@ 266815e0:6cd408a5

Its been six long months of refactoring code and building out to the applesauce packages but the app is stable enough for another release.

This update is pretty much a full rewrite of the non-visible parts of the app. all the background services were either moved out to the applesauce packages or rewritten, the result is that noStrudel is a little faster and much more consistent with connections and publishing.

New layout

The app has a new layout now, it takes advantage of the full desktop screen and looks a little better than it did before.

Removed NIP-72 communities

The NIP-72 communities are no longer part of the app, if you want to continue using them there are still a few apps that support them ( like satellite.earth ) but noStrudel won't support them going forward.

The communities where interesting but ultimately proved too have some fundamental flaws, most notably that all posts had to be approved by a moderator. There were some good ideas on how to improve it but they would have only been patches and wouldn't have fixed the underlying issues.

I wont promise to build it into noStrudel, but NIP-29 (relay based groups) look a lot more promising and already have better moderation abilities then NIP-72 communities could ever have.

Settings view

There is now a dedicated settings view, so no more hunting around for where the relays are set or trying to find how to add another account. its all in one place now

Cleaned up lists

The list views are a little cleaner now, and they have a simple edit modal

New emoji picker

Just another small improvement that makes the app feel more complete.

Experimental Wallet

There is a new "wallet" view in the app that lets you manage your NIP-60 cashu wallet. its very experimental and probably won't work for you, but its there and I hope to finish it up so the app can support NIP-61 nutzaps.

WARNING: Don't feed the wallet your hard earned sats, it will eat them!

Smaller improvements

• Added NSFW flag for replies
• Updated NIP-48 bunker login to work with new spec
• Linkfy BIPs
• Added 404 page
• Add NIP-22 comments under badges, files, and articles
• Add max height to timeline notes
• Fix articles view freezing on load
• Add option to mirror blobs when sharing notes
• Remove "open in drawer" for notes

@ 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.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 52b4a076:e7fad8bd

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

Regular relays have challenges

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

NFDB: A scalable database for large relays

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

Search

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

Personalization

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

Other

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

Calcite: A local microrelay database

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

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

For zero-downtime, NFDB is recommended.

Noswhere SmartCache

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

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

routerd

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

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

Ending notes

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

A lot more is to come. 👀️️️️️️

@ a39d19ec:3d88f61e

Die Debatte um Migration, Grenzsicherung und Abschiebungen wird in Deutschland meist emotional geführt. Wer fordert, dass illegale Einwanderer abgeschoben werden, sieht sich nicht selten dem Vorwurf des Rassismus ausgesetzt. Doch dieser Vorwurf ist nicht nur sachlich unbegründet, sondern verkehrt die Realität ins Gegenteil: Tatsächlich sind es gerade diejenigen, die hinter jeder Forderung nach Rechtssicherheit eine rassistische Motivation vermuten, die selbst in erster Linie nach Hautfarbe, Herkunft oder Nationalität urteilen.

Das Recht steht über Emotionen

Deutschland ist ein Rechtsstaat. Das bedeutet, dass Regeln nicht nach Bauchgefühl oder politischer Stimmungslage ausgelegt werden können, sondern auf klaren gesetzlichen Grundlagen beruhen müssen. Einer dieser Grundsätze ist in Artikel 16a des Grundgesetzes verankert. Dort heißt es:

„Auf Absatz 1 [Asylrecht] kann sich nicht berufen, wer aus einem Mitgliedstaat der Europäischen Gemeinschaften oder aus einem anderen Drittstaat einreist, in dem die Anwendung des Abkommens über die Rechtsstellung der Flüchtlinge und der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention sichergestellt ist.“

Das bedeutet, dass jeder, der über sichere Drittstaaten nach Deutschland einreist, keinen Anspruch auf Asyl hat. Wer dennoch bleibt, hält sich illegal im Land auf und unterliegt den geltenden Regelungen zur Rückführung. Die Forderung nach Abschiebungen ist daher nichts anderes als die Forderung nach der Einhaltung von Recht und Gesetz.

Die Umkehrung des Rassismusbegriffs

Wer einerseits behauptet, dass das deutsche Asyl- und Aufenthaltsrecht strikt durchgesetzt werden soll, und andererseits nicht nach Herkunft oder Hautfarbe unterscheidet, handelt wertneutral. Diejenigen jedoch, die in einer solchen Forderung nach Rechtsstaatlichkeit einen rassistischen Unterton sehen, projizieren ihre eigenen Denkmuster auf andere: Sie unterstellen, dass die Debatte ausschließlich entlang ethnischer, rassistischer oder nationaler Kriterien geführt wird – und genau das ist eine rassistische Denkweise.

Jemand, der illegale Einwanderung kritisiert, tut dies nicht, weil ihn die Herkunft der Menschen interessiert, sondern weil er den Rechtsstaat respektiert. Hingegen erkennt jemand, der hinter dieser Kritik Rassismus wittert, offenbar in erster Linie die „Rasse“ oder Herkunft der betreffenden Personen und reduziert sie darauf.

Finanzielle Belastung statt ideologischer Debatte

Neben der rechtlichen gibt es auch eine ökonomische Komponente. Der deutsche Wohlfahrtsstaat basiert auf einem Solidarprinzip: Die Bürger zahlen in das System ein, um sich gegenseitig in schwierigen Zeiten zu unterstützen. Dieser Wohlstand wurde über Generationen hinweg von denjenigen erarbeitet, die hier seit langem leben. Die Priorität liegt daher darauf, die vorhandenen Mittel zuerst unter denjenigen zu verteilen, die durch Steuern, Sozialabgaben und Arbeit zum Erhalt dieses Systems beitragen – nicht unter denen, die sich durch illegale Einreise und fehlende wirtschaftliche Eigenleistung in das System begeben.

