifflige daran ist, dass Bitcoin sowohl Organismus als auch Umwelt ist, genau wie wir selbst. Das Bitcoin-Meme lebt in unseren Gehirnen und unsere Vorstellung davon, was Bitcoin ist - und was es sein sollte - ändert sich mit der Zeit. Die ökonomische Erweiterung von uns - unsere Sats - leben in der Umgebung, die Bitcoin ist, eine Umgebung, die wir individuell und kollektiv hervorbringen.

Wir formen unsere Werkzeuge, und unsere Werkzeuge formen uns. Und wir benutzen unsere Werkzeuge, um unsere Umwelt zu formen, die natürlich auch uns formt. Kultur ist das Ergebnis dieser gegenseitigen Beeinflussung, und was ist Kultur anderes als eine Vielzahl von Memen?

Bei Bitcoin haben wir es mit einem unglaublichen meinungsbildenden Werkzeug zu tun, das eng mit uns verwoben ist. Ein Werkzeug, das ein Umfeld schafft, das lächerlich schwer zu ändern ist. Ich würde sogar so weit gehen zu sagen, dass einige Aspekte dieser seltsamen Meme-Werkzeug-Organismus-Umwelt-Schleife unmöglich zu ändern sind, da dies die Identität von Bitcoin und Bitcoinern gleichermaßen zerstören würde.

Für mich wird Bitcoin immer durch 21ismus definiert werden, auch wenn ich der letzte Mensch wäre, der an dieses Meme glauben würde. Anstelle dessen würde ich lieber auf dem Hügel von 21 Millionen sterben - allein und in Armut, mit dem Node in der Hand und zwölf Worten in meinem Kopf - als einer Erhöhung des Bitcoin-Angebots um 1 % zuzustimmen. (Buchvorschlag: Mandibles)

Es gibt diejenigen, die diese unveränderliche Umgebung akzeptieren, und diejenigen, die sie ablehnen, was natürlich zu einer Spaltung der Kultur führt.

Kulturelle Spaltungen

Wir erleben zweifelsohne eine Art Kulturkrieg. Links gegen Rechts, Rot gegen Schwarz, Based gegen Woke, Blue Bird gegen Purple Bird und Furries gegen normale Menschen. Es ist schwer, die Bruchlinien auszumachen, die diesem Krieg zugrunde liegen. Einige glauben, dass es auf Individualismus gegen Kollektivismus hinausläuft. Andere sehen es als Kapitalismus vs. Marxismus, selbstregulierende Ordnung vs. zentrale Planung. Wieder andere spekulieren, dass dieses Chaos mit dem Rückgang des religiösen Glaubens zusammenhängt, der eine Folge der nietzscheanischen Ermordung Gottes ist.

Alle diese Gründe mögen zutreffend oder teilweise zutreffend sein, aber für mich als Bitcoiner - als jemand, der die Graphen des "WTF geschah 1971" viele Male bestaunt hat - ist es schwer, etwas anderes als den Notstand des Fiat-Geldes als den Hauptgrund für das Chaos, das wir erleben, zu benennen. Für mich scheint es offensichtlich, dass diese verrückten Zeiten ein Ergebnis des Fiat-Geldsystems und der wirtschaftlichen sowie memetischen Konsequenzen sind, die es mit sich bringt. Es ist ein System, das völlig von der Realität abgekoppelt ist, ein künstliches und hochpolitisches Umfeld, das, ob wir es erkennen oder nicht, das wirtschaftliche Betriebssystem unserer Welt ist. Für mich lässt sich die Bruchlinie der Gesellschaft am besten als „Bitcoin vs. Fiat" zusammenfassen.

Seit 50 Jahren leben wir die Idee des Fiat-Geldes aus. Das Meme, dass die Art des Basisgeldes keine Rolle spielt, die hartnäckige Überzeugung, dass „wir es uns selbst schulden". Wir scheinen zu glauben, dass unsere kollektive Zukunft ein magischer goldener Topf ist - scheinbar ohne Boden -, aus dem wir uns immer und immer wieder etwas leihen können.

Ich glaube, dass wir uns in der Endphase des großen Fiat-Experiments befinden. Einmal mehr haben die arroganten Könige dieser Welt beschlossen, Gott zu spielen und sich in Kräfte einzumischen, die größer sind als sie, größer als wir. Wieder einmal müssen wir feststellen, dass das Drucken von Geld keinen wirklichen Wert schafft. Einmal mehr wird sich die Gesellschaft wandeln oder ganz zusammenbrechen, wie es in Ägypten, Rom und in vielen anderen Kulturen vor der unseren geschah. Und einmal mehr wird sich die Natur durchsetzen, indem sie Verwüstung anrichtet und alles ausrottet, was nicht mit ihr übereinstimmt. Seien es Ideen oder anderes.

„Als es nun an Geld gebrach im Lande Ägypten und in Kanaan, kamen alle Ägypter zu Josef und sprachen: Schaffe uns Brot! Warum lässt du uns vor dir sterben? Denn das Geld ist zu Ende."\ \ Mose 47:15

Diesmal ist das Fiat-Experiment jedoch nicht lokal begrenzt. Es ist nicht das Geld eines einzelnen Landes, das versagt, sondern das Meme des Fiat-Geldes selbst.

Geld drucken vs. das Geld in Ordnung bringen

Die Erkenntnis der Bedeutung des Geldes sowie der moralischen und kulturellen Implikationen der Natur des Geldes - und der Ethik der Geldproduktion - hat mein Weltbild unwiderruflich verändert. Als ich erkannte, dass Gelddrucken nichts anderes als eine Umverteilung von Reichtum ist und dass eine zentral geplante Umverteilung von Reichtum eine unmögliche Aufgabe ist - nicht nur rechnerisch, sondern auch moralisch -, dämmerte mir, dass Konfiszierung durch Inflation und andere Formen der unfreiwilligen Umverteilung nichts anderes ist als Diebstahl auf Umwegen. Das Fiat-System ist ein System der Sklaverei, und nein, das ist keine Übertreibung.

Aber hier ist die gute Nachricht: Bitcoin schafft hier Abhilfe.

Das ist unsere Meme-Welt, alle anderen leben nur darin.

Es gibt eine bestimmte Ethik, die in Bitcoin eingebettet ist, und es ist diese Ethik, die den Grundstein für die Meme bildet, die wir entstehen und sich verbreiten sehen. Wenn ich es in einem Satz zusammenfassen müsste, dann wäre es dieser: „Du sollst nicht stehlen." Wenn ich es in einer Zahl zusammenfassen müsste, dann wäre es natürlich 21 Millionen.

Die Motivation hinter der Erschaffung von Bitcoin ist zweifelsohne politisch, wie „Kanzlerin am Rande der zweiten Bankenrettung" und verschiedene Kommentare von Satoshi zeigen. So stimmte Satoshi zwar der Aussage zu, dass „sie in der Kryptographie keine Lösung für politische Probleme finden werden", aber er erwähnte auch, dass „wir eine wichtige Schlacht im Wettrüsten gewinnen und ein neues Territorium der Freiheit gewinnen können". Man beachte die Worte, die in dieser Aussage verwendet werden: ein Gebiet (Umfeld) der Freiheit (im Gegensatz zur Sklaverei).

Ich würde argumentieren, dass „eine große Schlacht gewinnen" eine Untertreibung ist, und ich würde auch argumentieren, dass die ursprüngliche Behauptung falsch ist, aber ich werde darauf zurückkommen.

Doch auch ohne diese Kommentare, selbst wenn die in den Genesis-Block eingebettete Botschaft „ooga chaka ooga ooga ooga chaka" lauten würde, wäre Bitcoin immer noch politisch. Ja, das daraus resultierende System ist unpolitisch, genau wie der Sonnenaufgang unpolitisch ist, aber der Akt der Schaffung von bitcoin ist ein politischer Akt. Er ist eine Aussage, eine Manifestation bestimmter Ideen, von Qualitätsmemes.

Vergleiche die in Bitcoin eingebettete Ethik (festes Angebot, keine erzwungene Umverteilung, kein kostenloses Mittagessen, keine Rettungsaktionen) mit der Ethik des Fiat-Geldes (endloses Angebot, zentral geplante Umverteilung, Rettungsaktionen für Freunde, alles ist erfunden) - oder, noch drastischer, mit der „Ethik" der Shitcoins, die nur Fiat-Geld auf Steroiden ist (jeder kann sein eigenes Geld drucken, nichts ist wichtig, Rugpulls sind lustig und Dickbutts sind im Grunde die Mona Lisa).

Ist es eine Überraschung, dass die Kultur rund um diese Phänomene so unterschiedlich ist? Oder ist „du wirst nichts besitzen und du wirst glücklich sein" einfach eine Folge des Mems, das Fiat-Geld ist? Ist der kulturelle Unterschied zwischen Bitcoinern und Shitcoinern ein natürliches Ergebnis der Meme, die in den verschiedenen Organismus-Umgebungen eingebettet sind und von diesen hervorgebracht werden?

Im Klartext bedeutet das Meme des Fiat-Geldes - die Idee, dass wir Geld aus dem Nichts erschaffen können und sollten - einfach zu sagen: „Ich weiß besser als der Markt, wie man Geld verteilt", was bedeutet, dass ich besser als alle anderen weiß, was gut und was schlecht ist, was wertvoll ist und was nicht, was notwendig und was überflüssig ist.

Die Frage, die das Fiat-System beantwortet, ist die folgende: Wer darf Geld fälschen und wie viel? Und wer darf Zugang zu Geld haben, und wer nicht? Die Antwort ist politisch und wird mit Gewalt durchgesetzt.

Das Bitcoin-System beantwortet dieselben Fragen, und die Antworten sind ebenso einfach wie ethisch: Niemand darf Geld fälschen, und jeder kann darauf zugreifen. Keine Ausnahmen.

Dies sind zwei sehr unterschiedliche Ideen, zwei sehr unterschiedliche Memes. Die eine wird im Fiat-System umgesetzt, die andere im Bitcoin-System. Das eine bricht aus den Nähten, das andere tuckert vor sich hin und wächst wirtschaftlich, rechnerisch und memetisch - alle 10 Minuten.

Bitcoin vs. Gold

Wenn es darum geht, die Grundursache vieler unserer Übel zu identifizieren, hatten die Goldanhänger (größtenteils) die richtige Idee. Aber sie hatten keine Möglichkeit, ihre Ideen auf sinnvolle und effektive Weise umzusetzen, die in der vernetzten Welt des 21. Das Meme des „gesunden Geldes" ist das richtige Mem, aber ohne eine Möglichkeit, dieses Meme effizient umzusetzen, hat das Meme keine Möglichkeit, sich in der Bevölkerung zu verbreiten.

So sieht es aus, liebe Goldfresser: Wir werden nicht zu einem Goldstandard zurückkehren. Gold hat in der Vergangenheit versagt, und es würde auch in der Zukunft versagen. Die Nützlichkeit des „Goldstandard"- Memes ist zu einem Ende gekommen. Das Überbleibsel seiner glorreichen Vergangenheit wird nur noch in der Linguistik zu finden sein.

„Warum", fragst du dich? Nun, zunächst einmal verbietet der physische Körper des Goldes die Teleportation, d. h. die elektronische Übertragung von Gold. Er verbietet die Unsichtbarkeit, d. h. die plausible Abstreitbarkeit des Besitzes. Bitcoin kann sofort teleportiert und perfekt versteckt werden. Man kann ihn im Kopf behalten, und niemand kann wissen, ob man Bitcoin tatsächlich besitzt oder nicht. Gold wird allein aus logistischen Gründen immer in Tresoren zentralisiert sein. Bitcoin muss das nicht sein. Gold wird sich immer mit einer bestimmten Rate aufblähen, da eine unbekannte Menge noch unter der Erde (und im Weltraum) liegt. Die Menge, die sich über der Erde befindet, ist ebenfalls unbekannt, da der weltweite Goldvorrat nicht einfach überprüft werden kann.

Im Gegensatz dazu ist Bitcoin absolut knapp und perfekt überprüfbar. Alle 10 Minuten wird der Gesamtvorrat an Bitcoin geprüft. Alle 10 Minuten wird der Emissionsplan überprüft. Alle 10 Minuten werden Milliarden von Sats endgültig und elektronisch, d.h. mit Lichtgeschwindigkeit, abgerechnet. Eine echte, physische Abrechnung. Global und sofort, ohne große Kosten oder Reibungsverluste. Alle 10 Minuten.

Das Gold-Meme wird sich noch eine Weile halten, und das ist auch gut so. Die Menschen sind nostalgisch, besonders wenn sie in ihren Gewohnheiten verhaftet sind. Wie bei wissenschaftlichen Revolutionen wird sich die monetäre Revolution, die derzeit im Gange ist, wahrscheinlich langsam verbreiten: eine Beerdigung nach der anderen.

Ich glaube jedoch, dass Bitcoin die Macht hat, die Köpfe und Herzen der Menschen sehr schnell zu gewinnen, wenn diese Köpfe offen oder kulturell angepasst genug sind; oder wenn die Veränderung in ihrem Umfeld drastisch genug ist.

Allmählich, dann plötzlich.

Politik vs. Kultur

Kehren wir zu der Behauptung zurück, dass "du in der Kryptographie keine Lösung für politische Probleme finden werden". Ich habe bereits erwähnt, dass ich dem nicht zustimme, und hier ist der Grund. Politik ist der Kultur nachgelagert, und Kryptographie im Allgemeinen (und Bitcoin im Besonderen) verändert die Kultur.

Das sollte jedem außer dem blindesten Beobachter des Bitcoin-Bereichs sonnenklar sein. Die Kultur rund um Bitcoin ist durchdrungen von Verantwortung und Selbsteigentum („besitze deine eigenen Schlüssel" & „nicht deine Schlüssel, nicht dein Bitcoin"), Verifizierung und Schlussfolgerungen aus ersten Prinzipien ("vertraue nicht, verifiziere"), langfristigem Denken und Sparen für die Zukunft ("bleibe bescheiden, staple Sats"), sowie einem Fokus auf harte Arbeit, Integrität, Wahrheit und sichtbare Ergebnisse ("Proof-of-work, der Arbeitsnachweis").

Satoshi erkannte in wahrer Cypherpunk-Manier, dass Memes implementiert werden müssen, um sich möglichst effizient zu verbreiten, weshalb er sich hinsetzte und den Code schrieb. Es war auch der erste Test für die Tauglichkeit seiner Ideen, wie er in einem seiner vielen Forenbeiträge erwähnte: „Ich musste den ganzen Code schreiben, bevor ich mich selbst davon überzeugen konnte, dass ich jedes Problem lösen kann, und dann habe ich das Whitepaper geschrieben."

Das ist der Arbeitsnachweis, genau da. Das ist Anti-Fiat. Nicht nur darüber reden, sondern es auch tun. Mit gutem Beispiel vorangehen. Nicht nur über die Ideen spekulieren, die man im Kopf hat, die Memes, die man in der Welt verbreitet sehen möchte, sondern sie auch umsetzen. Das heißt, sie an der Realität zu messen.

„Lass deine Memes keine Träume sein."

Satoshi (paraphrasiert)

Ist es eine Überraschung, dass sich Bitcoin in den Bereichen „gesunde Ernährung", „gesunde Landwirtschaft", „freie Meinungsäußerung und Menschenrechte ausbreitet? Dass Bitcoin schnell und einfach von Menschen verstanden wird, die buchstäblich nahe am Boden sind, verbunden mit der grundlegenden Realität der Dinge? Ist es eine Überraschung, dass Bitcoin von denjenigen genutzt und verstanden wird, die es am meisten brauchen? Von denjenigen, die in Ländern leben, in denen das Geld versagt? Von denjenigen, die vom Fiat-System abgelehnt werden?

Das sollte keine Überraschung sein. Einige Kulturen haben eine natürliche Überschneidung mit der Bitcoin-Kultur, und es sind diese Kulturen, die Bitcoin zuerst annehmen werden. Frühe Beispiele sind die Cypherpunk-Kultur sowie die Kulturen rund um die österreichische Wirtschaft, den Libertarismus und das muslimische Finanzwesen. Wenn diese Kulturen Bitcoin annehmen, wird Bitcoin seinerseits diese Kulturen annehmen und dich beeinflussen. Ein für beide Seiten vorteilhafter Einfluss, wie er für alles, was langfristig überlebt, erforderlich ist, und wie er für die Symbiose, die die Natur darstellt, Standard ist. Der Organismus und das Umfeld, das durch die orangefarbene Münze und ihre Besitzer geschaffen wird, will überleben. Bitcoin: das egoistische Meme.

Natürlich gibt es auch Fiat-Meme. Es ist das, was unsere Kultur in den letzten 50 Jahren geprägt hat: „Fake it till you make it" und „YOLO" kommen mir in den Sinn, was interessanterweise die moderne Version der keynesianischen Idee ist, dass wir auf lange Sicht alle tot sind. Ist es verwunderlich, dass ein Umfeld, das durch falsches Geld geschaffen wurde, zu falschem Essen, falschen Körpern, falscher Gesundheit, falscher Medizin, falschen Beziehungen, falschen Experten und falschen Menschen führt?

Diejenigen, die an der Spitze der Fiat-Pyramide sitzen, sprechen von „nutzlosen Essern" und versuchen uns davon zu überzeugen, dass wir nichts besitzen müssen, aber trotzdem glücklich sein werden. Man muss sich über den Slogan wundern: „Du wirst nichts besitzen und du wirst glücklich sein".

„Du wirst ein glücklicher kleiner Sklave sein", heißt es in diesem Meme. Jemand hat beschlossen, dass Glück das ultimative Ziel ist, das es zu erreichen gilt, und du (und nur du) weißt, wie du es für dich erreichen können.

„Glück"

Als ob Glück das eigentliche Ziel wäre, das A und O, der Grund für unsere Existenz. Was ist mit dem Streben nach etwas Sinnvollem, etwas, das schwer ist, etwas, das Opfer erfordert, das Schmerz und Leid mit sich bringt?

\ „Jeder Mensch ist glücklich, bis das Glück plötzlich ein Ziel ist."

Tame Impala

Oder was ist mit der Aussage von Lagarde, dass „wir glücklicher sein sollten, einen Arbeitsplatz zu haben, als dass unsere Ersparnisse geschützt sind?" Das ist Ausdruck eines bestimmten Memes, das sich in ihrem Kopf festgesetzt hat, des Mems, dass Arbeitsplatzsicherheit die meisten anderen Bedürfnisse übertrumpft und dass normale Menschen kein Vermögen anhäufen müssen. Schlimmer noch: Es suggeriert, dass es völlig in Ordnung ist, das zu stehlen, was normale Menschen durch fleißige Arbeit im Laufe ihres Lebens angespart haben.

Wir sollte glücklicher sein einen Job zu haben als das unsere Erparnisse geschützt werden. Christine Largarde Präsidentin der ECB, Oktober 2019

Es gibt einen Grund, warum wir vom „Rattenrennen" oder dem „Hamsterrad" sprechen und warum dieser Teil unserer Kultur in Kunst und Film so stark kritisiert wird. Um Tyler Durden zu zitieren: „Die Werbung bringt uns dazu, Autos und Klamotten zu jagen, Jobs zu machen, die wir hassen, damit wir Scheiß kaufen können, den wir nicht brauchen. Wir sind die mittleren Kinder der Geschichte, Mann. Wir haben keinen Sinn und keinen Platz. Wir haben keinen Großen Krieg. Keine Weltwirtschaftskrise. Unser großer Krieg ist ein spiritueller Krieg... unsere große Depression ist unser Leben. Wir sind alle durch das Fernsehen in dem Glauben erzogen worden, dass wir eines Tages alle Millionäre, Filmgötter und Rockstars sein werden. Aber das werden wir nicht. Und wir lernen diese Tatsache langsam kennen. Und wir sind sehr, sehr wütend."

Ich glaube jedoch nicht, dass die Menschen wütend sind. Ich glaube, dass die meisten Menschen deprimiert und nihilistisch sind. Sie sehen keinen Ausweg, sie sind hoffnungslos und haben sich mit ihrer Position im System abgefunden - ob bewusst oder unbewusst.

Nichts zeigt die Plackerei des Fiat-Rattenrennens besser als der kurze Animationsfilm „Happiness", der eine visuelle Reise durch die unerbittliche Suche des Menschen nach Erfüllung in der modernen Welt darstellt. Er setzt in Bilder um, was viele Menschen nicht in Worte fassen können. Hilflosigkeit, Sucht, Hoffnungslosigkeit. Eine Krise des Selbst, eine Krise des Sinns. Das Fehlen einer hoffnungsvollen Vision für die Zukunft.