Das ist keine ideologische Frage, sondern eine rein wirtschaftliche Abwägung. Ein Sozialsystem kann nur dann nachhaltig funktionieren, wenn es nicht unbegrenzt belastet wird. Würde Deutschland keine klaren Regeln zur Einwanderung und Abschiebung haben, würde dies unweigerlich zur Überlastung des Sozialstaates führen – mit negativen Konsequenzen für alle.

Sozialpatriotismus

Ein weiterer wichtiger Aspekt ist der Schutz der Arbeitsleistung jener Generationen, die Deutschland nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg mühsam wieder aufgebaut haben. Während oft betont wird, dass die Deutschen moralisch kein Erbe aus der Zeit vor 1945 beanspruchen dürfen – außer der Verantwortung für den Holocaust –, ist es umso bedeutsamer, das neue Erbe nach 1945 zu respektieren, das auf Fleiß, Disziplin und harter Arbeit beruht. Der Wiederaufbau war eine kollektive Leistung deutscher Menschen, deren Früchte nicht bedenkenlos verteilt werden dürfen, sondern vorrangig denjenigen zugutekommen sollten, die dieses Fundament mitgeschaffen oder es über Generationen mitgetragen haben.

Rechtstaatlichkeit ist nicht verhandelbar

Wer sich für eine konsequente Abschiebepraxis ausspricht, tut dies nicht aus rassistischen Motiven, sondern aus Respekt vor der Rechtsstaatlichkeit und den wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen des Landes. Der Vorwurf des Rassismus in diesem Kontext ist daher nicht nur falsch, sondern entlarvt eine selektive Wahrnehmung nach rassistischen Merkmalen bei denjenigen, die ihn erheben.

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

Prelude

I wrote this post differently than any of my others. It started with a discussion with AI on an OPSec-inspired review of separation of powers, and evolved into quite an exciting debate! I asked Grok to write up a summary in my overall writing style, which it got pretty well. I've decided to post it exactly as-is. Ultimately, I think there are two solid ideas driving my stance here:

1. Perfect is the enemy of the good
2. Failure is the crucible of success

Beyond that, just some hard-core belief in freedom, separation of powers, and operating from self-interest.

Intro

Alright, buckle up. I’ve been chewing on this idea for a while, and it’s time to spit it out. Let’s look at the U.S. government like I’d look at a codebase under a cybersecurity audit—OPSEC style, no fluff. Forget the endless debates about what politicians should do. That’s noise. I want to talk about what they can do, the raw powers baked into the system, and why we should stop pretending those powers are sacred. If there’s a hole, either patch it or exploit it. No half-measures. And yeah, I’m okay if the whole thing crashes a bit—failure’s a feature, not a bug.

The Filibuster: A Security Rule with No Teeth

You ever see a firewall rule that’s more theater than protection? That’s the Senate filibuster. Everyone acts like it’s this untouchable guardian of democracy, but here’s the deal: a simple majority can torch it any day. It’s not a law; it’s a Senate preference, like choosing tabs over spaces. When people call killing it the “nuclear option,” I roll my eyes. Nuclear? It’s a button labeled “press me.” If a party wants it gone, they’ll do it. So why the dance?

I say stop playing games. Get rid of the filibuster. If you’re one of those folks who thinks it’s the only thing saving us from tyranny, fine—push for a constitutional amendment to lock it in. That’s a real patch, not a Post-it note. Until then, it’s just a vulnerability begging to be exploited. Every time a party threatens to nuke it, they’re admitting it’s not essential. So let’s stop pretending and move on.

Supreme Court Packing: Because Nine’s Just a Number

Here’s another fun one: the Supreme Court. Nine justices, right? Sounds official. Except it’s not. The Constitution doesn’t say nine—it’s silent on the number. Congress could pass a law tomorrow to make it 15, 20, or 42 (hitchhiker’s reference, anyone?). Packing the court is always on the table, and both sides know it. It’s like a root exploit just sitting there, waiting for someone to log in.

So why not call the bluff? If you’re in power—say, Trump’s back in the game—say, “I’m packing the court unless we amend the Constitution to fix it at nine.” Force the issue. No more shadowboxing. And honestly? The court’s got way too much power anyway. It’s not supposed to be a super-legislature, but here we are, with justices’ ideologies driving the bus. That’s a bug, not a feature. If the court weren’t such a kingmaker, packing it wouldn’t even matter. Maybe we should be talking about clipping its wings instead of just its size.

The Executive Should Go Full Klingon

Let’s talk presidents. I’m not saying they should wear Klingon armor and start shouting “Qapla’!”—though, let’s be real, that’d be awesome. I’m saying the executive should use every scrap of power the Constitution hands them. Enforce the laws you agree with, sideline the ones you don’t. If Congress doesn’t like it, they’ve got tools: pass new laws, override vetoes, or—here’s the big one—cut the budget. That’s not chaos; that’s the system working as designed.

Right now, the real problem isn’t the president overreaching; it’s the bureaucracy. It’s like a daemon running in the background, eating CPU and ignoring the user. The president’s supposed to be the one steering, but the administrative state’s got its own agenda. Let the executive flex, push the limits, and force Congress to check it. Norms? Pfft. The Constitution’s the spec sheet—stick to it.

Let the System Crash

Here’s where I get a little spicy: I’m totally fine if the government grinds to a halt. Deadlock isn’t a disaster; it’s a feature. If the branches can’t agree, let the president veto, let Congress starve the budget, let enforcement stall. Don’t tell me about “essential services.” Nothing’s so critical it can’t take a breather. Shutdowns force everyone to the table—debate, compromise, or expose who’s dropping the ball. If the public loses trust? Good. They’ll vote out the clowns or live with the circus they elected.

Think of it like a server crash. Sometimes you need a hard reboot to clear the cruft. If voters keep picking the same bad admins, well, the country gets what it deserves. Failure’s the best teacher—way better than limping along on autopilot.