„Ehrlich gesagt, ist es ziemlich deprimierend", so ein 44-jähriger Arbeiter, der allein im Wald festsitzt. „Ich habe versucht, einen Gedanken zu formulieren, ihn auszudrücken, ohne zusammenzubrechen und zu weinen. Aber ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob ich ihn weitergeben kann, ohne zu weinen."

„Mein Problem, einer der Gründe, warum ich hierher kommen wollte, war also, dass ich versuchen wollte, über den neuen Aspekt meines Lebens nachzudenken. Mit anderen Worten: nach den Kindern."

„Ein Mensch kann eine Menge Dinge ertragen, für jemanden, den er liebt. Die gleichen Dinge nur für sich selbst zu ertragen, ist nicht so einfach. Ich bin Elektriker. Man könnte meinen, das sei nicht so schwer, aber es sind viele sich wiederholende Aufgaben. Ich weiß, dass jeder seine eigene Arbeit hat, ich weiß, dass das einfach der Lauf der Welt ist. Aber für mich ist der Gedanke, dass ich weitere 15 Jahre meines Lebens damit verbringen muss, auf die Wochenenden zu warten, einfach eine Qual. Einfach nur die banale Qual des Ganzen..."

Schau dir bei Möglichkeit diesen Clip an. Es ist eine Sache, über das Meme des Rattenrennens zu theoretisieren; es ist eine andere Sache, einem erwachsenen Mann zuzusehen, der weinend zusammenbricht, nachdem er über sein Leben, das System, in das er eingebettet ist, und die Zukunft, die dieses System für ihn bereithält, nachgedacht hat. Nachdem er sich die Tränen weggewischt hat, spekuliert er darüber, was der Grund für seine depressive Stimmung sein könnte: „An diesem Ort kenne ich die Regeln. Es ist das Leben außerhalb dieses Ortes, das mich zum Weinen bringt."

Das ist es, nicht wahr? Regeln und Regeländerungen. Wenn du jemanden zutiefst deprimieren wollen, änderst du die Regeln, und zwar häufig. Zwingen du sie, etwas Sinnloses zu tun. Ändere die Regeln willkürlich. Das ist es, was die Menschen wirklich demoralisiert: in einem System willkürlicher Regeländerungen gefangen zu sein. Keine Hoffnung auf Stabilität und kein Ausweg.

Der Dritte Weltkrieg wird ein Guerilla-Informationskrieg sein, bei dem es keine Trennung zwischen militärischer und ziviler Beteiligung gibt. - Marshall McLuhan

Das Meme ist die Nachricht.

"Weißt du, jetzt habe ich es endlich verstanden. Über den Unterschied zwischen einem echten Krieg und einem globalen Guerillakrieg. Denn was wir jetzt haben, ist kein konventioneller Krieg mit scharfen Waffen. Mit militärischer Ehre, militärischen Rängen, militärischer Aktivität... Das ist ein Kulturkrieg. Wir haben die Unruhen. Wir haben die Unordnung. Und jetzt weiß ich wirklich, wie das funktioniert. Wenn die Unruhen vorbei sind, kann man nicht mehr sagen: „Ich habe mit Stolz gedient. Es spielt keine Rolle, auf welcher Seite man steht. Denn die Unruhen sind ein Krieg gegen den Stolz. Es ist ein Krieg gegen die Moral der Menschen. Man kann dem Feind nicht als Gleicher gegenübertreten. Jeder lebt im Schatten. Es ist immer verdeckt. Es ist immer gefälscht. Er ist immer erfunden. Und es kann keine Geschichte darüber geschrieben werden, weil alles abgeschottet ist."\ \ Bruce Sterling

Für die Geldpolitik gibt es im Fiat-System keine Regeln. „Die Regeln sind erfunden, und die Punkte sind egal", um Drew Carey zu zitieren. Die Realität hat Regeln, und wenn ein Fiat-System erst einmal aus dem Ruder gelaufen ist, dann ist es die Realität, die die Konsequenzen zieht, nicht das Fiat-System selbst.

Das Fiat-System ist kaputt; sein Geld ist wertlos; seine Kultur ist deprimiert und hoffnungslos. Wenn die Politik der Kultur nachgelagert ist, ist es dann eine Überraschung, dass unsere Politik größtenteils eine Clownshow ist, die nur auf Äußerlichkeiten und kurzfristige Ziele ausgerichtet ist? Wo gibt es Hoffnung in der hoffnungslosen Welt des fiat everything? Kaputte Ideen führen zu kaputten Umgebungen, die wiederum zu kaputten Organismen führen. Ist der Mensch erst einmal kaputt, wird er nicht in der Lage sein, seine Umwelt auf eine für alle Seiten vorteilhafte Weise zu verändern. Ganz im Gegenteil. Er wird in einer Abwärtsspirale aus Verzweiflung und Zerstörung feststecken und versuchen, „um jeden Preis" zu tun, was nötig ist.

Ohne Bitcoin sind die Aussichten für unsere Zukunft düster. Ohne Bitcoin hast du zwei Möglichkeiten: die schwarze Pille des Pessimismus oder das Soma des Nihilismus.

Es gibt einen Grund, warum die Leute sagen, dass Bitcoin Hoffnung ist.

Schwarze Pille vs. Orange Pille

Bitcoin ist Hoffnung, weil die Regeln von Bitcoin bekannt und stabil sind. Das Bitcoin-System ist wahnsinnig zuverlässig, funktioniert wie ein Uhrwerk, mit Regeln, die bekannt und in Stein gemeißelt sind. Es ist eine Umgebung mit eisenharten Zwängen, die ohne Herrscher durchgesetzt werden.

Es ist nicht nur das Gegenteil des Fiat-Systems, sondern auch sein Gegengift. Es ist nicht nur ein Rettungsboot, in das jeder einsteigen kann, der in Not ist, sondern auch ein Heilmittel, das Sinn und Optimismus gibt, wo es vorher keinen gab.

Es ist leicht, depressiv zu werden, wenn man die Übel des Fiat-Systems erkannt hat. Viele Bitcoiner, die heute von Optimismus erfüllt sind, waren hoffnungslos und fatalistisch, bevor sie die orangefarbene Pille schluckten. Viele Menschen sind es immer noch, Lionel Shriver und die meisten Goldfresser eingeschlossen.

Aber man muss bereit sein. Man kann sich nur selbst eine orangefarbene Pille geben, wie man sagt. Niemand kann dir Bitcoin aufzwingen.

Du müsstest eine Erleuchtung haben, dieselbe Erleuchtung wie unser 44-jähriger Elektriker im Wald, der über sein Leben nachdenkt. Kurz nach seinem Zusammenbruch und seinem Monolog darüber, dass er im Rattenrennen feststeckt, kommt er zu einer plötzlichen Erkenntnis: „Ich muss etwas ändern. Es ist nicht die Welt, die sich ändern muss. Es bin ich, der sich ändern muss. Es ist meine Einstellung zum Leben."

Ja. Was für ein Chad.

Das ist buchstäblich die Funktionsweise von Bitcoin.

Fiat Denkweise vs. Bitcoin Denkweise

\ Das Fiat-System wird nicht einfach verschwinden, und es wird auch nicht still und leise verschwinden. Zu viele Menschen sind immer noch mit dem Gedanken an leicht verdientes Geld infiziert, arbeiten in Scheißjobs und führen ein Fiat-Leben. Der Tod des Fiat-Organismus ist jedoch unausweichlich. Er ist selbstzerstörerisch, und wie alle Tiere, die in die Enge getrieben werden und am Rande des Todes stehen, wird er in einem letzten Versuch, das Unvermeidliche zu verhindern, um sich schlagen.

Piggies von artdesignbysf

„Unser großer Krieg ist ein spiritueller Krieg", wie Tyler Durden es so treffend formulierte. Und wir sind mittendrin in diesem Krieg.

Mit jedem Tag wird es offensichtlicher, dass dies ein geistiger Krieg ist. Ein Zusammenprall von Ideen, ein Kampf der unterschiedlichen Weltanschauungen.

Selbst der letzte Boss von Bitcoin, Augustin Carstens, weiß, dass dies ein Krieg ist. Warum sonst würde er, die Verkörperung des Fiat-Standards, im Fernsehen auftreten und Folgendes sagen?

„Vor ein paar Jahren wurden Kryptowährungen als Alternative zu Papiergeld dargestellt. Ich denke, diese Schlacht ist gewonnen. Eine Technologie macht noch kein vertrauenswürdiges Geld."

Augustin Carstens

Wenn wir uns nicht in einem memetischen Krieg befänden, warum wäre es dann notwendig zu erklären, dass eine Schlacht gewonnen wurde?

Wenn wir uns nicht mitten in einem spirituellen Krieg befinden würden, warum würde Christine Lagarde, eine Person, die wegen Fahrlässigkeit und Missbrauchs öffentlicher Gelder verurteilt wurde - eine Person, die jetzt Präsidentin der Europäischen Zentralbank ist - öffentlich erklären, dass wir Bitcoin auf globaler Ebene regulieren müssen, denn „wenn es einen Ausweg gibt, wird dieser Ausweg genutzt werden?"

Warum würde Stephen Lynch behaupten, dass Bitcoin „auf Null gehen wird, wenn wir ein CBDC entwickeln, das den vollen Glauben und Kredit der Vereinigten Staaten hinter sich hat?"

Warum würde Neel Kashkari, verrückt wie er ist, vor eine Kamera treten, um das Mem zu verbreiten, dass „es unendlich viel Bargeld in der Federal Reserve gibt", in der Hoffnung, dass diese Aussage das Vertrauen in das zusammenbrechende Fiat-System stärken würde?

Es ist fast unmöglich, sich diese Interviews anzusehen, ohne den Kopf zu schütteln. Glauben diese Menschen wirklich, was sie sagen? Ist es Böswilligkeit oder ist es Unwissenheit? Oder ist es einfach ein Auswuchs der verzerrten Weltsicht des Fiat-Verstandes? Sind diese Menschen nicht mehr zu retten, oder könnte Bitcoin sie sogar demütigen und sie auf den Pfad der Verantwortung und der Finanzdisziplin bringen?

Wie auch immer die Antwort lauten mag, die bloße Existenz von Bitcoin ist eine Beleidigung für ihr Denken, oder für jedes Fiat-Denken, was das betrifft. Bitcoin setzt die Idee außer Kraft, dass Geld vom Staat geschaffen werden muss. Seine Architektur sagt: „Jeder sollte Zugang zum Geldsystem haben". Sein Design sagt: „Wir sehen, was ihr getan habt, Fiat-Leute, und wir werden dem ein Ende setzen."

„Die Existenz von Bitcoin ist eine Beleidigung für den Fiat-Verstand."

\ Es ist ironisch, dass das, was die meisten Fiat-Leute zuerst sehen, die Schlachtrufe der Bitcoiner sind, die „HODL!" schreien und „wir werden euch obsolet machen" von den Dächern schreien. Du übersiehst die tiefere Wahrheit dieser Memes, die Tatsache, dass diese Meme der tiefen Überzeugung entspringen, dass ein mathematisch und thermodynamisch gesundes System einem politischen System vorzuziehen ist. Sie hören weder das Brummen der ASICs, noch achten sie auf die gültigen Blöcke, die unaufhörlich eintreffen. Alle 10 Minuten wird leise geflüstert: „Du sollst nicht stehlen."

Das laute und prahlerische Oberflächenphänomen lässt sich leicht ins Lächerliche ziehen und abtun. Der zutiefst technische, wirtschaftliche und spieltheoretische Organismus, der die 21 Millionen zustande bringt, nicht so sehr. Beide sind im Wachstum begriffen. Beide sind miteinander verwoben. Das eine kann ohne das andere nicht existieren.

Fiat-Selbst vs. Bitcoin-Selbst

\ Beim ersten Kontakt wird der Bitcoin von den meisten abgetan. In einer Welt, die vom Fiat-Standard beherrscht wird, sind die meisten Menschen nicht in der Lage, die orangefarbene Münze zu verstehen, wenn sie zum ersten Mal über sie stolpern. Ich denke, man kann mit Sicherheit sagen, dass die meisten Bitcoiner es nicht sofort „verstanden" haben. Ich habe es anfangs sicherlich nicht verstanden.

Die Reise vieler Bitcoiner lässt sich wie folgt zusammenfassen:

1. Was zum Teufel ist das?
2. Was zum Teufel ist das?
3. Was zur Hölle?
4. Die Scheiße?
5. Scheiße...
6. All in.

Der Prozess des Verstehens und der Annahme von Bitcoin ist der Prozess des Verlassens deines Fiat-Selbst hinter sich. Man muss die Fiat-Memes aus dem Kopf bekommen und die Bitcoin-Memes hineinlassen. Du musst dein Fiat-Selbst ausbrennen und dein Bitcoin-Selbst aufbauen. Tag für Tag, Aktion für Aktion, Block für Block.

Indem du am System der Fiat-Schuldensklaverei teilnimmst, verstärkst du das Meme der sofortigen Befriedigung, der Diskontierung der Zukunft für die Gegenwart, des falschen Geldes und des kurzfristigen Denkens. Indem du am Bitcoin-System teilnimmst, stärkst du das Mem des gesunden Geldes, des unelastischen Angebots, des langfristigen Denkens, der Verantwortung und der unveräußerlichen Eigentumsrechte.

„Man kann die Revolution nicht kaufen. Man kann die Revolution nicht machen. Du kannst nur die Revolution sein. Sie ist in deinem Geist, oder sie ist nirgendwo." - Ursula K. Le Guin

Verstehe mich nicht falsch. Es ist nichts falsch daran, in den Fiat-Minen zu arbeiten und bescheiden Sats zu stapeln. Es ist eines der wichtigsten Dinge, die du tun kannst. Das Stapeln von Sats gibt dir Freiheit, Kontrolle und Selbstständigkeit. Es ermöglicht dir, sich in eine Position der Stabilität und Stärke zu manövrieren, und ehe du dich versiehst, wird der einfache Akt des demütigen Stapelns und der Liebe zu deinem zukünftigen dich selbst verändern.

Der wahre Kampf ist ein persönlicher Kampf. Den Drang zu unterdrücken, etwas umsonst haben zu wollen. Die Gewohnheit der sofortigen Befriedigung aufzugeben und eine Kultur des langfristigen Denkens aufzubauen. Ablehnung von impulsiven Ausgaben, Akzeptanz von Opfern und Einschränkungen.

Die Beziehung zwischen Ihnen und der Welt ist transaktional, wie John Dewey uns lehrte. Nicht nur unsere physischen Körper sind an unsere physische Umgebung gebunden, sondern wir sind auch über die ebenso reale wirtschaftliche Umgebung, an der wir uns beteiligen, miteinander verbunden. Und mit jedem Dollar, den wir ausgeben, und jedem Satoshi, den wir sparen, erschaffen wir unsere Zukunft.

Es gibt eine Weggabelung. Das Schild auf der einen Seite sagt: „Du wirst nichts besitzen und du wirst glücklich sein". Das Schild auf der anderen Seite sagt: „Du wirst Bitcoin besitzen und du wirst die beste Version deiner selbst sein."

Die Wahl liegt bei dir.

Bitcoin hat die Macht, die beste Version von sich selbst hervorzubringen, weil die Anreize von Bitcoin auf gegenseitige Verbesserung ausgerichtet sind. Auf individueller Ebene erfordert der Besitz von Bitcoin eine Änderung der Zeitpräferenz und der Verantwortung. Der Besitz impliziert, dass man seine eigenen Schlüssel besitzt. Wenn du das nicht tun, besitzts du keine Bitcoin, sondern Schuldscheine. Es bedeutet auch, dass du deinen eigenen Knotenpunkt betreiben, um zu überprüfen, ob du tatsächlich Bitcoin besitzen. Wenn man das nicht tut, vertraut man auf das Wort eines anderen, verlässt sich auf seine Sicht von Bitcoin, seine Weltsicht und darauf, dass er einen nicht anlügt.

Darüber hinaus bedeutet der fortgesetzte Besitz von Bitcoin, dass man die Verantwortung übernimmt, einen Wert für die Gesellschaft zu schaffen. Geld tut nichts anderes, als zu zirkulieren, also musst etwas leisten, das andere Menschen als wertvoll empfinden. Wenn du das nicht tust, wirst du bald keine Bitcoin mehr haben. Die Natur wird dich dazu zwingen, dich von deinen Sats zu trennen, denn jeder - auch du - muss essen.

„Beschäftige dich mit dem Sinn des Lebens, wirf leere Hoffnungen beiseite, engagiere dich für deine eigene Rettung - wenn du dich überhaupt um dich selbst kümmerst - und tue es, solange du kannst."\ \ Marcus Aurelius

Der Bitcoin-Weg ist kein einfacher Weg, aber ein erfüllender. Er ist erfüllend, weil du die Regeln kennst, du kennst die Konsequenzen, und du hast die Verantwortung. Es ist ein Weg, der es dir erlaubt, dein Leben so zu gestalten, wie du es für richtig hältst, aber du musstes auch selbst gestalten. Es ist ein Weg, der es dir ermöglicht, sich vor Übergriffen und Diebstahl zu schützen, und der langfristige Sicherheit und Stabilität bietet. Aber du musst ihn gehen. Du musst mitmachen. Du musst ihn ausleben.

Du musst dein Fiat-Selbst ausbrennen und die einfachen Antworten, die Abkürzungen und den Scheinwert hinter dir lassen. Du musst etwas Reales anbieten, jemand Reales sein und im Falle des Scheiterns die realen Konsequenzen tragen.

Die Grenze zwischen Gut und Böse verläuft nicht nur in jedermanns Herzen, sondern auch die Grenze zwischen Fiat und Bitcoin verläuft ebenfalls in jedermanns Herzen. Es geht nicht um „wir gegen sie". Es geht um unser Fiat-Selbst gegen unser Bitcoin-Selbst. Persönliche Verantwortung vs. vorsätzliche Ignoranz. Systemische Fragilität vs. langfristige Stabilität. Mit jeder Handlung triffst du eine Entscheidung, und du hast keine andere Wahl als zu handeln.

Es gibt eine Weggabelung, und jeder Einzelne von uns muss sich entscheiden, welchen Weg er einschlagen will. Den scheinbar bequemen Weg, den die Machthaber vorgeben, oder den Bitcoin-Weg: hart, steinig, mit Höhen und Tiefen, ohne Sicherheitsnetze und ohne Rettungsaktionen. Es ist kein einfacher Weg, aber es ist ein schöner Weg. Ein Weg, der Geduld, Verantwortung und Disziplin lehrt. Ein Weg, der dich demütig macht. Ein sinnvoller Weg. Ein Weg, den zu gehen sich lohnt.

Früher war es ein einsamer Weg, aber das ist er nicht mehr. Früher war es ein verrückter Weg. Heute ist der Weg zu mehr Freiheit der verrückte Weg. Es ist ein langer Weg, ein täglicher Kampf. Und niemand außer dir kann diesen Weg gehen. Ich würde dir gerne sagen, dass ich dich auf dem Gipfel treffe, aber ich fürchte, es gibt keinen Gipfel. Ich treffe dich stattdessen auf dem Weg.

Gigi ist ein professioneller Shitposter und Meme-Kenner. Er ist vor kurzem aus der woken Höllenlandschaft der Vogel-App in das lila gelobte Land des Straußen-Protokolls umgezogen. Wenn er nicht gerade Shitposting betreibt, ist er meistens damit beschäftigt, ein Bitcoin-Genießer zu sein und seine Pflaumen im Glanz der orangefarbenen Münze zu baden. Du kannst ihn herbeirufen, indem du seinem npub in den Kartenschlitz eines stillgelegten Geldautomaten flüsterst:

npub1dergggklka99wwrs92yz8wdjs952h2ux2ha2ed598ngwu9w7a6fsh9xzpc

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Parallel Chains

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

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

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

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

How does it work

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

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

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

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

See also

• Drivechain

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY and the "covenants" drama

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

In nicht allzu vielen Jahren wird die Zahl der Bitcoiner in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika zehn Millionen überschreiten. Wenn wir diesen Meilenstein erreichen, ist das Spiel vorbei: Bitcoin gewinnt.