States Are the Real MVPs

If the feds fumble, states step up. Right now, states act like junior devs waiting for the lead engineer to sign off. Why? Federal money. It’s a leash, and it’s tight. Cut that cash, and states will remember they’re autonomous. Some will shine, others will tank—looking at you, California. And I’m okay with that. Let people flee to better-run states. No bailouts, no excuses. States are like competing startups: the good ones thrive, the bad ones pivot or die.

Could it get uneven? Sure. Some states might turn into sci-fi utopias while others look like a post-apocalyptic vidya game. That’s the point—competition sorts it out. Citizens can move, markets adjust, and failure’s a signal to fix your act.

Chaos Isn’t the Enemy

Yeah, this sounds messy. States ignoring federal law, external threats poking at our seams, maybe even a constitutional crisis. I’m not scared. The Supreme Court’s there to referee interstate fights, and Congress sets the rules for state-to-state play. But if it all falls apart? Still cool. States can sort it without a babysitter—it’ll be ugly, but freedom’s worth it. External enemies? They’ll either unify us or break us. If we can’t rally, we don’t deserve the win.

Centralizing power to avoid this is like rewriting your app in a single thread to prevent race conditions—sure, it’s simpler, but you’re begging for a deadlock. Decentralized chaos lets states experiment, lets people escape, lets markets breathe. States competing to cut regulations to attract businesses? That’s a race to the bottom for red tape, but a race to the top for innovation—workers might gripe, but they’ll push back, and the tension’s healthy. Bring it—let the cage match play out. The Constitution’s checks are enough if we stop coddling the system.

Why This Matters

I’m not pitching a utopia. I’m pitching a stress test. The U.S. isn’t a fragile porcelain doll; it’s a rugged piece of hardware built to take some hits. Let it fail a little—filibuster, court, feds, whatever. Patch the holes with amendments if you want, or lean into the grind. Either way, stop fearing the crash. It’s how we debug the republic.

So, what’s your take? Ready to let the system rumble, or got a better way to secure the code? Hit me up—I’m all ears.

@ c4b5369a:b812dbd6

Offline transactions with Cashu

Over the past few weeks, I've been busy implementing offline capabilities into nutstash. I think this is one of the key value propositions of ecash, beinga a bearer instrument that can be used without internet access. It does however come with limitations, which can lead to a bit of confusion. I hope this article will clear some of these questions up for you!

What is ecash/Cashu?

Ecash is the first cryptocurrency ever invented. It was created by David Chaum in 1983. It uses a blind signature scheme, which allows users to prove ownership of a token without revealing a link to its origin. These tokens are what we call ecash. They are bearer instruments, meaning that anyone who possesses a copy of them, is considered the owner.

Cashu is an implementation of ecash, built to tightly interact with Bitcoin, more specifically the Bitcoin lightning network. In the Cashu ecosystem, Mints are the gateway to the lightning network. They provide the infrastructure to access the lightning network, pay invoices and receive payments. Instead of relying on a traditional ledger scheme like other custodians do, the mint issues ecash tokens, to represent the value held by the users.

How do normal Cashu transactions work?

A Cashu transaction happens when the sender gives a copy of his ecash token to the receiver. This can happen by any means imaginable. You could send the token through email, messenger, or even by pidgeon. One of the common ways to transfer ecash is via QR code.

The transaction is however not finalized just yet! In order to make sure the sender cannot double-spend their copy of the token, the receiver must do what we call a swap. A swap is essentially exchanging an ecash token for a new one at the mint, invalidating the old token in the process. This ensures that the sender can no longer use the same token to spend elsewhere, and the value has been transferred to the receiver.

What about offline transactions?

Sending offline

Sending offline is very simple. The ecash tokens are stored on your device. Thus, no internet connection is required to access them. You can litteraly just take them, and give them to someone. The most convenient way is usually through a local transmission protocol, like NFC, QR code, Bluetooth, etc.

The one thing to consider when sending offline is that ecash tokens come in form of "coins" or "notes". The technical term we use in Cashu is Proof. It "proofs" to the mint that you own a certain amount of value. Since these proofs have a fixed value attached to them, much like UTXOs in Bitcoin do, you would need proofs with a value that matches what you want to send. You can mix and match multiple proofs together to create a token that matches the amount you want to send. But, if you don't have proofs that match the amount, you would need to go online and swap for the needed proofs at the mint.

Another limitation is, that you cannot create custom proofs offline. For example, if you would want to lock the ecash to a certain pubkey, or add a timelock to the proof, you would need to go online and create a new custom proof at the mint.

Receiving offline

You might think: well, if I trust the sender, I don't need to be swapping the token right away!

You're absolutely correct. If you trust the sender, you can simply accept their ecash token without needing to swap it immediately.

This is already really useful, since it gives you a way to receive a payment from a friend or close aquaintance without having to worry about connectivity. It's almost just like physical cash!

It does however not work if the sender is untrusted. We have to use a different scheme to be able to receive payments from someone we don't trust.

Receiving offline from an untrusted sender

To be able to receive payments from an untrusted sender, we need the sender to create a custom proof for us. As we've seen before, this requires the sender to go online.

The sender needs to create a token that has the following properties, so that the receciver can verify it offline:

• It must be locked to ONLY the receiver's public key
• It must include an offline signature proof (DLEQ proof)
• If it contains a timelock & refund clause, it must be set to a time in the future that is acceptable for the receiver
• It cannot contain duplicate proofs (double-spend)
• It cannot contain proofs that the receiver has already received before (double-spend)

If all of these conditions are met, then the receiver can verify the proof offline and accept the payment. This allows us to receive payments from anyone, even if we don't trust them.

At first glance, this scheme seems kinda useless. It requires the sender to go online, which defeats the purpose of having an offline payment system.