Mein Lieblingsautor und -denker, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, schrieb in seinem Buch Skin in the Game über "die unnachgiebige Minderheit". Das Konzept funktioniert folgendermaßen: Auf fast allen verpackten Lebensmitteln, die in den USA verkauft werden, ist außen ein kleines U in einem Kreis aufgedruckt. Nur sehr wenige US-Bürger benötigen die durch dieses U gekennzeichnete Koscher-Zertifizierung, aber für die Lebensmittelhersteller ist es einfacher, nicht für jedes Produkt zwei separate Versionen zu produzieren, so dass sie im Allgemeinen alles koscher machen. Nach Taleb gilt die Regel: „Ein koscherer Esser wird niemals nicht-koschere Lebensmittel essen, aber einem nicht-koscheren Esser ist es nicht verboten, koscher zu essen."

„Bei den meisten beobachteten komplexen Systemen liegt der Anteil der Minderheit, der erforderlich ist, um die Bevölkerung von ihrer unnachgiebigen Meinung abzubringen, in der Größenordnung von 3 bis 4%. Bei einer US-Bevölkerung von 325 Millionen sind 3% 10 Millionen." - Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Ein Fintech-Fonds, der seit 2012 im Bitcoin-Bereich tätig ist, hat kürzlich eine intensive Analyse durchgeführt, die zur besten Schätzung des Bitcoin-Besitzes geführt hat, die ich kenne. Nur 7 Millionen Menschen weltweit haben einen Wert von 100 Dollar oder mehr im Bitcoin-Protokoll gespeichert. Um die Zahlen zu runden, nehmen wir an, dass die Hälfte dieser Menschen in den USA lebt und dass ein Siebtel von ihnen einen höheren Wert als $2500 in BTC speichert. Das sind gerade einmal 500.000 US-Bürger mit einer bedeutenden Menge an Bitcoin. Und wie viel Prozent davon verstehen und interessieren sich tatsächlich so sehr für Bitcoin, dass sie dafür kämpfen würden? Lass uns großzügig sein und sagen wir 20%.

Es gibt ungefähr 100.000 Bitcoiner in den Vereinigten Staaten. Das bedeutet, dass wir eine 100-fache Steigerung benötigen, um das Niveau einer "unnachgiebigen Minderheit" zu erreichen. Das ist der Grund, warum die Akzeptanz alle anderen Prioritäten für Bitcoin dominiert.

„Bitcoiner haben bereits so viele potentielle Angriffsvektoren ausgeschaltet und so viel FUD gehandhabt, dass es nicht mehr viel Abwärtsrisiko für Bitcoin gibt." - Cory Klippsten

Ein weiteres Konzept, auf das sich Taleb in den fünf Bänden seines Incerto bezieht, ist: Schütze dich vor dem Abwärtsrisiko. Bitcoiner haben bereits so viele potentielle Angriffsvektoren ausgeschaltet und so viel FUD gehandhabt, dass es nicht mehr viel Abwärtsrisiko für Bitcoin gibt. Aber es gibt ein gewisses Risiko, egal ob man es mit unter 1%, unter 10% oder mehr beziffert. Und der bei weitem bedrohlichste Angriffsvektor wäre meiner Meinung nach eine konzertierte Aktion der US-Regierung auf vielen Ebenen, die versucht, Bitcoin auszurotten, um die Hegemonie des Dollars auf der ganzen Welt zu erhalten.

Um es klar zu sagen: Bitcoin würde selbst den konzertiertesten und bösartigsten Angriff der US-Regierung überleben. Er könnte sogar gedeihen, im Stil von Antifragile (ein weiteres Buch von Taleb), mit Menschen auf der ganzen Welt, die massenhaft Sats kaufen, wenn sie sehen, wie der frühere Hegemon ausschlägt. Es könnte aber auch anders kommen, mit einem massiven Rückgang der Netzwerkaktivität und des gespeicherten Wertes, mit Tausenden von Menschenleben, die irreparabel gestört werden, und mit einer Verzögerung unserer leuchtend orangenen Zukunft um Jahrzehnte oder länger.

Das ist für mich nicht hinnehmbar. Deshalb habe ich mein Leben der Rekrutierung der anderen 99% unserer unnachgiebigen Bitcoiner-Minderheit hier in den Vereinigten Staaten gewidmet. Es gibt bereits 100.000 von uns. Helfe mit, die anderen 9,9 Millionen zu rekrutieren.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

High-Level Overview

Bitcoin developers are currently debating a proposed change to how Bitcoin Core handles the OP_RETURN opcode — a mechanism that allows users to insert small amounts of data into the blockchain. Specifically, the controversy revolves around removing built-in filters that limit how much data can be stored using this feature (currently capped at 80 bytes).

Summary of Both Sides

Position A: Remove OP_RETURN Filters

Advocates: nostr:npub1ej493cmun8y9h3082spg5uvt63jgtewneve526g7e2urca2afrxqm3ndrm, nostr:npub12rv5lskctqxxs2c8rf2zlzc7xx3qpvzs3w4etgemauy9thegr43sf485vg, nostr:npub17u5dneh8qjp43ecfxr6u5e9sjamsmxyuekrg2nlxrrk6nj9rsyrqywt4tp, others

Arguments: - Ineffectiveness of filters: Filters are easily bypassed and do not stop spam effectively. - Code simplification: Removing arbitrary limits reduces code complexity. - Permissionless innovation: Enables new use cases like cross-chain bridges and timestamping without protocol-level barriers. - Economic regulation: Fees should determine what data gets added to the blockchain, not protocol rules.

Position B: Keep OP_RETURN Filters

Advocates: nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk, nostr:npub1s33sw6y2p8kpz2t8avz5feu2n6yvfr6swykrnm2frletd7spnt5qew252p, nostr:npub1wnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqq3n3wr, others

Arguments: - Historical intent: Satoshi included filters to keep Bitcoin focused on monetary transactions. - Resource protection: Helps prevent blockchain bloat and abuse from non-financial uses. - Network preservation: Protects the network from being overwhelmed by low-value or malicious data. - Social governance: Maintains conservative changes to ensure long-term robustness.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths of Removing Filters

• Encourages decentralized innovation.
• Simplifies development and maintenance.
• Maintains ideological purity of a permissionless system.

Weaknesses of Removing Filters

• Opens the door to increased non-financial data and potential spam.
• May dilute Bitcoin’s core purpose as sound money.
• Risks short-term exploitation before economic filters adapt.

Strengths of Keeping Filters

• Preserves Bitcoin’s identity and original purpose.
• Provides a simple protective mechanism against abuse.
• Aligns with conservative development philosophy of Bitcoin Core.

Weaknesses of Keeping Filters

• Encourages central decision-making on allowed use cases.
• Leads to workarounds that may be less efficient or obscure.
• Discourages novel but legitimate applications.

Long-Term Consequences

If Filters Are Removed

• Positive: Potential boom in new applications, better interoperability, cleaner architecture.
• Negative: Risk of increased blockchain size, more bandwidth/storage costs, spam wars.

If Filters Are Retained

• Positive: Preserves monetary focus and operational discipline.
• Negative: Alienates developers seeking broader use cases, may ossify the protocol.

Conclusion

The debate highlights a core philosophical split in Bitcoin: whether it should remain a narrow monetary system or evolve into a broader data layer for decentralized applications. Both paths carry risks and tradeoffs. The outcome will shape not just Bitcoin's technical direction but its social contract and future role in the broader crypto ecosystem.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

I mean this article: https://achimwarner.medium.com/thoughts-on-drivechain-i-miners-can-do-things-about-which-we-will-argue-whether-it-is-actually-a5c3c022dbd2

There are basically two claims here:

1. Some corporate interests might want to secure sidechains for themselves and thus they will bribe miners to have these activated

First, it's hard to imagine why they would want such a thing. Are they going to make a proprietary KYC chain only for their users? They could do that in a corporate way, or with a federation, like Facebook tried to do, and that would provide more value to their users than a cumbersome pseudo-decentralized system in which they don't even have powers to issue currency. Also, if Facebook couldn't get away with their federated shitcoin because the government was mad, what says the government won't be mad with a sidechain? And finally, why would Facebook want to give custody of their proprietary closed-garden Bitcoin-backed ecosystem coins to a random, open and always-changing set of miners?

But even if they do succeed in making their sidechain and it is very popular such that it pays miners fees and people love it. Well, then why not? Let them have it. It's not going to hurt anyone more than a proprietary shitcoin would anyway. If Facebook really wants a closed ecosystem backed by Bitcoin that probably means we are winning big.

2. Miners will be required to vote on the validity of debatable things

He cites the example of a PoS sidechain, an assassination market, a sidechain full of nazists, a sidechain deemed illegal by the US government and so on.

There is a simple solution to all of this: just kill these sidechains. Either miners can take the money from these to themselves, or they can just refuse to engage and freeze the coins there forever, or they can even give the coins to governments, if they want. It is an entirely good thing that evil sidechains or sidechains that use horrible technology that doesn't even let us know who owns each coin get annihilated. And it was the responsibility of people who put money in there to evaluate beforehand and know that PoS is not deterministic, for example.

About government censoring and wanting to steal money, or criminals using sidechains, I think the argument is very weak because these same things can happen today and may even be happening already: i.e., governments ordering mining pools to not mine such and such transactions from such and such people, or forcing them to reorg to steal money from criminals and whatnot. All this is expected to happen in normal Bitcoin. But both in normal Bitcoin and in Drivechain decentralization fixes that problem by making it so governments cannot catch all miners required to control the chain like that -- and in fact fixing that problem is the only reason we need decentralization.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

neuron.vim

I started using this neuron thing to create an update this same zettelkasten, but the existing vim plugin had too many problems, so I forked it and ended up changing almost everything.

Since the upstream repository was somewhat abandoned, most users and people who were trying to contribute upstream migrate to my fork too.

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/neuron.vim

@ 4d41a7cb:7d3633cc

Did you know that Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs), commonly known as "us dollars" are broken contracts? In fact FRNs started as dollar IOUs and then the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) defaulted on its debts and made the U.S citizens pay the bill: effectively stealing the privately owned gold.

The United States Dollar

It is not that the dollar was "backed by gold" as it is commonly said. The dollar was primally a measure of weight of silver and then a measure of weight of gold. Let see a little history about the U.S dollar.

What does the constitution says?

Article I, Section 8:

This section grants Congress the power "to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures."

Article I, Section 10:

"No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."

The United States government, by decree, created the dollar as measure of weight defined by the Coinage Act of 1792 as 371.25 grains (24 grams) of silver.

The 1794 silver dollar, known as the "Flowing Hair dollar," was the first silver dollar coin produced by the United States Mint. This was the original dollar! The were minted in $1, $0,5.

In 1795 the United States minted its first gold coins under the Coinage Act of 1792, which introduced the following denominations: $2,5, $5 and $10. The silver to gold ratio was fixed at 1:15, meaning 15 ounces of silver was the equivalent to one ounce of gold.

Individuals could bring silver bullion to the U.S. Mint and have it coined into legal tender.

## Coinage acts

The Coinage Act of 1834 adjusted the gold-to-silver ratio to 16:1 and and the weight of the gold coins because gold was undervalue and encouraging the melting and exporting of American gold.

The coinage act of 1837 defined the silver dollar as containing 412.5 grains of standard silver (90% silver and 10% copper) and it reinforced the legal tender status of these coins, ensuring their acceptance for all debts, public and private.

The Coinage Act of 1849 specifically addressed the introduction of new gold denominations in response to the California Gold Rush, which significantly increased gold supplies in the United States. The Act authorized the minting of a $1 gold coin, the smallest gold denomination ever issued by the United States. The Act also authorized the creation of the $20 gold coin, known as the Double Eagle.

The gold dollar coin contained 23.22 grains of pure gold or 1.505grams or 0.0484 troy ounces.

The Double Eagle contained 464.4 grains of pure gold or 30.093 grams, 0.968 troy ounces.

The coinage act of 1857 sought to establish a uniform domestic currency and reduce reliance on foreign coins, demonetizing every foreign coins as legal tender. This was also the beginning of the Flying Eagle cent, which was smaller in diameter and composed of 88% copper and 12% nickel. This centralized more the coinage in the U.S.

U.S Gold certificates

The Act of March 3, 1863, officially known as the National Bank Act, was a significant piece of legislation during the American Civil War aimed at creating a national banking system and establishing a uniform national currency.

This legislation allowed the U.S. Treasury to issue gold certificates, which served as a form of paper currency backed by gold. The introduction of gold certificates was primarily intended to facilitate transactions involving gold without the need for the physical transfer of the metal.

This was primary for large size comercial transactions or payments among banks.

1865 Series

"It is hereby certified that one hundred dollars have been deposited with the assistant treasurer of the U.S in New York payable in GOLD at his office in the xxx New York "

The coinage act of 1873 also known as the "crime of 1873" was the intent to demonetize silver by ceasing the minting of silver dollars which meant that citizens could no longer bring silver to the mint to be coined into legal tender. By stopping the production of silver dollars, the Act implicitly placed the U.S. on a gold standard, where gold, not silver, was the primary basis for currency. This had lasting economic effects, particularly on farmers and silver miners who preferred bimetallism (the use of both gold and silver as standards).

The Act was controversial, particularly in western and rural areas where silver was a significant economic factor. Many believed that the Act was passed to benefit creditors and large financial interests by adopting a gold standard, which tended to deflate prices and increase the value of money.

The coinage act of 1878, The Act mandated the U.S. Treasury to purchase a specified amount of silver each month, between two million and four million dollars worth, and to mint it into silver dollars. This marked a partial return to the use of silver as currency through the coinage of the standard silver dollar. The Act allowed for the issuance of silver certificates, which could be used as currency in place of actual silver coins, thus easing the circulation of silver-backed currency.

The Bland-Allison Act was passed against a backdrop of economic depression and agrarian unrest. It represented a compromise between advocates of the gold standard and those wishing to return to bimetallism.

1882 series

The 30 years of economic and political discourse between bimetallism supporters and gold only advocates finally ended in the 1900.

The Gold Standard Act of 1900

The Gold Standard Act of 1900 formalized the monetary system of the United States by establishing gold as the sole standard for redeeming paper money and effectively ending the bimetallic standard. It established that the gold dollar would be the standard unit of value, equating the dollar to 25.8 grains of gold at a purity of 90%. Silver certificates and silver coins remained in circulation but without the backing of free and unlimited coinage.

Let's remember that the dollar was still a measure of gold. The certificates where government IOUs for that gold that was deposited in the treasury of the United States.

1907 series of gold certificates:

## The Federal Reserve Act of 1913

The Federal Reserva Act of 1913 created a monopoly over the issuance of the American paper currency. This marked the privatization of the currency and a centralization of power like never before. More about this in another article.

But essentially the secret agenda of banksters was to issue IOUs without any restriction and make the United State Government responsible to redeem this paper currency for gold. And I will show you exactly how. Alfred Owen Crozier wrote a book in 1912 one year before the bill was passed analyzing and opposing it and made this same argument.

Federal Reserve Notes

A paper contract, a promissory note, an "I owe you x amount"

This paper currency issued by this private central bank were dollar IOUs contracts or promissory notes.

According to Black's law dictionary a Federal Reserve note is: The paper currency in circulation in the United States. The notes are issued by the Federal Reserve Banks, are effectively non-interest-bearing promissory notes payable to bearer on demand, and are issued in denominations of $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100, $500, $1000, $5,000 and $10,000.

NON INTERES BEARING PROMISSORY NOTES.

A promissory note is a written, unconditional promise made by one party (the maker) to pay a definite sum of money to another party (the payee) or bearer, either on demand or at a specified future date. It is essentially a financial instrument representing a formal commitment to settle a specified monetary obligation.

Key Characteristics of a Promissory Note:

1. Written Instrument: The promise to pay must be documented in writing.
2. Unconditional Promise: The promise to pay cannot be contingent on any external factors or conditions.
3. Definite Sum: The amount to be paid must be clearly specified and agreed upon in the note.
4. Payee: The note must designate the person or entity to whom the payment is to be made either explicitly or implicitly by specifying it as payable "to bearer".
5. Payable on Demand or at a Specific Time: The promissory note should indicate whether the payment is due upon demand by the payee or at a specific future date as agreed by the involved parties.

Promissory notes are commonly used in various financial transactions, including loans, business financing, and real estate deals, as they formalize the commitment to pay and can be enforced as a legal contract if necessary.

The Federal Reserve (FED) issued paper contract promising to be redeemable in gold. Most people never saw or understood the contract. Most never read it because the Fed cleverly hid the contract on the front of the bill by dividing it into five separate lines of text with a very different typeface for each line and placing the president's picture right in the middle. They even used the old lawyer's trick of hiding the most important text in small print.

Over time, the terms and conditions of the contract were watered down until they eventually became literally a promissory note for nothing. But let's analice how they did this step by step...

FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES: 1914 SERIES

Content of the contract:

Federal reserve note

The United States of America will pay to the bearer on demand: FIFTY DOLLARS

Authorized by federal reserve act of December 23, 1913

This note is receivable by all national and member banks and federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs and other public dues. It is redeemable in gold on demand at the treasury department of the United States in the city of Washington district of Columbia or in gold or lawful money at any federal reserve bank.

So if a dollar was 20.67 per ounce, $50 could be exchanged for about 2.42 ounces of gold.

FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES :1918 SERIES

Content of the contract:

Federal reserve note

The United States of America will pay to the bearer on demand: Ten thousand dollars

Authorized by federal reserve act of December 23, 1913, as amended by act of September 26, 1918

This note is receivable by all national and member banks and federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs and other public dues. It is redeemable in gold on demand at the treasury department of the United States in the city of Washington district of Columbia or in gold or lawful money at any federal reserve bank.

So if a dollar was 20.67 per ounce, $10,000 could be exchanged for 484.29ounces of gold.

Series of 1928

The great imitation

In 1928 the U.S government issued a new series of gold certificates payable to the bearer on demand.

The same year the Federal Reserve issued it's own promissory notes copying the us government gold certificate's design:

Content of the contract:

Federal reserve note

The United States of America

will pay to the bearer on demand: One hundred dollars

Reedemable in gold on demand at the United States treasury, or in gold or lawful money, at any federal reserve bank.

So if a dollar was 20.67 per ounce, $100 could be exchanged for 4.84 ounces of gold.

Here's all the denominations issued by the Federal Reserve back then:

This instrument was the facilitator of the Great depression, the inflation and deflation of the paper currency: as Thomas Jefferson warned long time ago:

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency first by inflation then by deflation the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.”

THE CONFISCATION OF GOLD

The end of the dollar and the replacement of gold and gold certificates by Federal Reserve Notes worthless paper currency.

Executive Order 6102, issued on April 5, 1933, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, forced everyone to exchange their gold and gold certificates for federal reserve notes at $20,67 FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES per ounce.

THIS WAS THE END OF THE DOLLAR. THE END OF THE GOLD STANDARD. THE END OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT. THE END OF FREEDOM. THE ABANDONMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES.

The Gold Reserve Act of 1934

This act further devalued the "gold content of the FRNs" and ended the redemption of gold certificates for gold coins. One ounce of gold was now "35 FRNs" in theory but this was not entirely true.

Lets analice the evolution of the Federal Reserve Notes.

Content of the contract:

Federal reserve note

The United States of America

will pay to the bearer on demand: One hundred dollars

THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AND IT IS REDEEMABLE IN LAWFUL MONEY AT THE UNITED STATES TREASURY, OR AT ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK.

So if a dollar was 20.67 per ounce, $100 could be exchanged for one hundred dollars of Lawful money?

They eliminated the gold clause from the contract. This contract is a lie, what is this redeemable for? U.S treasuries? Different denominations of FRNs? They changed the definition of lawful money. This was never money this was a broken contract and it gets obvious in the next series...

1963 Series

This series look like they did photoshop on the "payable to the bearer on demand" part that was below franklin in previous series.

Content of the contract now was

Federal reserve note

The United States of America

THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE.

ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS

Conclusion

Between 1913 and 1928 the dollar was gradually replaced by Federal Reserve Notes until in 1934 the gold standard was definitively abandoned. From that time the Federal Reserve Note became the "new legal tender money" replacing the dollar and slowly replacing silver coins too until in 1965 silver was definitively abandoned.

---

IT IS NOT THAT THE DOLLAR WAS “BACKED” BY SILVER OR GOLD.

Gold and silver were such powerful money during the founding of the United States of America that the founding fathers declared that only gold or silver coins can be “money” in America. Since gold and silver coinage was heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored in banks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute. People traded their coupons as money or “currency.” Currency is not money, but a money substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises and are not “money.” A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States government, not “money.” The federal United States government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the united States of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful money – gold and silver coin.

It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money substitutes; one can only get deeper into debt. We the People no longer have any “money.” Most Americans have not been paid any “money” for a very long time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel broke? Now do you understand why you are “bankrupt” along with the rest of the country?