I beleive there are a couple of ways this scheme might be useful nonetheless:

1. Offline vending machines: Imagine you have an offline vending machine that accepts payments from anyone. The vending machine could use this scheme to verify payments without needing to go online itself. We can assume that the sender is able to go online and create a valid token, but the receiver doesn't need to be online to verify it.

2. Offline marketplaces: Imagine you have an offline marketplace where buyers and sellers can trade goods and services. Before going to the marketplace the sender already knows where he will be spending the money. The sender could create a valid token before going to the marketplace, using the merchants public key as a lock, and adding a refund clause to redeem any unspent ecash after it expires. In this case, neither the sender nor the receiver needs to go online to complete the transaction.

How to use this

Pretty much all cashu wallets allow you to send tokens offline. This is because all that the wallet needs to do is to look if it can create the desired amount from the proofs stored locally. If yes, it will automatically create the token offline.

Receiving offline tokens is currently only supported by nutstash (experimental).

To create an offline receivable token, the sender needs to lock it to the receiver's public key. Currently there is no refund clause! So be careful that you don't get accidentally locked out of your funds!

The receiver can then inspect the token and decide if it is safe to accept without a swap. If all checks are green, they can accept the token offline without trusting the sender.

The receiver will see the unswapped tokens on the wallet homescreen. They will need to manually swap them later when they are online again.

Later when the receiver is online again, they can swap the token for a fresh one.

Summary

We learned that offline transactions are possible with ecash, but there are some limitations. It either requires trusting the sender, or relying on either the sender or receiver to be online to verify the tokens, or create tokens that can be verified offline by the receiver.

I hope this short article was helpful in understanding how ecash works and its potential for offline transactions.

Cheers,

Gandlaf

@ 266815e0:6cd408a5

Its been a little over a year since NIP-90 was written and merged into the nips repo and its been a communication mess.

Every DVM implementation expects the inputs in slightly different formats, returns the results in mostly the same format and there are very few DVM actually running.

NIP-90 is overloaded

Why does a request for text translation and creating bitcoin OP_RETURNs share the same input i tag? and why is there an output tag on requests when only one of them will return an output?

Each DVM request kind is for requesting completely different types of compute with diffrent input and output requirements, but they are all using the same spec that has 4 different types of inputs (text, url, event, job) and an undefined number of output types.

Let me show a few random DVM requests and responses I found on wss://relay.damus.io to demonstrate what I mean:

This is a request to translate an event to English json { "kind": 5002, "content": "", "tags": [ // NIP-90 says there can be multiple inputs, so how would a DVM handle translatting multiple events at once? [ "i", "<event-id>", "event" ], [ "param", "language", "en" ], // What other type of output would text translations be? image/jpeg? [ "output", "text/plain" ], // Do we really need to define relays? cant the DVM respond on the relays it saw the request on? [ "relays", "wss://relay.unknown.cloud/", "wss://nos.lol/" ] ] }

This is a request to generate text using an LLM model json { "kind": 5050, // Why is the content empty? wouldn't it be better to have the prompt in the content? "content": "", "tags": [ // Why use an indexable tag? are we ever going to lookup prompts? // Also the type "prompt" isn't in NIP-90, this should probably be "text" [ "i", "What is the capital of France?", "prompt" ], [ "p", "c4878054cff877f694f5abecf18c7450f4b6fdf59e3e9cb3e6505a93c4577db2" ], [ "relays", "wss://relay.primal.net" ] ] }

This is a request for content recommendation json { "kind": 5300, "content": "", "tags": [ // Its fine ignoring this param, but what if the client actually needs exactly 200 "results" [ "param", "max_results", "200" ], // The spec never mentions requesting content for other users. // If a DVM didn't understand this and responded to this request it would provide bad data [ "param", "user", "b22b06b051fd5232966a9344a634d956c3dc33a7f5ecdcad9ed11ddc4120a7f2" ], [ "relays", "wss://relay.primal.net", ], [ "p", "ceb7e7d688e8a704794d5662acb6f18c2455df7481833dd6c384b65252455a95" ] ] }

This is a request to create a OP_RETURN message on bitcoin json { "kind": 5901, // Again why is the content empty when we are sending human readable text? "content": "", "tags": [ // and again, using an indexable tag on an input that will never need to be looked up ["i", "09/01/24 SEC Chairman on the brink of second ETF approval", "text"] ] }

My point isn't that these event schema's aren't understandable but why are they using the same schema? each use-case is different but are they all required to use the same i tag format as input and could support all 4 types of inputs.

Lack of libraries

With all these different types of inputs, params, and outputs its verify difficult if not impossible to build libraries for DVMs

If a simple text translation request can have an event or text as inputs, a payment-required status at any point in the flow, partial results, or responses from 10+ DVMs whats the best way to build a translation library for other nostr clients to use?

And how do I build a DVM framework for the server side that can handle multiple inputs of all four types (url, text, event, job) and clients are sending all the requests in slightly differently.

Supporting payments is impossible

The way NIP-90 is written there isn't much details about payments. only a payment-required status and a generic amount tag

But the way things are now every DVM is implementing payments differently. some send a bolt11 invoice, some expect the client to NIP-57 zap the request event (or maybe the status event), and some even ask for a subscription. and we haven't even started implementing NIP-61 nut zaps or cashu A few are even formatting the amount number wrong or denominating it in sats and not mili-sats

Building a client or a library that can understand and handle all of these payment methods is very difficult. for the DVM server side its worse. A DVM server presumably needs to support all 4+ types of payments if they want to get the most sats for their services and support the most clients.

All of this is made even more complicated by the fact that a DVM can ask for payment at any point during the job process. this makes sense for some types of compute, but for others like translations or user recommendation / search it just makes things even more complicated.

For example, If a client wanted to implement a timeline page that showed the notes of all the pubkeys on a recommended list. what would they do when the selected DVM asks for payment at the start of the job? or at the end? or worse, only provides half the pubkeys and asks for payment for the other half. building a UI that could handle even just two of these possibilities is complicated.