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Flowi.es

At the time I thought Workflowy had the ideal UI for everything. I wanted to implement my custom app maker on it, but ended up doing this: a platform for enhancing Workflowy with extra features:

• An email reminder based on dates input in items
• A website generator, similar to Websites For Trello, also based on Classless Templates

Also, I didn't remember this was also based on CouchDB and had some couchapp functionalities.

• https://flowi.es
• https://github.com/fiatjaf/flowies

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Module Linker

A browser extension that reads source code on GitHub and tries to find links to imported dependencies so you can click on them and navigate through either GitHub or package repositories or base language documentation. Works for many languages at different levels of completeness.

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/module-linker
• https://module-linker.alhur.es/
• https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/module-linker
• https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/dglofghjinifeolcpjfjmfdnnbaanggn

@ 2ed3596e:98b4cc78

Our bounty program rewards Bitcoin Well Affiliates for making tutorials and Bitcoin Well walkthroughs. Make a video within our guidelines, share your post URLs (Youtube and X) and get paid over per video. 

Each month we’ll have new bounty tasks with different tutorials available for you to make and earn sats. Click here to submit a Bitcoin Well bounty. 

Bounty tasks and requirements for May 2025

For the month of May, the following bounty tasks will be available to approved Bitcoin Well Affiliates: 

1. Buy bitcoin on-chain (Canada) – 63,000 sats

2. Requirements:

   • Buy walkthrough process: homescreen → buy page → e-transfer Q&A explained → review order → on-chain delivery explanation

   • Voice over guiding through each step

   • Mention OTC for Large purchases over $100k. Mention and include booking link in video description 

   • Include affiliate webpage/referral link in video description 

   • Uploaded to youtube and X/Nostr 

3. Buy bitcoin via Lightning (USA) – 63,000 sats

4. Requirements:

   • Buy walkthrough process: homescreen → buy page → order form → bank funding and rate lock → order delivery expectations → confirm order 

   • Voice over guiding through each step

   • Mention OTC for Large purchases over $100k. Mention and include booking link in video description 

   • Include affiliate webpage/referral link in video description 

   • Uploaded to youtube and X/Nostr 

5. Pay bills on-chain (Canada) – 42,000 sats

6. Requirements:

   • Bill pay walkthrough process: homescreen →  bill page → add a bill → bill pay order form → explain static bill pay address → confirm and review order → time to fulfill

   • Voice over guiding through each step

   • Include affiliate webpage/referral link in video description 

   • Uploaded to youtube and X/Nostr 

7. Recurring bitcoin buy (USA) – 105,000 sats

8. Requirements:

   • Recurring Buy walkthrough process: homescreen → buy page → order form → funding → date and frequency selection → order delivery expectations → confirm order 

   • Voice over guiding through each step

   • Mention OTC for Large purchases over $100k. Mention and include booking link in video description 

   • Include affiliate webpage/referral link in video description

   • Uploaded to youtube and X/Nostr 

Please note that all requirements must be satisfied for a video to earn its bounty. Any questions about Bitcoin Well products details or bounty requirements can be directed to Konrad, Community Manager @ Bitcoin Well: k.fitz@bitcoinwell.com

Completed your bounty content and ready to earn your sats? Submit your bounty tasks here. 

@ 79dff8f8:946764e3

Hello world

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Using Spacechains and Fedimint to solve scaling

What if instead of trying to create complicated "layer 2" setups involving noveau cryptographic techniques we just did the following:

• we take that Fedimint source code and remove the "mint" stuff, and just use their federation stuff secure coins with multisig;
• then we make a spacechain;
• and we make the federations issue multisig-btc tokens on it;
• and then we put some uniswap-like thing in there to allow these tokens to be exchanged freely.

Why?

The recent spike in fees caused by Ordinals and BRC-20 shitcoinery has shown that Lightning isn't a silver bullet. Channels are too fragile, it costs a lot to open a channel under a high fee environment, to run a routing node and so on.

People who want to keep using Lightning are instead flocking to the big Lightning custodial providers: WalletofSatoshi, ZEBEDEE, OpenNode and so on. We could leverage that trust people have in these companies (and individuals) operating shadow Lightning providers and turn each of these into a btc-token issuer. Each issue their own token, transactions flow freely. Each person can hold only assets from the issuers they trust more.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Just malinvestiment

Traditionally the Austrian Theory of Business Cycles has been explained and reworked in many ways, but the most widely accepted version (or the closest to the Mises or Hayek views) view is that banks (or the central bank) cause the general interest rate to decline by creation of new money and that prompts entrepreneurs to invest in projects of longer duration. This can be confusing because sometimes entrepreneurs embark in very short-time projects during one of these bubbles and still contribute to the overall cycle.

The solution is to think about the "longer term" problem is to think of the entire economy going long-term, not individual entrepreneurs. So if one entrepreneur makes an investiment in a thing that looks simple he may actually, knowingly or not, be inserting himself in a bigger machine that is actually involved in producing longer-term things. Incidentally this thinking also solves the biggest criticism of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory: that of the rational expectations people who say: "oh but can't the entrepreneurs know that the interest rate is artificially low and decide to not make long-term investiments?" ("and if they don't know they should lose money and be replaced like in a normal economy flow blablabla?"). Well, the answer is that they are not really relying on the interest rate, they are only looking for profit opportunities, and this is the key to another confusion that has always followed my thinkings about this topic.

If a guy opens a bar in an area of a town where many new buildings are being built during a "housing bubble" he may not know, but he is inserting himself right into the eye of that business cycle. He expects all these building projects to continue, and all the people involved in that to be getting paid more and be able to spend more at his bar and so on. That is a bet that may or may not end up paying.

Now what does that bar investiment has to do with the interest rate? Nothing. It is just a guy who saw a business opportunity in a place where hungry people with money had no bar to buy things in, so he opened a bar. Additionally the guy has made some calculations about all the ending, starting and future building projects in the area, and then the people that would live or work in that area afterwards (after all the buildings were being built with the expectation of being used) and so on, there is no interest rate calculations involved. And yet that may be a malinvestiment because some building projects will end up being canceled and the expected usage of the finished ones will turn out to be smaller than predicted.

This bubble may have been caused by a decline in interest rates that prompted some people to start buying houses that they wouldn't otherwise, but this is just a small detail. The bubble can only be kept going by a constant influx of new money into the economy, but the focus on the interest rate is wrong. If new money is printed and used by the government to buy ships then there will be a boom and a bubble in the ship market, and that involves all the parts of production process of ships and also bars that will be opened near areas of the town where ships are built and new people are being hired with higher salaries to do things that will eventually contribute to the production of ships that will then be sold to the government.

It's not interest rates or the length of the production process that matters, it's just printed money and malinvestiment.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

hledger-web

A Haskell app that uses Miso and hledger's Haskell libraries plus ghcjs to be compiled to a web page, and then adds optional remoteStorage so you can store your ledger data somewhere else.

This was my introduction to Haskell and also built at a time I thought remoteStorage was a good idea that solved many problems, and that it could use some help in the form of just yet another somewhat-useless-but-cool project using it that could be added to their wiki.

• https://hledger.alhur.es/
• https://github.com/fiatjaf/hledger-web

See also

• My stupid introduction to Haskell
• LessPass remoteStorage
• TiddlyWiki remoteStorage

@ e968e50b:db2a803a

Hey, are you familiar those scammy sites that will pay you to review companies? The line goes something like, "work from home and review products." Of course, the person is reviewing something online that they might not otherwise care about. When I look for reviews of a company, I'm almost always going to peer to peer type services.

Let's pause for a second for a seeming non-sequitur. Long story short, phone provider that I left has been charging me for an iPad that I accidentally didn't take off the plan. That's not the problem. The problem is that they made it IMPOSSIBLE to cancel this service, including going into a brick and mortar store. I'll spare you the details, but it took more than a full days work to get this thing cancelled. It was obvious that I wasn't even using the service, and it still cost me over a hundred bucks to square up after wasting so much of my life trying to get this thing cancelled on my account that supposedly didn't exist anymore.

Why is this relevant? I'm about to absolutely carpet bomb this company with bad reviews. They legitimately put significantly more work into trying to continue to charge me for this service I didn't want, didn't need, and didn't use, than they ever did trying to give me good service as a customer. When I started looking around online, I found a positive review I did about a flooring company two years ago...and wow! This review had so many great reviews. Beyond being amusingly recursive, it's real bad news for this phone company. I'm like a reviewing celebrity on this medium.

So...it occurred to me, what about a Trustpilot, BBB, or Angie's List type service that is fused with the sn news model? Put some skin in the game to review and put some skin in the game to endorse that review. stacker.reviews maybe?

Obviously, downzapping might not make sense there. Any company with a bad review could really hide their dirty laundry. But if they wanted to boost their good posts, plenty of safety mechanisms might make that costly (percentage of zaps going to website and boosts favored by numbers of zaps). I almost thought a review territory might make sense, but something like this would obviously need to be organized differently than a bulletin board.

I can imagine this being a good way to onboard people to bitcoin. Imagine it:

Wait, I can get some of these satoshi things for shouting to the rooftops about that plumber that saved my family's house?!? Hold my beer.

Wait, I can actually invest in this great review that warns people about that electrician?!?! Hold my warm beer.

idk Just a thought. I'm probably not the first person to think of this. Does it already exist? I got a humdinger of a harangue for it if so.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/968624

@ b00a728d:0c16788a

Hey there, racing fans! Let’s talk about a straightforward betting strategy that’s been around for years, often used by folks who treat horse racing more like a business than a gamble. This method is all about following a clear staking plan to aim for a small, consistent profit per race—without needing to be a racing expert. I’ll break it down step-by-step so it’s easy to understand, even if you’re new to this! The Goal: Small, Steady Wins The idea here is to aim for a target profit (T) of 5 points per race. Think of a "point" as a unit of money you decide on—it could be $50, $1, or whatever you’re comfortable with. For example, I use a starting bank of $200, and I set each point at $1. So, 5 points = $5 profit per race. Important Rule: Once you pick the value of a point, stick with it throughout the entire betting sequence. Don’t change it, no matter what happens! Why This Works (Even If You Know Nothing About Racing) This plan is designed so that you’ll eventually win, even if you’re clueless about horses. The catch? You need to be patient and okay with small profits per point because the stakes (the amount you bet) can grow after each loss. For example: If you set each point at £1 and lose 10 races in a row, your 11th bet would need to recover $55 (your target plus losses).

If you set each point at 25p, you’d only need to recover $13.75 after 10 losses.

See the difference? Lower point values mean smaller risks, but also smaller profits. Pick a point value that matches the risk you’re willing to take and the profit you want to make. How the Staking Plan Works Here’s the basic idea: you start with a target profit of 5 points per race. If you lose, you add your loss to the next race’s target. If you win, you subtract your gain. The goal is to keep going until you hit your total profit target, then start over. Let’s break down the key terms: T (Target): Your profit goal for the race (starts at 5 points).

T + L: Your target plus any losses from previous races (or minus any gains if you won).

S (Stake): How much you bet on the race.

R (Result): Whether you won (e.g., 2-1 means the horse paid 2-to-1 odds) or lost (L).

W (Points Won): How many points you gained from a win.

L (Points Lost): How many points you lost from a bet.

AWL (Running Total): Your accumulated wins and losses over the sequence.

Once you reach your overall profit goal (like 40 points in the example below), you take your winnings and start the sequence over with a 5-point target. Example Sequence: Watch It in Action Here’s a sample sequence to show how this plays out. I’m using a 1-per-point value for simplicity: Race( see image posted for details in url or comment section)

What happened here? In Race 1, I aimed for 5 points but lost my 2-point stake, so my running total is -2.

In Race 2, I added my loss (2) to the new target (10), so I’m aiming for 12 points. I lost again, so my running total drops to -6.

By Race 8, I finally hit a big win (4-1 odds), gaining 44 points. My running total jumps to +50, which exceeds my overall target of 40 points.

I take my profit ($50 if each point is $1) and start over in Race 9 with a 5-point target.

How to Calculate Your Stake To figure out how much to bet (your stake), take your T + L (target plus losses) and divide by 3, rounding to the nearest whole number. Why 3? Because you want to bet on horses with odds of 3-1 or higher. A win at those odds will cover all your losses and give you your target profit. For example: In Race 4, my T + L is 33. Divide by 3: 33 ÷ 3 = 11. So, I bet 11 points.

My horse wins at 2-1 odds, so I get 22 points back (11 × 2). This clears my losses and gives me a profit.

Pro Tip: Stick to odds of evens (1-1) or higher. Many pros avoid “odds-on” bets (like 1-2) because they don’t pay enough to make this system work well. Tips to Make This Work for You Pick Your Races Wisely: You don’t have to bet on every race. Some pros bet on every race at a meeting (e.g., 6 races a day, 36 bets a week), but I recommend being selective. Consider using a professional tipping service for better picks—newspaper tips can be risky (one “expert” once picked 30 losers in a row!).

Spread Your Bets: Use 3 or 4 different bookmakers. No single bookie will be happy if you keep winning over time.

Account for Betting Tax (If Applicable): If there’s a tax on your bets, add it to your next race’s target. This way, the system covers the tax for you.

Be Prepared for Losing Streaks: Even with careful picks, you might hit a string of losses. That’s why you keep your point value low—so your stakes don’t balloon too much.

Why This Is a “Business,” Not Gambling People who use this method don’t see it as gambling—they treat racing like a business. The key is patience and discipline. A single win at 3-1 odds or higher will wipe out all your losses and deliver your target profit. It’s a slow grind, but it’s designed to keep you in the game long-term. Final Thoughts This staking plan is all about consistency and managing risk. Start with a small bank (like $200), set a point value you’re comfortable with (like 50 or 1), and stick to the rules. You don’t need to be a racing genius—just follow the system, bet smart, and wait for that big win to clear your slate and put profit in your pocket. Got questions or want to tweak this for your own style? Let me know, and I’ll help you fine-tune your approach! Happy betting!

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/968545

@ 0e67f053:cb1d4b93

By Carl Tuckerson, Host of “Feelings Before Finance”

Let’s be clear: May Day isn’t for mattress sales—it’s for smashing economic feudalism with a reusable water bottle and a union card.

Trump? Said he loved workers. Then he golfed while nurses rationed gloves. Elon Musk? Thinks labor laws are a nuisance between him and his next ego-fueled space tantrum. Meanwhile, AOC and Bernie are out here like revolutionary fairy godparents, yelling “TAX THE RICH” while sprinkling universal dignity on the masses.

May Day is for the tired. The overworked. The underpaid. And everyone who's ever been told “we’re a family” by a boss who’d fire them via Slack.

Today we rise. Together. Unionized. Moisturized. Ready to seize the means of basic decency.

✊ Happy May Day from Carl Tuckerson. And remember: No billionaire ever made a sandwich.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/968502

@ c3ae4ad8:e54d46cb

Ingredients

10 oz frozen chopped spinach, thawed 2 TB butter, divided ½ small shallot, minced 1/2 cup crumbled feta cheese 6 large or 9 medium eggs 1 cup of heavy cream salt & pepper

Directions

Preheat oven to 350F. Grease a pie dish with 1 tablespoon of the butter.

In a skillet, add butter and saute the diced shallots and cook until slightly softened.

Place the thawed chopped spinach into a towel or paper towel and wrap it around the spinach into a ball and squeeze until you remove as much liquid as possible.

In a large bowl, crack in the eggs and add the cream, salt & pepper, then whisk until foamy and increased in volume. Fluff up the spinach with a fork and add it to the egg mixture. Add the crumbled feta and fold both in.

In the greased pie dish, and then pour the egg mixture and bake at 350 for 35-40 minutes. Let cool for 10-15 minutes before serving.

Reheating and leftovers The best presentation and clean cuts will come from chilling for several hours or overnight in the fridge. To reheat, place a serving onto a microwave-safe plate and cover with a paper towel and heat for 30-40 seconds. It's also great cold.

Makes 6-8 servings.

@ 2e8970de:63345c7a

Research out of China; they used ice lithography to fabricate 72 nm patterns on living tardigrades. The wild thing isn’t just that they “tattooed” tardigrades. It’s that tardigrades are so resilient, and focused electron beams so precise, that 40% of them survived and went about their lives after the procedure.

https://www.acs.org/pressroom/presspacs/2025/april/scientists-have-found-a-way-to-tattoo-tardigrades.html

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/968469

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

On the state of programs and browsers

Basically, there are basically (not exhaustively) 2 kinds of programs one can run in a computer nowadays:

1.1. A program that is installed, permanent, has direct access to the Operating System, can draw whatever it wants, modify files, interact with other programs and so on; 1.2. A program that is transient, fetched from someone else's server at run time, interpreted, rendered and executed by another program that bridges the access of that transient program to the OS and other things.

Meanwhile, web browsers have basically (not exhaustively) two use cases:

2.1. Display text, pictures, videos hosted on someone else's computer; 2.2. Execute incredibly complex programs that are fetched at run time, executed and so on -- you get it, it's the same 1.2.

These two use cases for browsers are at big odds with one another. While stretching itsel f to become more and more a platform for programs that can do basically anything (in the 1.1 sense) they are still restricted to being an 1.2 platform. At the same time, websites that were supposed to be on 2.1 sometimes get confused and start acting as if they were 2.2 -- and other confusing mixed up stuff.

I could go hours in philosophical inquiries on the nature of browsers, how rewriting everything in JavaScript is not healthy or where everything went wrong, but I think other people have done this already.

One thing that bothers me a lot, though, is that computers can do a lot of things, and with the internet and in the current state of the technology it's fairly easy to implement tools that would help in many aspects of human existence and provide high-quality, useful programs, with the help of a server to coordinate access, store data, authenticate users and so on many things are possible. However, due to the nature of UI in the browser, it's very hard to get any useful tool to users.

Writing a UI, even the most basic UI imaginable (some text input boxes and some buttons, or a table) can take a long time, always more than the time necessary to code the actual core features of whatever program is being developed -- and that is considering that the person capable of writing interesting programs that do the functionality in the backend are also capable of interacting with JavaScript and the giant amount of frameworks, transpilers, styling stuff, CSS, the fact that all this is built on top of HTML and so on.

This is not good.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

A big Ethereum problem that is fixed by Drivechain

While reading the following paragraphs, assume Drivechain itself will be a "smart contract platform", like Ethereum. And that it won't be used to launch an Ethereum blockchain copy, but instead each different Ethereum contract could be turned into a different sidechain under BIP300 rules.

A big Ethereum problem

Anyone can publish any "contract" to Ethereum. Often people will come up with somewhat interesting ideas and publish them. Since they want money they will add an unnecessary token and use that to bring revenue to themselves, gamify the usage of their contract somehow, and keep some control over the supposedly open protocol they've created by keeping a majority of the tokens. They will use the profits on marketing and branding, have a visual identity, a central website and a forum with support personnel and so on: their somewhat interesting idea have become a full-fledged company.

If they have success then another company will appear in the space and copy the idea, launch it using exactly the same strategy with a tweak, then try to capture the customers of the first company and new people. And then another, and another, and another. Very often these contracts require some network effect to work, i.e., they require people to be using it so others will use it. The fact that the market is now split into multiple companies offering roughly the same product hurts that, such that none of these protocols get ever enough usage to become really useful in the way they were first conceived. At this point it doesn't matter though, they get some usage, and they use that in their marketing material. It becomes a race to pump the value of the tokens and the current usage is just another point used for that purpose. The company will even start giving out money to attract new users and other weird moves that have no relationship with the initial somewhat intereting idea.

Once in a lifetime it happens that the first implementer of these things is not a company seeking profits, but some altruistic developer or company that believes in Ethereum and wants to see it grow -- or more likely someone financed by the Ethereum Foundation, which allegedly doesn't like these token schemes and would prefer everybody to use the token they issued first, the ETH --, but that's a fruitless enterprise because someone else will copy that idea anyway and turn it into a company as described above.

How Drivechain fixes it

In the Drivechain world, if someone had an idea, they would -- as it happens all the time with Bitcoin things -- publish it in a public forum. Other members of the community would evaluate that idea, add or remove things, all interested parties would contribute to make it the best possible incarnation of that idea. Once the design was settled, someone would volunteer to start writing the code to turn that idea into a sidechain. Maybe some company would fund those efforts and then more people would join. It's not a perfect process and one that often involves altruism, but Bitcoin inspires people to do these things.

Slowly, the thing would get built, tested, activated as a sidechain on testnet, tested more, and at this point luckily the entire community of interested Bitcoin users and miners would have grown to like that idea and see its benefits. It could then be proposed to be activated according to BIP300 rules.

Once it was activated, the entire pool of interested users would join it. And it would be impossible for someone else to create a copy of that because everybody would instantly notice it was a copy. There would be no token, no one profiting directly from the operations of that "smart contract". And everybody would be incentivized to join and tell others to join that same sidechain since the network effect was already the biggest there, they will know more network effect would only be good for everybody involved, and there would be no competing marketing and free token giveaways from competing entities.

See also

• Upgrading 'Smart Contracts' to 'Wise Contracts', by Paul Sztorc
• Drivechain
• Drivechain comparison with Ethereum
• Alternatives to Drivechain

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Reasons why Lightning is not that great

Some Bitcoiners, me included, were fooled by hyperbolic discourse that presented Lightning as some magical scaling solution with no flaws. This is an attempt to list some of the actual flaws uncovered after 5 years of experience. The point of this article is not to say Lightning is a complete worthless piece of crap, but only to highlight the fact that Bitcoin needs to put more focus on developing and thinking about other scaling solutions (such as Drivechain, less crappy and more decentralized trusted channels networks and statechains).

Unbearable experience

Maintaining a node is cumbersome, you have to deal with closed channels, allocating funds, paying fees unpredictably, choosing new channels to open, storing channel state backups -- or you'll have to delegate all these decisions to some weird AI or third-party services, it's not feasible for normal people.

Channels fail for no good reason all the time

Every time nodes disagree on anything they close channels, there have been dozens, maybe hundreds, of bugs that lead to channels being closed in the past, and implementors have been fixing these bugs, but since these node implementations continue to be worked on and new features continue to be added we can be quite sure that new bugs continue to be introduced.

Trimmed (fake) HTLCs are not sound protocol design

What would you tell me if I presented a protocol that allowed for transfers of users' funds across a network of channels and that these channels would pledge to send the money to miners while the payment was in flight, and that these payments could never be recovered if a node in the middle of the hop had a bug or decided to stop responding? Or that the receiver could receive your payment, but still claim he didn't, and you couldn't prove that at all?

These are the properties of "trimmed HTLCs", HTLCs that are uneconomical to have their own UTXO in the channel presigned transaction bundles, therefore are just assumed to be there while they are not (and their amounts are instead added to the fees of the presigned transaction).

Trimmed HTLCs, like any other HTLC, have timelocks, preimages and hashes associated with them -- which are properties relevant to the redemption of actual HTLCs onchain --, but unlike actual HTLCs these things have no actual onchain meaning since there is no onchain UTXO associated with them. This is a game of make-believe that only "works" because (1) payment proofs aren't worth anything anyway, so it makes no sense to steal these; (2) channels are too expensive to setup; (3) all Lightning Network users are honest; (4) there are so many bugs and confusion in a Lightning Network node's life that events related to trimmed HTLCs do not get noticed by users.

Also, so far these trimmed HTLCs have only been used for very small payments (although very small payments probably account for 99% of the total payments), so it is supposedly "fine" to have them. But, as fees rise, more and more HTLCs tend to become fake, which may make people question the sanity of the design.

Tadge Dryja, one of the creators of the Lightning Network proposal, has been critical of the fact that these things were allowed to creep into the BOLT protocol.

Routing

Routing is already very bad today even though most nodes have a basically 100% view of the public network, the reasons being that some nodes are offline, others are on Tor and unreachable or too slow, channels have the balance shifted in the wrong direction, so payments fail a lot -- which leads to the (bad) solution invented by professional node runners and large businesses of probing the network constantly in order to discard bad paths, this creates unnecessary load and increases the risk of channels being dropped for no good reason.

As the network grows -- if it indeed grow and not centralize in a few hubs -- routing tends to become harder and harder.

While each implementation team makes their own decisions with regard to how to best way to route payments and these decisions may change at anytime, it's worth noting, for example, that CLN will use MPP to split up any payment in any number of chunks of 10k satoshis, supposedly to improve routing success rates. While this often backfires and causes payments to fail when they should have succeeded, it also contributes to making it so there are proportionally more fake HTLCs than there should be, as long as the threshold for fake HTLCs is above 10k.

Payment proofs are somewhat useless

Even though payment proofs were seen by many (including me) as one of the great things about Lightning, the sad fact is that they do not work as proofs if people are not aware of the fact that they are proofs. Wallets do all they can to hide these details from users because it is considered "bad UX" and low-level implementors do not care very much to talk about them at all. There have been attempts from Lightning Labs to get rid of the payment proofs entirely (which at the time to me sounded like a terrible idea, but now I realize they were not wrong).

Here's a piece of anecdote: I've personally witnessed multiple episodes in which Phoenix wallet released the preimage without having actually received the payment (they did receive a minor part of the payment, but the payment was split in many parts). That caused my service, @lntxbot, to mark the outgoing payment as complete, only then to have to endure complaints from the users because the receiver side, Phoenix, had not received the full amount. In these cases, if the protocol and the idea of preimages as payment proofs be respected, should I have been the one in charge of manually fixing user balances?

Another important detail: when an HTLC is sent and then something goes wrong with the payment the channel has to be closed in order to redeem that payment. When the redeemer is on the receiver side, the very act of redeeming should cause the preimage to be revealed and a proof of payment to be made available for the sender, who can then send that back to the previous hop and the payment is proven without any doubt. But when this happens for fake HTLCs (which is the vast majority of payments, as noted above) there is no place in the world for a preimage and therefore there are no proofs available. A channel is just closed, the payer loses money but can't prove a payment. It also can't send that proof back to the previous hop so he is forced to say the payment failed -- even if it wasn't him the one who declared that hop a failure and closed the channel, which should be a prerequisite. I wonder if this isn't the source of multiple bugs in implementations that cause channels to be closed unnecessarily. The point is: preimages and payment proofs are mostly a fiction.

Another important fact is that the proofs do not really prove anything if the keypair that signs the invoice can't be provably attached to a real world entity.

LSP-centric design

The first Lightning wallets to show up in the market, LND as a desktop daemon (then later with some GUIs on top of it like Zap and Joule) and Anton's BLW and Eclair wallets for mobile devices, then later LND-based mobile wallets like Blixt and RawTX, were all standalone wallets that were self-sufficient and meant to be run directly by consumers. Eventually, though, came Breez and Phoenix and introduced the "LSP" model, in which a server would be trusted in various forms -- not directly with users' funds, but with their privacy, fees and other details -- but most importantly that LSP would be the primary source of channels for all users of that given wallet software. This was all fine, but as time passed new features were designed and implemented that assumed users would be running software connected to LSPs. The very idea of a user having a standalone mobile wallet was put out of question. The entire argument for implementation of the bolt12 standard, for example, hinged on the assumption that mobile wallets would have LSPs capable of connecting to Google messaging services and being able to "wake up" mobile wallets in order for them to receive payments. Other ideas, like a complicated standard for allowing mobile wallets to receive payments without having to be online all the time, just assume LSPs always exist; and changes to the expected BOLT spec behavior with regards to, for example, probing of mobile wallets.

Ark is another example of a kind of LSP that got so enshrined that it become a new protocol that depends on it entirely.

Protocol complexity

Even though the general idea of how Lightning is supposed to work can be understood by many people (as long as these people know how Bitcoin works) the Lightning protocol is not really easy: it will take a long time of big dedication for anyone to understand the details about the BOLTs -- this is a bad thing if we want a world of users that have at least an idea of what they are doing. Moreover, with each new cool idea someone has that gets adopted by the protocol leaders, it increases in complexity and some of the implementors are kicked out of the circle, therefore making it easier for the remaining ones to proceed with more and more complexity. It's the same process by which Chrome won the browser wars, kicked out all competitors and proceeded to make a supposedly open protocol, but one that no one can implement as it gets new and more complex features every day, all envisioned by the Chrome team.

Liquidity issues?

I don't believe these are a real problem if all the other things worked, but still the old criticism that Lightning requires parking liquidity and that has a cost is not a complete non-issue, specially given the LSP-centric model.

@ 7776c32d:45558888

I've edited this post to remove the spam. nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqamkcvk5k8g730e2j6atadp6mxk7z4aaxc7cnwrlkclx79z4tzygqy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3jamnwvaz7tmswfjk66t4d5h8qunfd4skctnwv46z7qpqyrvezvufls3mrzc0att0vw0kw2pavu9pqlfzzrjtph5jrcnm28dqf26e23

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Carl R. Rogers sobre a ciência

Creio que o objetivo primário da ciência é fornecer uma hipótese, uma convicção e uma fé mais seguras e que satisfaçam melhor o próprio investigador. Na medida em que o cientista procura provar qualquer coisa a alguém -- um erro em que incorri mais de uma vez --, creio que ele está se servindo da ciência para remediar uma insegurança pessoal, desviando-a do seu verdadeiro papel criativo a serviço do indivíduo.

Tornar-se Pessoa, página aleatória

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

contratos.alhur.es

A website that allowed people to fill a form and get a standard Contrato de Locação.

Better than all the other "templates" that float around the internet, which are badly formatted .doc files.

It was fully programmable so other templates could be added later, but I never did. This website made maybe one dollar in Google Ads (and Google has probably stolen these like so many other dollars they did with their bizarre requirements).

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/contratos
• http://contratos.alhur.es

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

comentário pertinente de Olavo de Carvalho sobre atribuições indevidas de acontecimentos à "ordem espontânea"

Eis aqui um exemplo entre outros mil, extraído das minhas apostilas de aulas, de como se analisam as relações entre fatores deliberados e casuais na ação histórica. O sr, Beltrão está INFINITAMENTE ABAIXO da possibilidade de discutir essas coisas, e por isso mesmo me atribui uma simploriedade que é dele próprio e não minha:

Já citei mil vezes este parágrafo de Georg Jellinek e vou citá-lo de novo: “Os fenômenos da vida social dividem-se em duas classes: aqueles que são determinados essencialmente por uma vontade diretriz e aqueles que existem ou podem existir sem uma organização devida a atos de vontade. Os primeiros estão submetidos necessariamente a um plano, a uma ordem emanada de uma vontade consciente, em oposição aos segundos, cuja ordenação repousa em forças bem diferentes.”

Essa distinção é crucial para os historiadores e os analistas estratégicos não porque ela é clara em todos os casos, mas precisamente porque não o é. O erro mais comum nessa ordem de estudos reside em atribuir a uma intenção consciente aquilo que resulta de uma descontrolada e às vezes incontrolável combinação de forças, ou, inversamente, em não conseguir enxergar, por trás de uma constelação aparentemente fortuita de circunstâncias, a inteligência que planejou e dirigiu sutilmente o curso dos acontecimentos.

Exemplo do primeiro erro são os Protocolos dos Sábios de Sião, que enxergam por trás de praticamente tudo o que acontece de mau no mundo a premeditação maligna de um número reduzidos de pessoas, uma elite judaica reunida secretamente em algum lugar incerto e não sabido.

O que torna essa fantasia especialmente convincente, decorrido algum tempo da sua publicação, é que alguns dos acontecimentos ali previstos se realizam bem diante dos nossos olhos. O leitor apressado vê nisso uma confirmação, saltando imprudentemente da observação do fato à imputação da autoria. Sim, algumas das idéias anunciadas nos Protocolos foram realizadas, mas não por uma elite distintamente judaica nem muito menos em proveito dos judeus, cuja papel na maioria dos casos consistiu eminentemente em pagar o pato. Muitos grupos ricos e poderosos têm ambições de dominação global e, uma vez publicado o livro, que em certos trechos tem lances de autêntica genialidade estratégica de tipo maquiavélico, era praticamente impossível que nada aprendessem com ele e não tentassem por em prática alguns dos seus esquemas, com a vantagem adicional de que estes já vinham com um bode expiatório pré-fabricado. Também é impossível que no meio ou no topo desses grupos não exista nenhum judeu de origem. Basta portanto um pouquinho de seletividade deformante para trocar a causa pelo efeito e o inocente pelo culpado.

Mas o erro mais comum hoje em dia não é esse. É o contrário: é a recusa obstinada de enxergar alguma premeditação, alguma autoria, mesmo por trás de acontecimentos notavelmente convergentes que, sem isso, teriam de ser explicados pela forca mágica das coincidências, pela ação de anjos e demônios, pela "mão invisível" das forças de mercado ou por hipotéticas “leis da História” ou “constantes sociológicas” jamais provadas, que na imaginação do observador dirigem tudo anonimamente e sem intervenção humana.

As causas geradoras desse erro são, grosso modo:

Primeira: Reduzir as ações humanas a efeitos de forças impessoais e anônimas requer o uso de conceitos genéricos abstratos que dão automaticamente a esse tipo de abordagem a aparência de coisa muito científica. Muito mais científica, para o observador leigo, do que a paciente e meticulosa reconstituição histórica das cadeias de fatos que, sob um véu de confusão, remontam às vezes a uma autoria inicial discreta e quase imperceptível. Como o estudo dos fenômenos histórico-políticos é cada vez mais uma ocupação acadêmica cujo sucesso depende de verbas, patrocínios, respaldo na mídia popular e boas relações com o establishment, é quase inevitável que, diante de uma questão dessa ordem, poucos resistam à tentação de matar logo o problema com duas ou três generalizações elegantes e brilhar como sábios de ocasião em vez de dar-se o trabalho de rastreamentos históricos que podem exigir décadas de pesquisa.

Segunda: Qualquer grupo ou entidade que se aventure a ações histórico-políticas de longo prazo tem de possuir não só os meios de empreendê-las, mas também, necessariamente, os meios de controlar a sua repercussão pública, acentuando o que lhe convém e encobrindo o que possa abortar os resultados pretendidos. Isso implica intervenções vastas, profundas e duradouras no ambiente mental. [Etc. etc. etc.]

(no facebook em 17 de julho de 2013)

@ 7776c32d:45558888

The nostr:npub12vkcxr0luzwp8e673v29eqjhrr7p9vqq8asav85swaepclllj09sylpugg Android app will no longer load anything for me at all, as of today.

Much worse and harder to fix, they have added a "delete" feature before fixing the "advanced search" functionality for my account. They also haven't given me any answers on the topic since nostr:npub1zga04e73s7ard4kaektaha9vckdwll3y8auztyhl3uj764ua7vrqc7ppvc told me he "couldn't repro" and left it at that.

The so-called "delete" feature is of course not actually able to reliably delete posts from nostr. It will probably hide posts from Primal's so-called "advanced search" but a more honest "hide post from Primal users and remove Primal's infrastructure from efforts to publicly preserve it" button would be more embarrassing for a VC-funded corporatist nostr app to implement.

This means the "advanced search" will never be reliable for me, when it was one of the most essential features I paid over a million sats for, the day Primal "legends" launched. Despite me being a day-1 subscriber, Primal spent the first several months ignoring my posts on the topic and keeping me blocked from search functionality to make it harder for me to use this feature to help find evidence in disputes, as I paid to be able to do; and now they've added post deletions before fixing it, so whenever they finally do "fix" it, I will still need to use a different tool in order to find posts others deny making, since this one allows the posts to simply be gone.

Being a Primal "legend" also no longer means you'll stand by your past statements and face scrutiny for them. Of course, it never did, since tons of Primal "legends" are high-follower npubs who have me muted. But at least their "legend" subscriptions meant they contributed to fund the infrastructure to help Primal keep posts forever, with no deleting.

Now, it seems like I'm the only one who had that intention. The really influential "legends" never wanted a permanent record to show their statements could face scrutiny. People like nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx + nostr:npub1rtlqca8r6auyaw5n5h3l5422dm4sry5dzfee4696fqe8s6qgudks7djtfs + nostr:npub18ams6ewn5aj2n3wt2qawzglx9mr4nzksxhvrdc4gzrecw7n5tvjqctp424 and others saw me trying to hold them accountable. I'm guessing at least one of them wanted to be able to block me from using search functionality, to make it harder for me to find my past conversations with them, or their past posts on a given topic. They seem like people who would be happy I was blocked from that functionality for a long enough time to roll out post deletions and make sure the issue could never really be fixed for me. Or maybe every high-follower npub is one of those people, since none of them have really helped me with this by reposting my posts about it or anything.

In the mean time, did they fund other projects that help ensure a controllable record?

Did any of my fellow Primal "legends" give a million sats to some other project to run a nostr search engine with the same filtering options, and a permanent record of past posts? No. There is no other nostr search engine with the same filtering options and a permanent record of past posts. I can't fund such a project alone.

Do I have a tool I can use to easily make backups of a list of npubs and search their posts locally, with the same kind of filtering options, on my own system? Also no.

My best bet for reviewing my past interactions with an npub is now the list of all interactions in jumble.social which takes a while to dig through, but it's a welcome addition to nostr. Much better than nothing. Nostr.band is still my best bet for finding a given npub's past posts on a given topic.

Where are posts being stored forever right now? Hopefully more than enough relays, but apparently not Primal's. Maybe not enough overall.

My guess is, some posts will continue to end up being lost forever, or too obfuscated to find with whatever search tools I have available. Sometimes, these will probably be disputed posts that the original posters deny making, and I wouldn't be surprised if one of those posters turned out to be a so-called "Primal legend" - which isn't what those words were supposed to mean when I paid a million sats for permanent post archival and search access on a decentralized, censorship-resistant social media app.

Of course, the number 1 reason I paid for Primal "legends" was to make it more embarrassing for them to censor me. At the time, it seemed like they were making the app's cache connection much slower and less reliable for me than other users, and silently filtering my posts and/or notifications for other users. I assumed they would find it too embarrassing to keep being so blatant about this, and that has worked so far. They clearly still target me, perhaps as intensely as before, but not as blatantly.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Comprimido desodorante

No episódio sei-lá-qual de Aleixo FM Bruno Aleixo diz que os bêbados sempre têm as melhores idéias e daí conta uma idéia que ele teve quando estava bêbado: um comprimido que funciona como desodorante. Ao invés de passar o desodorante spray ou roll-on a pessoa pode só tomar o comprimido e pronto, é muito mais prático e no tempo de frio a pessoa pode vestir a roupa mais rápido, sem precisar ficar passando nada com o tronco todo nu. Quando o Busto lhe pergunta sobre a possibilidade de algo assim ser fabricado ele diz que não sabe, que não é cientista, só tem as idéias.

Essa passagem tão boba de um programa de humor esconde uma verdade sobre a doutrina cientística que permeia a sociedade. A doutrina segundo a qual é da ciência que vêm as inovações tecnológicas e de todos os tipos, e por isso é preciso que o Estado tire dinheiro das pessoas trabalhadoras e dê para os cientistas. Nesse ponto ninguém mais sabe o que é um cientista, foi-se toda a concretude, ficou só o nome: "cientista". Daí vão procurar o tal cientista, é um cara que se formou numa universidade e está fazendo um mestrado. Pronto, é só dar dinheiro pra esse cara e tudo vai ficar bom.

Tirando o problema da desconexão entre realidade e a tese, existe também, é claro, o problema da tese: não faz sentido, que um cientista fique procurando formas de realizar uma idéia, que não se sabe nem se é possível nem se é desejável, que ele ou outra pessoa tiveram, muito pelo contrário (mas não vou dizer aqui o que é que era para o cientista fazer porque isso seria contraditório e eu não acho que devam nem existir cientistas).

O que eu queria dizer mesmo era: todo o aparato científico da nossa sociedade, todos os departamentos, universidades, orçamentos e bolsas e revistas, tudo se resume a um monte de gente tentando descobrir como fazer um comprimido desodorante.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Zettelkasten

https://writingcooperative.com/zettelkasten-how-one-german-scholar-was-so-freakishly-productive-997e4e0ca125 (um artigo meio estúpido, mas útil).

Esta incrível técnica de salvar notas sem categorias, sem pastas, sem hierarquia predefinida, mas apenas fazendo referências de uma nota à outra e fazendo supostamente surgir uma ordem (ou heterarquia, disseram eles) a partir do caos parece ser o que faltava pra eu conseguir anotar meus pensamentos e idéias de maneira decente, veremos.

Ah, e vou usar esse tal neuron que também gera sites a partir das notas?, acho que vai ser bom.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Criteria for activating Drivechain on Bitcoin

Drivechain is, in essence, just a way to give Bitcoin users the option to deposit their coins in a hashrate escrow. If Bitcoin is about coin ownership, in theory there should be no objection from anyone on users having the option to do that: my keys, my coins etc. In other words: even if you think hashrate escrows are a terrible idea and miners will steal all coins from that, you shouldn't care about what other people do with their own money.

There are only two reasonable objections that could be raised by normal Bitcoin users against Drivechain:

1. Drivechain adds code complexity to bitcoind
2. Drivechain perverts miner incentives of the Bitcoin chain

If these two objections can be reasonably answered there remains no reason for not activating the Drivechain soft-fork.