NIP-89 is being abused

NIP-89 is "Recommended Application Handlers" and the way its describe in the nips repo is

a way to discover applications that can handle unknown event-kinds

Not "a way to discover everything"

If I wanted to build an application discovery app to show all the apps that your contacts use and let you discover new apps then it would have to filter out ALL the DVM advertisement events. and that's not just for making requests from relays

If the app shows the user their list of "recommended applications" then it either has to understand that everything in the 5xxx kind range is a DVM and to show that is its own category or show a bunch of unknown "favorites" in the list which might be confusing for the user.

In conclusion

My point in writing this article isn't that the DVMs implementations so far don't work, but that they will never work well because the spec is too broad. even with only a few DVMs running we have already lost interoperability.

I don't want to be completely negative though because some things have worked. the "DVM feeds" work, although they are limited to a single page of results. text / event translations also work well and kind 5970 Event PoW delegation could be cool. but if we want interoperability, we are going to need to change a few things with NIP-90

I don't think we can (or should) abandon NIP-90 entirely but it would be good to break it up into small NIPs or specs. break each "kind" of DVM request out into its own spec with its own definitions for expected inputs, outputs and flow.

Then if we have simple, clean definitions for each kind of compute we want to distribute. we might actually see markets and services being built and used.

@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

DAOs promised decentralization. They offered a system where every member could influence a project's direction, where money and power were transparently distributed, and decisions were made through voting. All of it recorded immutably on the blockchain, free from middlemen.

But something didn’t work out. In practice, most DAOs haven’t evolved into living, self-organizing organisms. They became something else: clubs where participation is unevenly distributed. Leaders remained - only now without formal titles. They hold influence through control over communications, task framing, and community dynamics. Centralization still exists, just wrapped in a new package.

But there's a second, less obvious problem. Crowds can’t create strategy. In DAOs, people vote for what "feels right to the majority." But strategy isn’t about what feels good - it’s about what’s necessary. Difficult, unpopular, yet forward-looking decisions often fail when put to a vote. A founder’s vision is a risk. But in healthy teams, it’s that risk that drives progress. In DAOs, risk is almost always diluted until it becomes something safe and vague.

Instead of empowering leaders, DAOs often neutralize them. This is why many DAOs resemble consensus machines. Everyone talks, debates, and participates, but very little actually gets done. One person says, “Let’s jump,” and five others respond, “Let’s discuss that first.” This dynamic might work for open forums, but not for action.

Decentralization works when there’s trust and delegation, not just voting. Until DAOs develop effective systems for assigning roles, taking ownership, and acting with flexibility, they will keep losing ground to old-fashioned startups led by charismatic founders with a clear vision.

We’ve seen this in many real-world cases. Take MakerDAO, one of the most mature and technically sophisticated DAOs. Its governance token (MKR) holders vote on everything from interest rates to protocol upgrades. While this has allowed for transparency and community involvement, the process is often slow and bureaucratic. Complex proposals stall. Strategic pivots become hard to implement. And in 2023, a controversial proposal to allocate billions to real-world assets passed only narrowly, after months of infighting - highlighting how vision and execution can get stuck in the mud of distributed governance.

On the other hand, Uniswap DAO, responsible for the largest decentralized exchange, raised governance participation only after launching a delegation system where token holders could choose trusted representatives. Still, much of the activity is limited to a small group of active contributors. The vast majority of token holders remain passive. This raises the question: is it really community-led, or just a formalized power structure with lower transparency?

Then there’s ConstitutionDAO, an experiment that went viral. It raised over $40 million in days to try and buy a copy of the U.S. Constitution. But despite the hype, the DAO failed to win the auction. Afterwards, it struggled with refund logistics, communication breakdowns, and confusion over governance. It was a perfect example of collective enthusiasm without infrastructure or planning - proof that a DAO can raise capital fast but still lack cohesion.

Not all efforts have failed. Projects like Gitcoin DAO have made progress by incentivizing small, individual contributions. Their quadratic funding mechanism rewards projects based on the number of contributors, not just the size of donations, helping to elevate grassroots initiatives. But even here, long-term strategy often falls back on a core group of organizers rather than broad community consensus.

The pattern is clear: when the stakes are low or the tasks are modular, DAOs can coordinate well. But when bold moves are needed—when someone has to take responsibility and act under uncertainty DAOs often freeze. In the name of consensus, they lose momentum.

That’s why the organization of the future can’t rely purely on decentralization. It must encourage individual initiative and the ability to take calculated risks. People need to see their contribution not just as a vote, but as a role with clear actions and expected outcomes. When the situation demands, they should be empowered to act first and present the results to the community afterwards allowing for both autonomy and accountability. That’s not a flaw in the system. It’s how real progress happens.

@ c066aac5:6a41a034

I’m drawn to extremities in art. The louder, the bolder, the more outrageous, the better. Bold art takes me out of the mundane into a whole new world where anything and everything is possible. Having grown up in the safety of the suburban midwest, I was a bit of a rebellious soul in search of the satiation that only came from the consumption of the outrageous. My inclination to find bold art draws me to NOSTR, because I believe NOSTR can be the place where the next generation of artistic pioneers go to express themselves. I also believe that as much as we are able, were should invite them to come create here.

My Background: A Small Side Story

My father was a professional gamer in the 80s, back when there was no money or glory in the avocation. He did get a bit of spotlight though after the fact: in the mid 2000’s there were a few parties making documentaries about that era of gaming as well as current arcade events (namely 2007’sChasing GhostsandThe King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters). As a result of these documentaries, there was a revival in the arcade gaming scene. My family attended events related to the documentaries or arcade gaming and I became exposed to a lot of things I wouldn’t have been able to find. The producer ofThe King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters had previously made a documentary calledNew York Dollwhich was centered around the life of bassist Arthur Kane. My 12 year old mind was blown: The New York Dolls were a glam-punk sensation dressed in drag. The music was from another planet. Johnny Thunders’ guitar playing was like Chuck Berry with more distortion and less filter. Later on I got to meet the Galaga record holder at the time, Phil Day, in Ottumwa Iowa. Phil is an Australian man of high intellect and good taste. He exposed me to great creators such as Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds, Shakespeare, Lou Reed, artists who created things that I had previously found inconceivable.

I believe this time period informed my current tastes and interests, but regrettably I think it also put coals on the fire of rebellion within. I stopped taking my parents and siblings seriously, the Christian faith of my family (which I now hold dearly to) seemed like a mundane sham, and I felt I couldn’t fit in with most people because of my avant-garde tastes. So I write this with the caveat that there should be a way to encourage these tastes in children without letting them walk down the wrong path. There is nothing inherently wrong with bold art, but I’d advise parents to carefully find ways to cultivate their children’s tastes without completely shutting them down and pushing them away as a result. My parents were very loving and patient during this time; I thank God for that.

With that out of the way, lets dive in to some bold artists:

Nicolas Cage: Actor

There is an excellent video by Wisecrack on Nicolas Cage that explains him better than I will, which I will linkhere. Nicolas Cage rejects the idea that good acting is tied to mere realism; all of his larger than life acting decisions are deliberate choices. When that clicked for me, I immediately realized the man is a genius. He borrows from Kabuki and German Expressionism, art forms that rely on exaggeration to get the message across. He has even created his own acting style, which he calls Nouveau Shamanic. He augments his imagination to go from acting to being. Rather than using the old hat of method acting, he transports himself to a new world mentally. The projects he chooses to partake in are based on his own interests or what he considers would be a challenge (making a bad script good for example). Thus it doesn’t matter how the end result comes out; he has already achieved his goal as an artist. Because of this and because certain directors don’t know how to use his talents, he has a noticeable amount of duds in his filmography. Dig around the duds, you’ll find some pure gold. I’d personally recommend the filmsPig, Joe, Renfield, and his Christmas film The Family Man.

Nick Cave: Songwriter

What a wild career this man has had! From the apocalyptic mayhem of his band The Birthday Party to the pensive atmosphere of his albumGhosteen, it seems like Nick Cave has tried everything. I think his secret sauce is that he’s always working. He maintains an excellent newsletter calledThe Red Hand Files, he has written screenplays such asLawless, he has written books, he has made great film scores such asThe Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, the man is religiously prolific. I believe that one of the reasons he is prolific is that he’s not afraid to experiment. If he has an idea, he follows it through to completion. From the albumMurder Ballads(which is comprised of what the title suggests) to his rejected sequel toGladiator(Gladiator: Christ Killer), he doesn’t seem to be afraid to take anything on. This has led to some over the top works as well as some deeply personal works. Albums likeSkeleton TreeandGhosteenwere journeys through the grief of his son’s death. The Boatman’s Callis arguably a better break-up album than anything Taylor Swift has put out. He’s not afraid to be outrageous, he’s not afraid to offend, but most importantly he’s not afraid to be himself. Works I’d recommend include The Birthday Party’sLive 1981-82, Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds’The Boatman’s Call, and the filmLawless.

Jim Jarmusch: Director

I consider Jim’s films to be bold almost in an ironic sense: his works are bold in that they are, for the most part, anti-sensational. He has a rule that if his screenplays are criticized for a lack of action, he makes them even less eventful. Even with sensational settings his films feel very close to reality, and they demonstrate the beauty of everyday life. That's what is bold about his art to me: making the sensational grounded in reality while making everyday reality all the more special. Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai is about a modern-day African-American hitman who strictly follows the rules of the ancient Samurai, yet one can resonate with the humanity of a seemingly absurd character. Only Lovers Left Aliveis a vampire love story, but in the middle of a vampire romance one can see their their own relationships in a new deeply human light. Jim’s work reminds me that art reflects life, and that there is sacred beauty in seemingly mundane everyday life. I personally recommend his filmsPaterson,Down by Law, andCoffee and Cigarettes.

NOSTR: We Need Bold Art

NOSTR is in my opinion a path to a better future. In a world creeping slowly towards everything apps, I hope that the protocol where the individual owns their data wins over everything else. I love freedom and sovereignty. If NOSTR is going to win the race of everything apps, we need more than Bitcoin content. We need more than shirtless bros paying for bananas in foreign countries and exercising with girls who have seductive accents. Common people cannot see themselves in such a world. NOSTR needs to catch the attention of everyday people. I don’t believe that this can be accomplished merely by introducing more broadly relevant content; people are searching for content that speaks to them. I believe that NOSTR can and should attract artists of all kinds because NOSTR is one of the few places on the internet where artists can express themselves fearlessly. Getting zaps from NOSTR’s value-for-value ecosystem has far less friction than crowdfunding a creative project or pitching investors that will irreversibly modify an artist’s vision. Having a place where one can post their works without fear of censorship should be extremely enticing. Having a place where one can connect with fellow humans directly as opposed to a sea of bots should seem like the obvious solution. If NOSTR can become a safe haven for artists to express themselves and spread their work, I believe that everyday people will follow. The banker whose stressful job weighs on them will suddenly find joy with an original meme made by a great visual comedian. The programmer for a healthcare company who is drowning in hopeless mundanity could suddenly find a new lust for life by hearing the song of a musician who isn’t afraid to crowdfund their their next project by putting their lighting address on the streets of the internet. The excel guru who loves independent film may find that NOSTR is the best way to support non corporate movies. My closing statement: continue to encourage the artists in your life as I’m sure you have been, but while you’re at it give them the purple pill. You may very well be a part of building a better future.

@ 17538dc2:71ed77c4

The MacOS security update summary is a reminder that laptops and desktops are incredibly compromised.

macOS Sequoia 15.4

Released March 31, 2025

Accessibility Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access sensitive user data

Description: A logging issue was addressed with improved data redaction.