1

To address 1 we can just take a look at the code once it's done (which I haven't) but from my understanding the extra validation steps needed for ensuring hashrate escrows work are very minimal and self-contained, they shouldn't affect anything else and the risks of introducing some catastrophic bug are roughly zero (or the same as the risks of any of the dozens of refactors that happen every week on Bitcoin Core).

For the BMM/BIP-301 part, again the surface is very small, but we arguably do not need that at all, since anyprevout (once that is merged) enables blind merge-mining in way that is probably better than BIP-301, and that soft-fork is also very simple, plus already loved and accepted by most of the Bitcoin community, implemented and reviewed on Bitcoin Inquisition and is live on the official Bitcoin Core signet.

2

To address 2 we must only point that BMM ensures that Bitcoin miners don't have to do any extra work to earn basically all the fees that would come from the sidechain, as competition for mining sidechain blocks would bid the fee paid to Bitcoin miners up to the maximum economical amount. It is irrelevant if there is MEV on the sidechain or not, everything that reaches the Bitcoin chain does that in form of fees paid in a single high-fee transaction paid to any Bitcoin miner, regardless of them knowing about the sidechain or not. Therefore, there are no centralization pressure or pervert mining incentives that can affect Bitcoin land.

Sometimes it's argued that Drivechain may facilitate the ocurrence of a transaction paying a fee so high it would create incentives for reorging the Bitcoin chain. There is no reason to believe Drivechain would make this more likely than an actual attack than anyone can already do today or, as has happened, some rich person typing numbers wrong on his wallet. In fact, if a drivechain is consistently paying high fees on its BMM transactions that is an incentive for Bitcoin miners to keep mining those transactions one after the other and not harm the users of sidechain by reorging Bitcoin.

Moreover, there are many factors that exist today that can be seen as centralization vectors for Bitcoin mining: arguably one of them is non-blind merge mining, of which we have a (very convoluted) example on the Stacks shitcoin, and introducing the possibility of blind merge-mining on Bitcoin would basically remove any reasonable argument for having such schemes, therefore reducing the centralizing factor of them.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

idea: Custom multi-use database app

Since 2015 I have this idea of making one app that could be repurposed into a full-fledged app for all kinds of uses, like powering small businesses accounts and so on. Hackable and open as an Excel file, but more efficient, without the hassle of making tables and also using ids and indexes under the hood so different kinds of things can be related together in various ways.

It is not a concrete thing, just a generic idea that has taken multiple forms along the years and may take others in the future. I've made quite a few attempts at implementing it, but never finished any.

I used to refer to it as a "multidimensional spreadsheet".

Can also be related to DabbleDB.

@ 4fe4a528:3ff6bf06

Bitcoin has emerged as a significant player in the financial markets, often drawing comparisons to traditional assets like stocks and gold. Historically, Bitcoin has shown a correlation with the S&P 500, reflecting the broader market trends. However, recent trends indicate a decoupling of Bitcoin from the S&P 500 and a growing correlation with gold. This essay explores the factors contributing to this shift and the implications for investors.

One of the primary reasons for Bitcoin's decoupling from the S&P 500 is the evolving perception of Bitcoin as a store of value rather than a speculative asset. As inflation concerns rise and central banks adopt expansive monetary policies, investors are increasingly looking for assets that can preserve value. Gold has long been regarded as a safe haven during economic uncertainty, and Bitcoin is increasingly being viewed in a similar light. This shift in perception has led to a growing correlation between Bitcoin and gold, as both assets are seen as hedges against inflation and currency devaluation.

Additionally, the increasing institutional adoption of Bitcoin has played a crucial role in its decoupling from traditional equities. Major corporations and institutional investors are now allocating a portion of their portfolios to Bitcoin, viewing it as a digital gold. This institutional interest has provided Bitcoin with a level of legitimacy and stability that was previously lacking, allowing it to operate independently of the stock market's fluctuations. As more institutional players enter the Bitcoin market, the asset's price movements may become less influenced by the broader economic conditions that affect the S&P 500.

Moreover, the unique characteristics of Bitcoin, such as its limited supply and decentralized nature, further differentiate it from traditional equities. Unlike stocks, which can be influenced by company performance and market sentiment, Bitcoin's value is driven by supply and demand dynamics within its own ecosystem. The halving events, which reduce the rate at which new Bitcoins are created, create scarcity and can lead to price appreciation independent of stock market trends.

In conclusion, the decoupling of Bitcoin from the S&P 500 and its coupling with gold can be attributed to a combination of factors, including a shift in perception towards Bitcoin as a store of value, increasing institutional adoption, and its unique characteristics as a digital asset. As investors seek alternatives to traditional assets in an uncertain economic landscape, Bitcoin's role as a hedge against inflation and currency devaluation is likely to strengthen. This evolving relationship between Bitcoin, gold, and traditional equities will continue to shape the investment landscape in the years to come.

Yesterday I fixed my neighbor's computer. He laughed at me for being into Bitcoin. We are still early.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

On HTLCs and arbiters

This is another attempt and conveying the same information that should be in Lightning and its fake HTLCs. It assumes you know everything about Lightning and will just highlight a point. This is also valid for PTLCs.

The protocol says HTLCs are trimmed (i.e., not actually added to the commitment transaction) when the cost of redeeming them in fees would be greater than their actual value.

Although this is often dismissed as a non-important fact (often people will say "it's trusted for small payments, no big deal"), but I think it is indeed very important for 3 reasons:

1. Lightning absolutely relies on HTLCs actually existing because the payment proof requires them. The entire security of each payment comes from the fact that the payer has a preimage that comes from the payee. Without that, the state of the payment becomes an unsolvable mystery. The inexistence of an HTLC breaks the atomicity between the payment going through and the payer receiving a proof.
2. Bitcoin fees are expected to grow with time (arguably the reason Lightning exists in the first place).
3. MPP makes payment sizes shrink, therefore more and more of Lightning payments are to be trimmed. As I write this, the mempool is clear and still payments smaller than about 5000sat are being trimmed. Two weeks ago the limit was at 18000sat, which is already below the minimum most MPP splitting algorithms will allow.

Therefore I think it is important that we come up with a different way of ensuring payment proofs are being passed around in the case HTLCs are trimmed.

Channel closures

Worse than not having HTLCs that can be redeemed is the fact that in the current Lightning implementations channels will be closed by the peer once an HTLC timeout is reached, either to fulfill an HTLC for which that peer has a preimage or to redeem back that expired HTLCs the other party hasn't fulfilled.

For the surprise of everybody, nodes will do this even when the HTLCs in question were trimmed and therefore cannot be redeemed at all. It's very important that nodes stop doing that, because it makes no economic sense at all.

However, that is not so simple, because once you decide you're not going to close the channel, what is the next step? Do you wait until the other peer tries to fulfill an expired HTLC and tell them you won't agree and that you must cancel that instead? That could work sometimes if they're honest (and they have no incentive to not be, in this case). What if they say they tried to fulfill it before but you were offline? Now you're confused, you don't know if you were offline or they were offline, or if they are trying to trick you. Then unsolvable issues start to emerge.

Arbiters

One simple idea is to use trusted arbiters for all trimmed HTLC issues.

This idea solves both the protocol issue of getting the preimage to the payer once it is released by the payee -- and what to do with the channels once a trimmed HTLC expires.

A simple design would be to have each node hardcode a set of trusted other nodes that can serve as arbiters. Once a channel is opened between two nodes they choose one node from both lists to serve as their mutual arbiter for that channel.

Then whenever one node tries to fulfill an HTLC but the other peer is unresponsive, they can send the preimage to the arbiter instead. The arbiter will then try to contact the unresponsive peer. If it succeeds, then done, the HTLC was fulfilled offchain. If it fails then it can keep trying until the HTLC timeout. And then if the other node comes back later they can eat the loss. The arbiter will ensure they know they are the ones who must eat the loss in this case. If they don't agree to eat the loss, the first peer may then close the channel and blacklist the other peer. If the other peer believes that both the first peer and the arbiter are dishonest they can remove that arbiter from their list of trusted arbiters.

The same happens in the opposite case: if a peer doesn't get a preimage they can notify the arbiter they hadn't received anything. The arbiter may try to ask the other peer for the preimage and, if that fails, settle the dispute for the side of that first peer, which can proceed to fail the HTLC is has with someone else on that route.

@ 57d56d16:458edffd

Kraken

https://www.kraken.com/learn/satoshi-to-usd-converter

CoinCodex

https://coincodex.com/convert/satoshi-sats/usd/1000000/

Coin Guides

https://coinguides.org/satoshi-usd-converter/

BitcoinMagazine

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/satoshi-to-usd-calculator

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/968362

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

"Você só aprendeu mesmo uma coisa quando consegue explicar para os outros"

Mentira. Tá certo que existe um ponto em que você acha que sabe algo mas não consegue explicar, mas não necessariamente isso significa não saber. Conseguir explicar não depende de saber, mas de verbalizar. Podemos saber muitas coisas sem as conseguir verbalizar. Aliás, para a maior parte das experiências humanas verbalizar é que é a parte difícil. Por último, é importante dizer que a verbalização é uma abstração e portanto quando alguém tenta explicar algo e se força a fazer uma abstração está arriscando substituir a experiência concreta ou mesmo o conhecimento difuso de algo por aquela abstração e com isso ficar mais burro -- me parece que esse é risco é maior quanto mais prematura for a tentativa de explicação e quando mais sucesso a abstração improvisada fizer.

@ 318ebaba:9a262eae

h1

h2

| Head | Head | Head | Head | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Data | Data | Data | Data | | Data | Data | Data | Data |

Speek your mind Ggggh

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Multi-service Graph Reputation protocol

The problem

1. Users inside centralized services need to know reputations of other users they're interacting with;
2. Building reputation with ratings imposes a big burden on the user and still accomplishes nothing, can be faked, no one cares about these ratings etc.

The ideal solution

Subjective reputation: reputation based on how you rated that person previously, and how other people you trust rated that person, and how other people trusted by people you trust rated that person and so on, in a web-of-trust that actually can give you some insight on the trustworthiness of someone you never met or interacted with.

The problem with the ideal solution

1. Most of the times the service that wants to implement this is not as big as Facebook, so it won't have enough people in it for such graphs of reputation to be constructed.
2. It is not trivial to build.

My proposed solution:

I've drafted a protocol for an open system based on services publishing their internal reputation records and indexers using these to build graphs, and then serving the graphs back to the services so they can show them to users when it is needed (as HTTP APIs that can be called directly from the user client app or browser).

Crucially, these indexers will gather data from multiple services and cross-link users from these services so the graph is better.

https://github.com/fiatjaf/multi-service-reputation-rfc

The first and single actionable and useful feedback I got, from @bootstrapbandit was that services shouldn't share email addresses in plain text (email addresses and other external relationships users of a service may have are necessary to establish links from users accross services), but I think it is ok if services publish hashes of these email addresses instead. At some point I will update the spec draft and that may have been before the time you're reading this.

Another issue is that services may lie about their reputation records and that will hurt other services and users in these other services that are relying on that data. Maybe indexers will have to do some investigative job here to assert service honesty. Or maybe this entire protocol is just failed and we will actually need a system in which users themselves will publish their own records.

See also

• P2P reputation thing
• idea: Graph subjective reputation as a service
• https://github.com/jangerritharms/reputation_systems

@ 5df413d4:2add4f5b

*Short photo-stories of the hidden, hard to find, obscure, and off the beaten track. *

Come now, take a walk with me…

The Traveller 01: Ku/苦 Bar

Find a dingy, nondescript alley in a suspiciously quiet corner of Bangkok’s Chinatown at night. Walk down it. Pass the small prayer shrine that houses the angels who look over these particular buildings and approach an old wooden door. You were told that there is a bar here, as to yet nothing suggests that this is so…

Wait! A closer inspection reveals a simple bronze plaque, out of place for its polish and tended upkeep, “cocktails 3rd floor.” Up the stairs then! The landing on floor 3 presents a white sign with the Chinese character for bitter, ku/苦, and a red arrow pointing right.

Pass through the threshold, enter a new space. To your right, a large expanse of barren concrete, an empty “room.” Tripods for…some kind of filming? A man-sized, locked container. Yet, you did not come here to ask questions, such things are none of your business!

And to your left, you find the golden door. Approach. Enter. Be greeted. You have done well! You have found it. 苦 Bar. You are among friends now. Inside exudes deep weirdness - in the etymological sense - the bending of destinies, control of the fates. And for the patrons, a quiet yet social place, a sensual yet sacred space.

Ethereal sounds, like forlorn whale songs fill the air, a strange music for an even stranger magic. But, Taste! Taste is the order of the day! Fragrant, Bizarre, Obscure, Dripping and Arcane. Here you find a most unique use flavor, flavors myriad and manifold, flavors beyond name. Buddha’s hand, burnt cedar charcoal, ylang ylang, strawberry leaf, maybe wild roots brought in by some friendly passerby, and many, many other things. So, Taste! The drinks here, libations even, are not so much to be liked or disliked, rather, the are liquid context, experience to be embraced with a curious mind and soul freed from judgment.

And In the inner room, one may find another set of stairs. Down this time. Leading to the second place - KANGKAO. A natural wine bar, or so they say. Cozy, botanical, industrial, enclosed. The kind of private setting where you might overhear Bangkok’s resident “State Department,” “UN,” and “NGO” types chatting auspiciously in both Mandarin and English with their Mainland Chinese counterparts. But don’t look hard or listen too long! Surely, there’s no reason to be rude… Relax, relax, you are amongst friends now.

**苦 Bar. Bangkok, circa 2020. There are secrets to be found. Go there. **

Plebchain #Bitcoin #NostrArt #ArtOnNostr #Writestr #Createstr #NostrLove #Travel #Photography #Art #Story #Storytelling #Nostr #Zap #Zaps #Bangkok #Thailand #Siamstr

@ 5df413d4:2add4f5b

𝗦𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗲: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗻𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝗹 𝗟𝗮𝘄𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗟𝗶𝗳𝗲, 𝗚𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗗𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵 𝗶𝗻 𝗢𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗺𝘀, 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝘆 𝗚𝗲𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗿𝗲𝘆 𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁

This book is a wonderfully cross-disciplinary exercise in fractal discovery and insight onto our world - initially the result of the author's pondering his own mortality which led to a study of longevity across organisms, and then expanded to social structures like cities and companies.

In the book, “scale" itself, conceptually, is defined as "how systems respond to changes in size." Does doubling an animal's dimensions increase its relative strength? Does doubling a city's size double it's relative rate of crime? These 2 questions introduce the key distinctions between sublinear scaling (the larger the thing, the relatively less of some characteristic it has) and superlinear scaling (the larger the thing, the relatively more of some characteristic it has), respectively.

Organisms, we discover, scale sublinearally - larger animals are more efficient requiring less energy per unit of weight, but similarly they become, relatively structurally weaker as size increases - this is why Godzilla cannot exist, he would collapse under his own weight! Further, biological metabolic rates scale sublinearlly to size, so as the organism grows, energy demands of cellular maintenance outstrips supply leading to cessation of growth and eventual death (we also find companies face a similar fate, with "costs" replacing cellular maintenance).

Cities, however, are more interesting. In terms of infrastructure they scale like organisms (sublinearlly), but in terms of emergent human outputs, they scale superlinearlly - the larger the city, the relatively more patents, companies, GDP, crime, and disease it will host. For cities, superlinear scaling of those emergent human properties, or "social metabolism" results in the creation of social capital increasingly outpacing the demands of maintenance (those being largely infrastructural) suggesting accelerating, unbounded, open-ended growth.

With regard to growth, superlinearity results in exponential growth, which the author approaches as a terrifying and dark mathematical horror. He illustrates this with what I found to be the book's most illuminating vignette…

SCENARIO: It is 11:00. A petri dish 🧫 contains a single bacteria🦠 cell. This bacteria will double every minute. The petri dish will be completely full in 1 hour. At what time is the petri dish 🧫 50% full?

If you said anything other than 11:59, you've missed the key implication of exponential growth. Exponential growth is slowly, then all at once. But let’s double down on this to really underscore that point - at what time does the petri dish in the aforementioned scenarios become just 1% full? The answer is somewhere between 11:53 and 11:54. Reflect on that.

What might this kind of acceleration in growth mean for technological advancement? For human population and biosphere carrying capacity? For resource consumption? And for how all of these things interrelate and impact each other? Quite thankfully, the book rejects Malthusianism. While still raising legitimate questions about the math of an exponentially expanding Earthbound civilization's sustainability, the author rightfully points to the imperative to harness nuclear and solar energy at-scale as our best hopes to sustain requirements both continuous population and technological acceleration.

Finally, the examination of exponentiality brings us to the deepest conundrum identified in the book - the finite time singularity - where unbounded growth cannot sustain without either (1) infinite energy or (2) paradigm shift "reset" that temporarily staves off system collapse. But wait! There's more! The mathematics of superlinearity suggest that, in absence of infinite energy, the chain of paradigm shift resets are themselves required to happen at an ever faster and faster pace, or at shorter and shorter intervals.

So, if we are confined to Earth's closed system, the need for continuous and unending paradigm shift innovations at ever-shorter intervals eventually manifests a meta-finite time singularity, the essential singularity which is perhaps, inescapable. The core insight to be extrapolated here is that if we are to overcome the singularity trap, we must drive real, constant step-function innovation and that this innovation must, almost necessarily, allow us to progressively harness orders of magnitude more energy than today - think Dyson Spheres, interstellar / intergalactic travel, quasar bitcoin mining, and so on.

CONCLUSION: Dense yet whimsical, lengthy yet very fun. Questing and questioning cover to cover. Great for anyone interested in inter-disciplinarianism and fractal thinking (the long practice of which I find lends to heightened levels of predictive intuition) (4.5/5☢️)

https://www.amazon.com/Scale-Universal-Growth-Organisms-Companies/dp/014311090X

Bitcoin #Plebchain #Coffeechain #Books #Bookstr #Nostr #NostrLove #GrowNostr #Writestr #Createstr

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Splitpages

The simplest possible service: it splitted PDF pages in half.

Created specially to solve the problem of those scanned books that come with two pages side-by-side as if they were a single page and are much harder to read on Kindle because of that.

It required me to learn about Heroku Buildpacks though, and fork or contribute to a Heroku Buildpack that embedded a mupdf binary.

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/splitpages
• https://splitpages.herokuapp.com/

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Idéia de um sistema jurídico centralizado, mas com um pouco de lógica

um processo, é, essencialmente, imagino eu na minha ingenuidade leiga, um apelo que se faz ao juiz para que este reconheça certos fatos como probantes de um certo fenômeno tipificado por uma certa lei.

imagino então o seguinte:

uma petição não é mais um enorme documento escrito numa linguagem nojenta com referências a leis e a evidências factuais espalhadas segundo a (in) capacidade ensaística do advogado, mas apenas um esquema lógico - talvez até um diagrama desenhado (ou talvez quem sabe uma série de instruções compreensíveis por um computador?) - mostrando a ligação entre a lei e os fatos e os pedidos, por exemplo:

1. a lei tal diz que ninguém pode vender
2. fulano vendeu cigarros
3. é prova de que fulano vendeu cigarros ia foto tirada na rua tal no dia tal que mostra fulano vendendo cigarros
4. a mesma lei pede que fulano pague uma multa

este exemplo está ainda muito verborrágico, mas é só um exemplo simples. coisas mais complicadas precisariam de outras formas de expressão caso queiramos evitar as longas dissertações jurídicas em voga.

a idéia é que o esquema acima vale por si. um proto-juiz pode julgá-lo como válido ou inválido apenas pela sua lógica interna.

a outra parte do julgamento seria a ligação desse esquema com a realidade externa: anexados à petição viriam as evidências. no caso, anexada ao ponto 3 viria uma foto do fulano. ao ponto 1 também precisa ser anexado o texto da lei referida, mas isto pode ser feito automaticamente pelo número da lei.

uma vez que tenhamos um esquema lógico válido um outro proto-juiz, ou vários outros, pode julgar individualmente cada evidência: ver se o texto da lei confere com a interpretação feita no ponto 1, e se a foto anexada ao ponto 3 é mesmo a foto do réu vendendo cigarro e não a de um urso comendo laranjas.

cada um desses julgamentos pode ser feito sem que o proto-juiz tenha conhecimento do resto das coisas do processo: o primeiro proto-juiz não precisa ver a foto ou a lei, o segundo não precisa ver o esquema lógico ou a foto, o terceiro não precisa ver a lei nem o esquema lógico, e mesmo assim teríamos um julgamento de procedência ou não da petição ao final, o mais impessoal e provavelmente o mais justo possível.

a defesa consistiria em apontar erros no esquema lógico ou falhas no nexo entre a realidade é o esquema. por exemplo:

1. uma foto assim não é uma prova de que fulano vendeu, ele podia estar só passando lá perto.
2. ele estava de fato só passando lá perto. do que é prova este documento mostrando seu comparecimento a uma aula do curso de direito da UFMG no mesmo horário.