CVE-2025-24202: Zhongcheng Li from IES Red Team of ByteDance

AccountPolicy Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A malicious app may be able to gain root privileges

Description: This issue was addressed by removing the vulnerable code.

CVE-2025-24234: an anonymous researcher

AirDrop Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to read arbitrary file metadata

Description: A permissions issue was addressed with additional restrictions.

CVE-2025-24097: Ron Masas of BREAKPOINT.SH

App Store Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A malicious app may be able to access private information

Description: This issue was addressed by removing the vulnerable code.

CVE-2025-24276: an anonymous researcher

AppleMobileFileIntegrity Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to modify protected parts of the file system

Description: The issue was addressed with improved checks.

CVE-2025-24272: Mickey Jin (@patch1t)

AppleMobileFileIntegrity Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access protected user data

Description: A downgrade issue was addressed with additional code-signing restrictions.

CVE-2025-24239: Wojciech Regula of SecuRing (wojciechregula.blog)

AppleMobileFileIntegrity Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A malicious app may be able to read or write to protected files

Description: A permissions issue was addressed with additional restrictions.

CVE-2025-24233: Claudio Bozzato and Francesco Benvenuto of Cisco Talos.

AppleMobileFileIntegrity Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access user-sensitive data

Description: A privacy issue was addressed by removing the vulnerable code.

CVE-2025-30443: Bohdan Stasiuk (@bohdan_stasiuk)

Audio Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: Processing a maliciously crafted font may result in the disclosure of process memory

Description: The issue was addressed with improved memory handling.

CVE-2025-24244: Hossein Lotfi (@hosselot) of Trend Micro Zero Day Initiative

Audio Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: Processing a maliciously crafted file may lead to arbitrary code execution

Description: The issue was addressed with improved memory handling.

CVE-2025-24243: Hossein Lotfi (@hosselot) of Trend Micro Zero Day Initiative

Authentication Services Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: Password autofill may fill in passwords after failing authentication

Description: This issue was addressed through improved state management.

CVE-2025-30430: Dominik Rath

Authentication Services Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A malicious website may be able to claim WebAuthn credentials from another website that shares a registrable suffix

Description: The issue was addressed with improved input validation.

CVE-2025-24180: Martin Kreichgauer of Google Chrome

Authentication Services Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A malicious app may be able to access a user's saved passwords

Description: This issue was addressed by adding a delay between verification code attempts.

CVE-2025-24245: Ian Mckay (@iann0036)

Automator Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access protected user data

Description: A permissions issue was addressed by removing vulnerable code and adding additional checks.

CVE-2025-30460: an anonymous researcher

BiometricKit Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to cause unexpected system termination

Description: A buffer overflow was addressed with improved bounds checking.

CVE-2025-24237: Yutong Xiu

Calendar Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to break out of its sandbox

Description: A path handling issue was addressed with improved validation.

CVE-2025-30429: Denis Tokarev (@illusionofcha0s)

Calendar Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to break out of its sandbox

Description: This issue was addressed with improved checks.

CVE-2025-24212: Denis Tokarev (@illusionofcha0s)

CloudKit Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A malicious app may be able to access private information

Description: The issue was addressed with improved checks.

CVE-2025-24215: Kirin (@Pwnrin)

CoreAudio Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: Parsing a file may lead to an unexpected app termination

Description: The issue was addressed with improved checks.

CVE-2025-24163: Google Threat Analysis Group

CoreAudio Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: Playing a malicious audio file may lead to an unexpected app termination

Description: An out-of-bounds read issue was addressed with improved input validation.

CVE-2025-24230: Hossein Lotfi (@hosselot) of Trend Micro Zero Day Initiative

CoreMedia Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: Processing a maliciously crafted video file may lead to unexpected app termination or corrupt process memory

Description: This issue was addressed with improved memory handling.

CVE-2025-24211: Hossein Lotfi (@hosselot) of Trend Micro Zero Day Initiative

CoreMedia Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access sensitive user data

Description: An access issue was addressed with additional sandbox restrictions.

CVE-2025-24236: Csaba Fitzl (@theevilbit) and Nolan Astrein of Kandji

CoreMedia Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: Processing a maliciously crafted video file may lead to unexpected app termination or corrupt process memory

Description: The issue was addressed with improved memory handling.

CVE-2025-24190: Hossein Lotfi (@hosselot) of Trend Micro Zero Day Initiative

CoreMedia Playback Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A malicious app may be able to access private information

Description: A path handling issue was addressed with improved validation.

CVE-2025-30454: pattern-f (@pattern_F_)

CoreServices Description: This issue was addressed through improved state management.

CVE-2025-31191: Jonathan Bar Or (@yo_yo_yo_jbo) of Microsoft, and an anonymous researcher Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access sensitive user data

CoreText Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: Processing a maliciously crafted font may result in the disclosure of process memory

Description: An out-of-bounds read issue was addressed with improved input validation.

CVE-2025-24182: Hossein Lotfi (@hosselot) of Trend Micro Zero Day Initiative

Crash Reporter Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to gain root privileges

Description: A parsing issue in the handling of directory paths was addressed with improved path validation.

CVE-2025-24277: Csaba Fitzl (@theevilbit) of Kandji and Gergely Kalman (@gergely_kalman), and an anonymous researcher

curl Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An input validation issue was addressed

Description: This is a vulnerability in open source code and Apple Software is among the affected projects. The CVE-ID was assigned by a third party. Learn more about the issue and CVE-ID at cve.org.

CVE-2024-9681

Disk Images Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to break out of its sandbox

Description: A file access issue was addressed with improved input validation.

CVE-2025-24255: an anonymous researcher

DiskArbitration Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to gain root privileges

Description: A parsing issue in the handling of directory paths was addressed with improved path validation.

CVE-2025-30456: Gergely Kalman (@gergely_kalman)

DiskArbitration Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to gain root privileges

Description: A permissions issue was addressed with additional restrictions.