---

perdoem-me se estiver falando besteira, mas são 5h e estou ainda dormindo. obviamente há vários pontos problemáticos aí, e quero entendê-los, mas a forma geral me parece bem razoável.

o que descrevi acima é uma proposta, digamos, de sistema jurídico que não se diferencia em nada do nosso sistema jurídico atual, exceto na forma (não no sentido escolástico). é também uma tentativa de compreender sua essência.

as vantagens desse formato ao atual são muitas:

• menos papel, coisas pra ler, repetição infinita de citações legais e longuíssimas dissertações escritas por advogados analfabetos que destroem a língua e a inteligência de todos
• diminuição drástica do tempo gasto por cada juiz em cada processo
• diminuição do poder de cada juiz (se cada ato de julgamento humano necessário em cada processo pode ser feito por qualquer juiz, sem conhecimento dos outros aspectos do mesmo processo, tudo é muito mais rápido, e cada julgamento desses pode ser feito por vários juízes diferentes, escolhidos aleatoriamente)
• diminuição da pomposidade de casa juiz: com menos poder e obrigações maus simples, um juiz não precisa ser mais uma pessoa especial que ganha milhões, pode ser uma pessoa comum, um proto-juiz, ganhando menos (o que possibilitaria até ter mais desses e aumentar a confiabilidade de cada julgamento)
• os juízes podem trabalhar da casa deles e a qualquer momento
• passa a ter sentido a existência de um sistema digital de processos (porque é ridículo que o sistema digital atual seja só uma forma de passar documentos do Word de um lado para o outro)
• o fim das audiências de conciliação, que são uma monstruosidade criada apenas pela necessidade de diminuir a quantidade de processos em tramitação e acabam retirandobo sentido da justiça (as partes são levemente pressionadas a ignorar a validade ou não das suas posições e fazer um acordo, sob pena de o juiz ficar com raiva delas depois)

milhares de precauções devem ser tomadas caso um sistema desses vá ser implantado (ahahah), talvez manter uma forma de julgamento tradicional, de corpo presente e com um juiz ou júri que tem conhecimento de toda situação, mas apenas para processos que chegarem até certo ponto, e assim por diante.

Ver também

• P2P reputation thing para um fundamento de um sistema jurídico anárquico.

@ 4fe14ef2:f51992ec

Hey stackers,

Leave a comment below to share your hustles and wins. Let us know what you've sold this week. Have you sold it for sats or zaps? It doesn't matter how big or small your item is, solid or digital, product or service.

Just share below what you’ve listed, swapped, and sold. Let everyone rave on your latest #deals!

New to ~AGORA? Dive into the marketplace and turn your dusty gears into shiny BTC!

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/968324

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Why I don't like NIP-26 as a solution for key management

NIP-26 was created out of the needs of the Nostr integration at https://minds.com/. They wanted Minds users to be able to associate their "custodial" Nostr key with an external self-owned key. NIP-26 looked like a nice fit for the job, because it would allow supporting clients to associate the two identities statelessly (i.e. by just seeing one event published by Minds but with a delegation tag on it the client would be able to associate that with the self-owned external key without anything else[^1]).

The big selling point of NIP-26 (to me) was that it was fully optional. Clients were free to not implement it and they would not suffer much. They would just see "bob@minds.com" published this, and "bob-self-owned" published that. They would probably know intuitively that these two were the same person, or not, but it wouldn't be an issue. Both would still be identified as Bob and have a picture, a history and so on. Moreover, this wasn't expected to happen a lot, it would be mostly for the small intersection of people that wanted to have their own keys and also happened to be using one of these "custodial Nostr" platforms like Minds.

At some point, though, NIP-26 started to be seen as the solution for key management on Nostr. The idea is that someone will generate a very safe key on a hardware device and guard it as their most precious treasure without it ever touching the internet, and use it just to sign delegation tags. Then use multiple of these delegation tags, one for each different Nostr app, and maybe rotate them every month or so, details are unclear.

This breaks the previous expectations I had for NIP-26 entirely, as now these keys become faceless entities that can't be associated with anything except their "master" key (the one that is in cold storage). So in a world in which most Nostr users are using NIP-26 for everything, clients that do not implement NIP-26 become completely useless, as all they will see is a constant stream of random keys. They won't be able to follow anyone or interact with anyone, as these keys will not identify any concrete person on their back, they will vanish all the time and new keys will show up and the world will be chaotic. So now every client must implement NIP-26 to become usable at all, it is not optional anymore.

You may argue that making NIP-26 a de facto mandatory NIP isn't a bad thing and is worth the cost, but I think it breaks a lot of the simplicity of the protocol. It would probably be worth the cost if we knew NIP-26 was an actual complete solution, but it definitely is not, it is partial, and not the most elegant thing in the world. I think key management can be solved in multiple different ways that can all work together or not, but most importantly they can all remain optional.

More thoughts on these multiple ways can be found at Thoughts on Nostr key management.

If I am wrong about all this and we really come to the conclusion that we need a de facto mandatory key delegation method for Nostr, so be it -- but in that case, considering that we will break backwards-compatibility anyway, I think there might be a better design than NIP-26, more optimized and easier to implement, I don't know how exactly. But I really think we shouldn't rush that.

[^1]: as opposed to other suggestions that would also work, but that would require dealing with multiple events -- for example, the external user could publish a new replaceable event -- or use kind:0 -- to say they wanted to grandfather the Minds key into their umbrella, while the Minds key would also need to signal its acceptance of that. This also had the problem of requiring changes every time a new replaceable event of such kind was found. Although I am unsure now, at the time me and William agreed this was worse than NIP-26 with the delegation tag.

@ fd78c37f:a0ec0833

Author: Taryn Christiansen

Introduction:

The future doesn’t look good for America. The economy is down, politics is in shambles, and, perhaps most devastating, the culture is split. The only agreement is that change is needed.

This article aims to pave a road forward. Innovation drives the economy, and great innovations change and improve daily life. Joint efforts between public institutions and private enterprise, along with the energy and momentum generated by efficient and productive programs, can be orchestrated to cultivate national pride. But those programs need to have a noble purpose. Devotion toward technologies with the potential to transform and improve people’s lives should be the goal. Due to recent advancements in biotechnology, efforts should be directed there.

Section 1 dives into the cultural divide. Section 2 outlines a way forward by examining the innovative process and how it can be implemented. Section 3 looks at the specifics of that implementation. Section 4 consists of concluding remarks about the future.

Section 1: A Divided Country

There are two competing visions dividing America. The Woke vision asserts that the United States was, and is, a fundamentally oppressive regime. The idea of a universal reason, the notion that human beings can attain progress in perpetuity through liberal democracy, science, and capitalism, is seen as nothing more than an ideological weapon used to coerce people into acquiescing to a hierarchy that benefits the few while exploiting the many – and so, out of principles of fairness and equity, the country has to be dismantled.

The Trumpian vision attempts to reaffirm American values. It aims to reestablish American exceptionalism and reinvigorate the American vision of prosperity and economic growth. It seeks to rekindle a sense of American greatness. But it does so cheaply. It is, in essence, the dying breath of a consumer culture fighting its own death. Like the first vision, it too rejects reason and discussion and the procedural processes necessary for liberal democracy. It perceives power as the proper political tool for achieving its objectives. It is not an attempt to restore the values that once characterized the country; it breaks from the American tradition in a radical direction toward a politics of entertainment.

Long ago, the country believed that the human capacity for reason – the ability to see the world clearly under the light of truth, unencumbered by bias or prejudice, free from instinct and emotion – was the torch that carries posterity forward. The founders believed the Bill of Rights and The Constitution enshrined eternal truths that reason alone made accessible. John Locke, an influential figure for the founders, stated that the primary purpose of government is to protect individuals' natural rights. We are all free and have the right to live the life we wish to live. But government is needed to ensure others do not interfere with those rights. What binds us is not a religion or creed but the mutual opportunity for each individual to form their own beliefs, to live out their own conceptions of the good. While fundamental, we will see that it is not enough. A collective purpose is necessary.

Now, the Woke vision sees this older view as wholly mythological – and for good reason. For example, there was a time when black people did not know they were descendants from Africa or the Caribbean and not naturally disposed slaves. People’s various histories and genealogies were stripped away, creating a space by which their humanity could be taken and they could be exploited. They were purposefully and intentionally cast into the shadows of history, and the culpable thought themselves perfectly justified. There was a time when moral and historical narratives depicting a grand destiny of white people conquering the West were considered to be true and that the genocide of Native peoples was not only acceptable but in fact necessary, and therefore legitimate. It has been a titanic and creative effort by great individuals and collective coalitions to get America to become self-conscious of its heinous blunders. Some of the best art and ideas of the twentieth century were born out of those efforts. The beginnings of liberation are born out of the ability to imagine a horizon beyond one’s current circumstances. And that ability for many people has been forged by courageous and heroic predecessors. But the spirit of those movements and their development into the Woke vision is a sign that it has lost its creative potential.

The Woke vision asserts that values like reason and rights are the remains of a colonial legacy. However, by negating them and failing to replace them with new values, deconstructive forces are all that remain. The country has historically failed (as well as succeeded) in living up to what reason and rights demand. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t the proper path forward. The assumption here is that they are, and they have to be creatively reinterpreted.

And the Trumpian vision fails as well. But it is worse because it never did, nor will it ever have any real creative potential. It is highly destructive. We can think about this in the following way.

The nineteenth-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche believed a single, fundamental drive governs all of organic life: the will to power. Life, in a constant struggle, perpetually strives to expand and overcome itself repeatedly. From the brute force of two animals fighting for scarce resources to the highest manifestation of human potential, such as moral systems and inspiring artwork, all are produced from the same vital energy and source: the effort to attain power and mastery over a chaotic world.

As society develops and moves away from a state of nature, the will to power transfigures itself through a sublimative process that demands the individual to repress particular instincts and act according to the strictures and constraints formulated and instituted by the collective. As Freud observed in his Civilization and Its Discontents, the push and pull between primitive and ancient instincts and civilization’s repression of them create inextricable tensions. The Yale historian Marci Shore makes an incisive observation of Trump as a symbolic figure using this context and its language: he is the release and outpouring of those repressed instincts – the license to overthrow the restraints placed on the individual. Trump is the embodiment of brute force, a blind ego striving to assert itself over the world, adopting whatever means are available to achieve its aim. He is an eruption of the repressed Hobbesian state of nature, which expresses “a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceaseth only in death.” This is a destructive instinct, and we would be wise not to find out what follows.

Section 2: Unity Through Innovation

So, what is the solution? The country needs a ballast point. It needs national pride. Without a shared sense of identity and purpose, a sense of belonging to a larger community bound by a set of values, the country will continue to unravel. Regardless of the philosophical-level disputes and disagreements on fundamental principles that divide left from right, a collective identity needs to emerge. This article argues that, like the founders, we should turn to our institutions. We should look at how our institutions can facilitate needs by enabling individuals with the creative energy and tenacity to bring about new technologies and innovations that will transform the economy and standards of living. But not just new gadgets and services like iPhones and DoorDash but new technologies with the potential to enable people to live more fulfillingly and purposefully. New vaccines to eliminate unruly diseases, new therapies to mitigate the effects of debilitating illnesses, novel pharmaceuticals with competitive prices and cheaper means of production, and innovative mechanisms to empower people with disabilities to live as they are only able to imagine should play a major part in the mission that characterizes the country. That is a purpose to be proud of. Institutions like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) should act as bows, shooting forward the individuals and companies striving to reach that mark.

There’s a lot of talk about government efficiency and the need to be more fiscally responsible. Those are good things. But efficiency needs to have a purpose. There must be a goal that efficiency works to achieve. We should not wish to live without regulatory institutions. For example, people like Balaji Srinivasan are wrong to think we’re better off in an FDA-free society. The goal should be to harness those institutions, conduct more research and development, and utilize resources more effectively to achieve the results we want as a country. Just as we should strive to continue and expand our role in the AI race, we should also aim to maintain and further develop our leadership in biotech.

But we need a new of what the historian Gary Gerstle calls political order to achieve this. Political orders are “a vision of the good life that sells important constituencies on the virtues of a way of doing politics. The New Deal order and the Neoliberal order—which are, in a sense, the reverse of each other—illustrate this.”

It is common in America to see the world through the lenses of The New Deal and Neoliberal political orders for resolving issues in the country. The latter is to let the market decide, and the former is to create government programs to achieve some conception of the good. The former is, more or less, a libertarian solution and was very popular during the 1980s. The latter took form in what is known as progressivism, and it found popular expression during the 1930s and 1940s in FDR’s New Deal programs. The basic distinction separating these two political orders is between the right and the good.

Rights are the norms of obligations and constraints necessary for us all to coexist while simultaneously maintaining what many believe is the principal value of liberal democracy: freedom and liberty (these terms will be used interchangeably). Rights are not in the business of prescribing definite ways of life or enforcing particular ends for people to pursue. Rights preserve the conditions for freedom, and people are free to choose what to do with that freedom insofar as their decisions do not infringe on another person’s right to do so as well. Freedom, then, is the absence of coercion. By having that freedom, each is allowed to exercise their powers and capabilities according to their own discretion.

In the American context, by virtue of being a human being, we are said to be endowed with inalienable rights. And those rights both protect each individual from external coercion and provide a license for certain kinds of action. I am protected from being forced to say certain opinions and adopt particular beliefs. And I have the license to speak my own opinions, expound my own beliefs, and give voice to my own personal conscience. I am protected from forced association with people whom I do not wish to associate with, from the coercion to vote for a particular candidate, from being disallowed to protest, and from adopting ends I do not agree with or value. And, of course, that means I have a license to associate with whom I wish, vote for whoever I like, protest legislation I dislike, and adopt the ends I truly value. We are all free, and we all are obligated and constrained to preserve the conditions for us all to exercise that freedom mutually.

But if that is what rights are, how does a society ensure a distribution of goods and services for everyone to enjoy and partake in? After all, a right to free speech isn’t going to ensure anyone that they will have meals for nourishment, clothing for warmth, shelter from harsh conditions. The response comes from Adam Smith: economic freedom. Everyone has a natural propensity to “truck, barter, and trade” in order to improve their condition. And by the very nature of voluntary exchange, each party benefits. By an individual living his life according to his own interests, values, and ends, he “promote(s) an end which has no part of his own intention.” The invisible hand of the market promotes the ends held by other individuals, allowing everyone to live as they see fit and to coexist harmoniously with the community. By having the political freedom of rights and the economic freedom to exchange, people cooperate spontaneously and organically. That is the spirit of the neoliberal political order.

A conception of the good is different, and its meaning can be disclosed through the great liberal philosopher Voltaire’s likely apocryphal statement, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” What Voltaire disagrees with is not someone’s right to speak but of what they are saying, and we can imagine the person to be voicing their conception of the good, their values and ends that they believe characterize the good life, the life we ought to live, and Voltaire disapproves of it. The good is concerned with the proper ends that should be prioritized in order to flourish. Socrates famously declared the unexamined life is not worth living. Well, he’s espousing a conception of the good. It is a life of the intellect, a life of rational reflection and deliberation aimed toward self-knowledge. Are one’s beliefs consistent? Does one’s actions contradict what one truly believes? Is one aware of what one truly believes? And does one have the desire to discover the truth? These are Socratic questions, and a life devoted to answering them is a Socratic one.

Now, if there is a universal conception of the good life, if human beings have particular ends that define what it means to be a human being, and if failing to fulfill those ends implies a failure to realize one’s human potential for flourishing, then rights do not secure such outcomes. Rights only ensure individuals are free to pursue such ends if they wish. And given the contingency of life, that is to say that, because people are born into conditions they did not choose but were instead thrown into them, and because some individuals are born into wealth and advantage and some are born into poverty and disadvantage, some have the privilege to achieve the ends characterizing a good life and some do not. And that is unfair. And so, government programs, central planning, and economic stewardship can be used to enable and empower the underprivileged to achieve what others are better positioned to do. This is the spirit of the New Deal political order.

The mistake is to think the appropriate social, cultural, and political issues can be resolved by only one of these political orders. It is not one or the other. Both of these political orders capture powerful intuitions about how society should best function and operate, and there should be a synthesis between them.

Now, it is common knowledge that innovation drives economic growth. As capital becomes more efficient and fewer inputs are required to produce more outputs, the economy expands. In Matt Ridely’s book, Innovation: How It Works, he demonstrates beautifully the often messy and non-rational character of the innovative process.

At the heart of that process, he says, is serendipity. As frustrating as it is to human nature, the innovative process cannot be intelligently designed into a precise instrument capable of reproducing all the wonderful fruits that result from it. There is something inherently unpredictable about it, something unruly. It is organic and spontaneous. It demands the determination of individuals willing to fail over and over again until enough experience, insight, and gradual, often painstaking, progress results in the desired effects.

Ridley observes that so many of these innovations require the rich air of freedom to stimulate the instinct for exploration and discovery. Freedom nourishes and sustains that instinct, allowing it to grow and flourish. People must be free from unnecessary regulations and constraints to focus their creative energy on projects that demand endless hours of trying countless imaginative possibilities – and failing until something works. There’s always a tremendous amount of risk-taking. People need to be free to take them.

People also need to be free to collaborate with others who are also devoted to discovering a solution to seemingly intractable problems. The division of labor, where individuals specialize in a particular task and coordinate with others who do the same to maximize efficiency and productivity, is essential to the process. There’s a reason, as Ridley notes, that many innovations take place in cities, where individuals freely associate and influence one another.

Freedom also allows room for mistakes. Ridley documents many cases where innovation is the result of a mistake, not an intentional plan of action. Innovations can often begin with an intention that has nothing to do with the innovation itself. A deliberate decision leading to a breakthrough discovery can be entirely unrelated, even frivolous. Take the example of Louie Pasteur, one of the key discoverers of germ theory. He was inoculating chickens with cholera from an infected chicken broth when he left for vacation, leaving his assistant, Charles Chamberland, to continue the experiments. Charles, for whatever reason (perhaps he thought the whole idea was crazy), forgot about his responsibility and went on vacation. When both returned, they injected a chicken with the stale broth.

It made the chicken sick but did not kill it. And so he injected the same chicken with a much more virulent cholera strain that typically and easily killed chickens – and it failed. The chicken lived. Vaccines, an innovation on inoculation, emerged. Funny enough, a similar incident occurred with Alexander Fleming. Known for being sloppy, Fleming carelessly left out a culture plate of staphylococcus and took off for vacation for a couple of weeks. When he returned, he discovered a mold had grown that was resistant to the bacteria.

Penicillin was soon developed. All this is to say that, along with Ridley, “Innovation is the child of freedom and the parent of prosperity.”

But government has also been integral to many inventions and innovations that would later revolutionize the economy and, therefore, daily life itself. Mariana Mazzucato’s book The Entrepreneurial State makes a persuasive case for the significance of public institutions in the innovative process. When the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), initially known as ARPA until 1972, was established in 1958 in response to the launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik in 1957, it aimed to promote ‘blue-sky thinking’ for technological initiatives. Meaning that the goal was to invest in riskier research that potentially would yield long-term gains despite not having any immediate or obvious returns on investment. DARPA pursued “ideas that went beyond the horizon in that they may not produce results for ten or 20 years.”

What makes DARPA a successful agency is its decentralized model. The philosophy is: "Find brilliant people. Give them resources. Get out of their way." DARPA hires talented and competent experts to run programs autonomously, providing them the discretion to pursue projects highlighted by their expertise, which are often considered risky. This model enables experts to connect with other researchers, facilitating collaboration and the creation of highly efficient and productive divisions of labor. And again, these are projects that likely wouldn’t find market interest because of their niche or unexplored nature. There isn’t an immediate and conspicuous payoff. And so the connected but separate-from-government model of DARPA provides scientists with a wide degree of latitude, and that freedom allows them to engage in the innovative process of trial and error and risk-taking.

Technologies developed by DARPA included ARPANET, the precursor to the internet; early GPS technology; the beginnings of autonomous vehicles; speech recognition; personal computing; and early AI.

Other agencies have also been foundational in technological advancements (for example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) provided critical grants to facilitate what would become Google’s search engine algorithm). But the DARPA model is what is most interesting here.

If government programs like DARPA can be leveraged to spur more innovation, particularly in areas such as biotech, and these innovations can drive economic growth by being put into the hands of entrepreneurs, investors, and small, medium, and large firms, then this demands national effort and attention. If successful, it is a project worthy of national pride.

So, government programs and spending, if properly structured, can yield high returns on investment if people are given the freedom to explore, try things out, and make the mistakes necessary for the innovative process to be carried through. And we can look to a recent example where the absence of the efforts potentially could have been disastrous. The story of the COVID-19 vaccines is one where the lack of zeal for exploration and breakthrough discoveries could have hindered the development of mRNA research, leaving it underdeveloped when it was needed at a critical moment.

Section 3: Covid-19, The Imperative For Research and Development, and The Institutional Framework

To start, Peter Theil is popular for remarking that innovation in many industries has grown stagnant. Energy, manufacturing, and transportation, for example, haven’t seen much progress in the past half-century.

Computation, on the other hand, has surpassed the imagination. The innovations have not been in atoms but in bits. As Theil puts it, “We wanted flying cars; instead we got 140 characters.” And Ridley writes, “If cars had improved as fast as computers since 1982, they would get nearly four million miles per gallon, so they could go to the moon and back a hundred times on a single tank of fuel.” Unfortunately, we still have to visit the gas station and pay those exorbitant prices.

But biotech has gained momentum in the past decade. The COVID vaccines are an extraordinary example of this. But they wouldn’t have been ready to come to market without the previous three decades of research and development invested in them. And that research and development almost didn’t happen because people lacked the vision and the willingness to embrace the risk that great technological discoveries, inventions, and innovations always require.

Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s book Abundance tells this story very well. Katalin Kariko, one of the discoverers of mRNA’s therapeutic capabilities, had enormous difficulty securing funding for her research as an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Those with power thought it too risky, that it didn’t show enough promise, and allocated most resources to DNA research at the time, believing it to be the more auspicious investment. Nevertheless, as so many pioneering figures have done before her, Kariko maintained her vision of unlocking mRNA’s potential for saving lives.

By sheer luck, by the fortune contained in everyday decisions that would lead to saving millions of lives several decades later, Kariko met a colleague who was researching HIV vaccines at the time, Drew Weissman, at a Xerox machine in 1997. He would be pivotal in her research. She is a biochemist, and he, an immunologist. Each provided the knowledge and expertise the other was lacking, and that was essential to their respective goals. Through the serendipity of deciding to walk to a different department to make copies at the time and place she did, Kariko encountered an opportunity to make strides in her research.

Together, however, the two still managed to collect barely enough funding. “The NIH,” which is the largest public funder of biomedical research, “rejected practically all of their grant applications.” They couldn’t get others to have the same foresight. Even after a breakthrough, where they were finally able to send mRNA information into cells without causing horrible inflammation, those in power still blinked. Fortunately, private investment supplied the gust they needed to keep their research going, and two companies created to pursue mRNA research, Moderna and BioNTech, facilitated the vaccine’s development. When Covid spread, enough progress had been made. The FDA, which has set a poor precedent for getting products to market when it matters most, streamlined the approval process and made the vaccine available.

The key features of this story are the following. The first is the lack of risk-taking by institutions and agencies whose aim should be to provide resources to those striving to innovate and push technological progress forward. The second is the lack of coordination to establish intentional environments to converge the paths of those who have the determination, discipline, and vision to bring innovation to fruition. Imagine if Kariko and Weismann didn’t meet; picture Kariko choosing to make copies somewhere else or at a different time. The future may have been radically different. And thirdly, and more optimistically, the FDA served a vital role when it mattered. As a public institution responsible for promoting the public good, they served admirably.

These three parts – funding research, coordinating talent, and the institutions facilitating the results – should coalesce into an optimally functioning whole. Researchers who are trying to shape and influence an unforeseeable future should be encouraged and rewarded. Those who possess powerful and novel ideas, along with the imagination and determination to bring them to life, should be in direct contact with one another. Their paths should cross – intentionally. And lastly, institutions should follow the FDA’s example. Slow regulatory regimes, lengthy processes and paperwork, licensing barriers, and stifling restrictions should be streamlined and transformed into facilitators for technological development and the introduction of powerful and revolutionary technologies into the market.

More funding should be devoted to riskier research. Those with novel and fresh ideas with the potential to disrupt current scientific knowledge and produce a breakthrough should be sought out. It is estimated that roughly 2-5% of the NIH’s current budget of $45 billion is allocated to high-risk research. That should be increased. Programs like the High-Risk, High-Reward Research Program, which includes awards to innovative researchers and ideas, should take on a more robust role and budget than it currently does.

Furthermore, approximately 80% of the NIH budget is allocated to extramural research programs, which are external programs conducted outside of the institution itself. A larger portion of those who receive that funding should be based on their potential for innovation. Currently, as Klein and Thompson observe, the process of obtaining a research grant, which involves extensive paperwork and minutiae, is bureaucratic, cumbersome, inefficient, and time-consuming. A significant amount of energy that should be allocated toward advancing research is spent on securing the funding to do it.

Submitting an application, going through the two review processes, and being approved takes typically nine months to a year. And most fail, leading many scientists to have to apply numerous times in a year. And those doing the review process aren’t necessarily looking for cutting-edge proposals; they’re looking for what fits bureaucratic standards. Of course, this is contentious, but Kariko's story demonstrates its reality. Ridley offers another example. When Francisco Majica made critical advancements in CRISPR technology, it took him “more than a year to get his results published, so sniffy were the prestigious journals at the idea of a significant discovery coming from a scientific nobody.” Institutions must do a better job of trying and supporting novel and unexplored ideas, regardless of who or what they originate from. For example, biotech DAOs do not currently receive funding from government institutions, such as the NIH, due to the traditional legal framework used to distribute resources. Regulatory and legal changes should be implemented to maximize their potential. If there is too much emphasis on process, on bureaucratic procedures and standards, fruitful and rich opportunities suffocate.

The NIH budget also allocates funds to intramural research programs, which are internally connected to the NIH itself. These research programs account for roughly 10% of the NIH’s total budget. A highly promising model to adopt is the DARPA model articulated in Section 2. The NIH should adopt something similar. It should allocate resources to decentralized programs to bring together the best scientists to generate breakthrough ideas. Those programs should be spaces where scientists are free to pursue visionary projects.

Smaller biotech firms, startups, and those without robust forms of funding are often forced to pursue ideas that will capture immediate investment attention. And because of the burdensome and costly bureaucratic processes, investors are justly skeptical about anything risky and cutting-edge.

For example, regarding the FDA approval process, small molecule drugs like pharmaceuticals generally take ten to fifteen years to reach the market. On average, one drug costs $1-2 billion to move through the process, and less than ten percent of those who enter clinical trials succeed. Biologics, such as vaccines and gene therapies, typically take ten to twelve years to reach the market and have a slightly higher success rate than small molecule drugs, ranging from 12 to 15 percent. Those are extensive periods of time, the costs are astronomical, and few can maintain the resources to climb the mountain. This discourages bold enterprise – and it leads to higher prices as well. Due to the cumbersome approval process, the FDA offers exclusivity to companies that bring a product to market, both to reward innovation and to allow companies the opportunity to recoup the tremendous losses incurred by the approval process. This can lead to monopolistic pricing. Innovation should not be rewarded by harming the consumer. Innovation should lift the tide that raises all boats. And so the innovative process shouldn’t be exclusive to those with enough capital to take risks. It should be available to anyone with the tenacity to actualize a bold and promising idea. That’s not to say the process should be less rigorous and methodical. It’s that it needs to be more efficient. But not just efficiency for efficiency's sake; it needs to be efficient toward the right ends and outcomes, and innovation should be a leading goal.

Therefore, a primary goal of the FDA should be to stimulate market interest by expediting the most innovative technologies emerging from research programs driven by the NIH and its innovation initiatives. It’s very important that private research continues innovating as well, and increases in private investment toward manufacturing and research – like Johnson & Johnson’s recent announcement – is good. But new technologies, drugs, vaccines, and therapies should be a central mission of the institutional framework advocated for here – and the process should begin with creativity for creativity’s sake. The profit motive should be employed after realizing a passionate and creative vision. Those truly motivated by inspiration, the people who have the will to manifest something novel and unimaginable, are generally the worst at navigating the business aspect - not always, but often. And the energy pushing them forward is a precious and scarce resource. And so institutions like the FDA and NIH should foster, rather than stifle, their capabilities and opportunities for creating meaningful contributions to the country and the world. The FDA has a history of being slow and untimely when it comes to processing and approving applications for moving to clinical trials. For example, the AIDS epidemic is a stain on the institution’s reputation. When AIDS spread across the US in 1980, it took scientists three years to identify HIV as the cause, five years for the FDA to approve the first blood test to screen for the virus, and seven years to finally get a drug to market. The response to COVID-19 should be the golden standard by which the FDA operates.

Section 4: Human Being and Its Essence

Now, let’s ask the following: what does this have to do with national pride? How does this provide a new vision for the country?

In Alex Karp’s new book, The Technological Republic, he criticizes Silicon Valley for forgetting its roots in developing technology for national purposes. The foundational technology that defines Silicon Valley originated from government programs like DARPA and NASA, which had a clear purpose. They had a mission, and the achievements under those programs demonstrate that.

But now Silicon Valley has shifted to the consumer. Innovations in Silicon Valley generally make life more convenient, comfortable, pleasant, breezy. Goods and services satisfy all our wants and preferences. New apps, better features on social media, increasingly competent virtual assistants, faster food delivery services, endless streams of television and movies and videos, smart appliances, and more and more advanced phones pervade everyday life. The goal is always immediate gratification. There is no horizon that these products look up to. Everything is here and now.

This takes us back to our discussion of rights and conceptions of the good. Silicon Valley isn’t tethered to any real purpose or collective aim. Its goal is to let the market decide. There is no moral or spiritual integrity, no conception of the good that permeates Silicon Valley and its products. Nothing is off limits because it is the consumer’s right to choose. If there is a want, if enough people are willing to buy, Silicon Valley will produce it. No substantive conviction guides their innovations. What does Silicon Valley stand for? It certainly has a creative spirit – just look at all the devices we have today – but that spirit lacks a purpose, and so it wanders aimlessly chasing the fleeting nature of the consumer.

It’s perfectly understandable that Silicon Valley has severed itself from its military roots. Not only would it lose a substantial portion of revenue if it returned to those roots, but there is, of course, a moral dilemma at the heart of most military endeavors, and it is wise to take that seriously. And the Tech sector should not aim to impose a conception of the good on the consumers. The issue is its obsession with the consumer. There are more pressing areas of concern that warrant attention. The wealth of talent in Silicon Valley is better spent in those areas. And it should be done through the efficient use of public institutions.

The new vision is one where taxpayer dollars are used for purposeful and meaningful projects that generate new technologies and innovations that contribute to people’s real needs, not just their wants and preferences. Genuine pride involves courage and bold risk for the sake of principle. It consists in having the determination to carry through an arduous enterprise. And we should be proud as a country if a joint effort between the public and private sectors achieves collective ends.

And at the heart of this pride should be the creative process. Albert Einstein wrote that great scientific discoveries – the new ideas that are leaps in progress toward the expansion of human knowledge – are, again, not the inevitable product of a rigid, refined, and precisely applied method. He believed the great discoveries, the ones that establish new scientific paradigms that enrich society with so many practical fruit, result from a cosmic feeling, a kind of religious experience born out of feelings of awe, wonder, and mystery that are produced by the intellectual and spiritual effort to understand the rational order of the cosmos. He writes, “Enough for me (is) the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifest itself in nature… I maintain that cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest incitement to scientific research.”

Reaching for and clinching a new and profound idea is not a mechanical and algorithmic activity. Regardless of how finely one specifies the rules of procedure or how regimented the institutional standards for scientific knowledge are prescribed, intuition, sensitivity to the world and its objects, amazement at the experience of observing the world and its causal relations, in short, the feelings and moods of the subject investigating the object, are integral to the discovery of scientific ideas. Methods are pivotal in locating and developing the precise, logical nature of those ideas, but initial contact with them demands variables that are not reducible to fixed procedures. Ideas powerful enough to change the world and better the human condition originate in cosmic feelings of wonder and curiosity and are not strictly an output of a mechanized division of labor.

AI will outrun the human capacity for intelligence. This is a likely prediction. And so what will it mean to be a human being then? For centuries, philosophers have distinguished human beings from other parts of nature by invoking our seemingly unique capacity for reason. We have the ability to contemplate, reflect, and grasp the physical laws governing the cosmos. We can harness those laws and employ them to manipulate our environment, alter its forms, and recombine its parts, allowing us to raise our living standards beyond our ancestor’s imaginations. We are highly intelligent beings, and our intelligence has been regarded as our distinguishing mark.

AI erodes this image. This new technology is becoming, and perhaps already is, a concrete realization, an externalization of what history thought was uniquely our own. The reality that reason isn’t special, that it is nothing more than a physical product of an accidental evolution, a wisp of luck, has become more and more firmly impressed upon the mind over the last two centuries. AI will make it indelible; it is the final proof. And so what is a human being? What distinguishes us?

The answer is in our spontaneous acts of creativity, in our ability to produce beauty in art, complexity in design, and in our profound capability to experience wonder. Again, the innovative process discussed above cannot be rationally formed into a precise instrument. As frustrating as it is, as much as it bumps against our instinct to make everything intelligible and known, our ability for spontaneity and creativity, our capacity to fail over and over again until we receive those moments of imaginative brilliance, cannot be reduced into a definite set of rules and procedures.

And so as the world changes, as everything alters before our eyes, we have to value what makes us distinctly human. We need a new Enlightenment, one that celebrates our creativity and our will to manifest what we can internally envision. Our self-respect as individuals and collectives lies in our instincts for curiosity, inquiry, discovery, and the creative and imaginative processes that animate them.

@ fd0bcf8c:521f98c0

Collapse.

It's a slow burn.

The LA Fires started decades ago.

Hemingway said, when asked how he went broke:

"Slowly, then all at once."

That’s how collapse happens. Slowly, then suddenly.

Campfire

Ever build one?

You gather wood. Stack the foundation. Set the fuel. Light it up.

If it catches, keep going. Got to stoke it. Feed it. Watch it. In time, the fire's good.

Process It takes time.

Time to gather, build and ignite.

People come at the end. When the flame's dancing.

Like Sunday dinner.

People gather when food's ready. But, only the cook was in the kitchen.

Slow

Societal collapse's similar.

It takes years.

Decades.

Centuries.

A slow cook.

When people notice, the meal’s made. By the time they smell the fire, the forest’s already burning.

People see collapse, but it fell long time ago.

LA

Water, ran dry. Power went out. Fuel stations, empty. Help wasn't on the way.

Politicians politicking.

Making feel-good promises. People believed them. All bad decisions. One after another. They voted for it.

In time, it adds up.

Then, it falls down.

Shift

Analog to digital I work in animation.

Started analog, paper and pencil. It went digital. Scanners, tablets and all.

Veterans, didn't see it coming. Die-hards, refused to acknowledge. They went out of work. Those who adapted—they run the shows now.

Lockdowns

2008, I started a studio.

100% remote. A virtual company.

Some laughed. Others got angry. Said it wouldn't work. They couldn't see.

2020 comes with lockdowns.

Everyone scrambles. Those already digital, thrived.

The rest, shutdown.

History

The Wheel We carried goods. Then came the wheel.

Movement exploded. Trade thrived. Cities rose.

Hunter-gatherers? Left behind.

Collapse wasn't sudden. It was quiet. A shift.

The new formed. The old faded.

Change was inevitable.

Gunpowder

War changed.

Castles crumbled. Swords became relics. Power shifted.

Empires that adapted, thrived. Those that didn't, vanished.

Adapt or die.

The Internet

Borders blurred. Knowledge spread. Walls fell.

Old industries resisted. New empires emerged.

Collapse? No. A new frontier.

Borderless commerce. Shrinking government.

Info and influence, moving fast.

Bitcoin

Money, redefined.

No banks. No middlemen. Just code.

Governments dismiss it. Institutions fear it. But change ignores permission.

A ledger, transparent. A system, unstoppable. Like the internet rewrote communication, Bitcoin rewrites money.

Each invention displaced the old world.

Each collapse brought new opportunity.

Repeats

Mayans Built pyramids. Charted the stars. Cities thrived.

Then, slow decline.

Deforestation. Drought. Conflict.

People scattered.

Cities abandoned.

By the time the Spanish arrived, the fall was old news.

Romans

Not a fall. A fade.

Corruption. Inflation. Invasions. Cracks formed.

The West crumbled. The East endured.

Rome never vanished. Its laws, language, culture? Still here.

Japan

Collapse? No. Reinvention.

Shoguns fell. Meiji rose. Feudal to industrial. War crushed it. Post-war rebuilt it.

The '90s?

A peak. Tech giant. Economic force.

Then, stagnation. Aging population. Debt. Decline.

Still here. Still strong. But no longer rising.

Rhyme

US

Once a colony. Then an empire.

England ruled. America rose. Industry boomed. The 20th century belonged to the U.S.

A superpower. Factories roared. Gold backed the dollar.

A nation built on sound money.

Then, fiat. Paper promises. The gold standard abandoned.

Inflation crept in. Prices rose. Debt piled up. Each decade, the dollar bought less. Wages stagnated. Savings eroded.

Easy money, easy people.

Debt fueled bubbles. Each crash, deeper. The system, fragile.

Wealth concentrated. Time and energy, lost meaning.

A quiet nihilism grew.

People worked more. Gained less. Purpose eroded. Culture followed.

A nation distracted, chasing illusions of prosperity.

Today

The debt's bigger. The politics, fractured. The system strains. The foundation shifts.

The old fades into new.

What's next?

Every collapse starts slow. Then, all at once.

Change

Collapse is change.

It's natural. We see it throughout history.

Like a campfire—fire consumes, but it also brings warmth. Like dinner—before the meal, there’s preparation, transformation. Like LA fires—destructive, painful, but from the ashes, renewal. Possibly.

"To decompose is to be recomposed. That's what nature does. Nature, through whom all things happen as they should, and have happened forever in just the same way, and will continue one way or another endlessly."—Marcus Aurelius

Collapse isn’t the end.

It’s transition.

Preparing

"The Romans were reluctant to acknowledge change, and so are we." —The Sovereign Individual

Florida has hurricanes.

Happens every year. The news reports. Satellites confirm paths. Some, listen and prepare. Others, don't.

The storm comes.

Those prepared, benefit. The rest, suffer.

Like the old animators. They resisted. Now, they’re gone.

Collapse has warnings. How to prepare:

Mindset

Stay calm. See the patterns. Change is constant. Opportunity hides in disruption. Zoom out. Fear distorts judgment.

Skill Development

Learn adaptability. Master digital tools. Understand money. Grow networks. Invest in knowledge, not just assets.

Philosophy

Think long-term. Collapse spans generations. Pass down wisdom. Build resilience. Grow beyond survival—thrive.

Action

Own less, know more. Create. Don’t just consume.

Be part of what’s next.

Conclusion

The fire’s already burning. You can tend it—or watch it burn everything down.

There's a saying:

"There are three types of people in this world: those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder what happened."—Pat Riley

Be the former.

---

Rare Passenger / block height 880 440

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

IPFS problems: Dynamic links

Content-addressability is cool and we all like it, but we all also know we can't live in a world without readable and memorizeable names. IPFS has proposed IPNS, the Interplanetary Name System (the names are very cool indeed), since its beggining (or maybe it was some months after the first IPFS idea, which would indicate this problem arrived as an afterthought).

It has been said IPNS would work in a manner similar to Git heads and branches (this was probably part of Juan Benet's marketing pitches that were immensely repeated in the first years, that IPFS was a mix between Torrents, Git and some other cool technology). This remains a distant promise, however. IPNS has been, for the last years, a very slow, unrecommended by their own developers and unusable way of addressing content that is basically just a pointer from a public key to an object hash.

Recommendations fall on using a domain and dnslink, the way to tell IPFS nodes you own a domain and that can be used to identify an object hash. That works, but it is not the wonder of decentralization that was promised, and still, it's just a pointer. Any key-value store, database of filesystem can do pointers.

---

Here I'm not saying, like tons of stupid people have on the internet, that IPFS should support dynamic links so we can build web apps on it. No, I would be pretty fine with just static links for static content, and continue to use the other internet protocols for things that needed to be dynamic.