CVE-2025-24267: an anonymous researcher

Dock Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A malicious app may be able to access private information

Description: The issue was addressed with improved checks.

CVE-2025-30455: Mickey Jin (@patch1t), and an anonymous researcher

Dock Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to modify protected parts of the file system

Description: This issue was addressed by removing the vulnerable code.

CVE-2025-31187: Rodolphe BRUNETTI (@eisw0lf) of Lupus Nova

dyld Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: Apps that appear to use App Sandbox may be able to launch without restrictions

Description: A library injection issue was addressed with additional restrictions.

CVE-2025-30462: Pietro Francesco Tirenna, Davide Silvetti, Abdel Adim Oisfi of Shielder (shielder.com)

FaceTime Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access sensitive user data

Description: This issue was addressed with improved redaction of sensitive information.

CVE-2025-30451: Kirin (@Pwnrin) and luckyu (@uuulucky)

FeedbackLogger Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access sensitive user data

Description: This issue was addressed with improved data protection.

CVE-2025-24281: Rodolphe BRUNETTI (@eisw0lf)

Focus Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An attacker with physical access to a locked device may be able to view sensitive user information

Description: The issue was addressed with improved checks.

CVE-2025-30439: Andr.Ess

Focus Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access sensitive user data

Description: A logging issue was addressed with improved data redaction.

CVE-2025-24283: Kirin (@Pwnrin)

Foundation Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access protected user data

Description: An access issue was addressed with additional sandbox restrictions on the system pasteboards.

CVE-2025-30461: an anonymous researcher

Foundation Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access sensitive user data

Description: The issue was resolved by sanitizing logging

CVE-2025-30447: LFY@secsys from Fudan University

Foundation Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to cause a denial-of-service

Description: An uncontrolled format string issue was addressed with improved input validation.

CVE-2025-24199: Manuel Fernandez (Stackhopper Security)

GPU Drivers Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to cause unexpected system termination or corrupt kernel memory

Description: An out-of-bounds write issue was addressed with improved bounds checking.

CVE-2025-30464: ABC Research s.r.o.

CVE-2025-24273: Wang Yu of Cyberserval

GPU Drivers Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to disclose kernel memory

Description: The issue was addressed with improved bounds checks.

CVE-2025-24256: Anonymous working with Trend Micro Zero Day Initiative, Murray Mike

Handoff Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access sensitive user data

Description: The issue was addressed with improved restriction of data container access.

CVE-2025-30463: mzzzz__

ImageIO Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: Parsing an image may lead to disclosure of user information

Description: A logic error was addressed with improved error handling.

CVE-2025-24210: Anonymous working with Trend Micro Zero Day Initiative

Installer Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to check the existence of an arbitrary path on the file system

Description: A permissions issue was addressed with additional sandbox restrictions.

CVE-2025-24249: YingQi Shi(@Mas0nShi) of DBAppSecurity's WeBin lab and Minghao Lin (@Y1nKoc)

Installer Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A sandboxed app may be able to access sensitive user data

Description: A logic issue was addressed with improved checks.

CVE-2025-24229: an anonymous researcher

IOGPUFamily Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to cause unexpected system termination or write kernel memory

Description: An out-of-bounds write issue was addressed with improved input validation.

CVE-2025-24257: Wang Yu of Cyberserval

IOMobileFrameBuffer Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to corrupt coprocessor memory

Description: The issue was addressed with improved bounds checks.

CVE-2025-30437: Ye Zhang (@VAR10CK) of Baidu Security

Kerberos Helper Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A remote attacker may be able to cause unexpected app termination or heap corruption

Description: A memory initialization issue was addressed with improved memory handling.

CVE-2025-24235: Dave G.

Kernel Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access protected user data

Description: The issue was addressed with improved checks.

CVE-2025-24204: Koh M. Nakagawa (@tsunek0h) of FFRI Security, Inc.

Kernel Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to modify protected parts of the file system

Description: The issue was addressed with improved checks.

CVE-2025-24203: Ian Beer of Google Project Zero

Kernel Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An attacker with user privileges may be able to read kernel memory

Description: A type confusion issue was addressed with improved memory handling.

CVE-2025-24196: Joseph Ravichandran (@0xjprx) of MIT CSAIL

LaunchServices Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A malicious JAR file may bypass Gatekeeper checks

Description: This issue was addressed with improved handling of executable types.

CVE-2025-24148: Kenneth Chew

libarchive Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An input validation issue was addressed

Description: This is a vulnerability in open source code and Apple Software is among the affected projects. The CVE-ID was assigned by a third party. Learn more about the issue and CVE-ID at cve.org.

CVE-2024-48958

Libinfo Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A user may be able to elevate privileges

Description: An integer overflow was addressed with improved input validation.

CVE-2025-24195: Paweł Płatek (Trail of Bits)

libnetcore Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: Processing maliciously crafted web content may result in the disclosure of process memory

Description: A logic issue was addressed with improved checks.

CVE-2025-24194: an anonymous researcher

libxml2 Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: Parsing a file may lead to an unexpected app termination

Description: This is a vulnerability in open source code and Apple Software is among the affected projects. The CVE-ID was assigned by a third party. Learn more about the issue and CVE-ID at cve.org.

CVE-2025-27113

CVE-2024-56171

libxpc Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to break out of its sandbox

Description: This issue was addressed through improved state management.

CVE-2025-24178: an anonymous researcher

libxpc Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to delete files for which it does not have permission

Description: This issue was addressed with improved handling of symlinks.

CVE-2025-31182: Alex Radocea and Dave G. of Supernetworks, 风沐云烟(@binary_fmyy) and Minghao Lin(@Y1nKoc)

libxpc Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to gain elevated privileges

Description: A logic issue was addressed with improved checks.

CVE-2025-24238: an anonymous researcher

Mail Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: "Block All Remote Content" may not apply for all mail previews

Description: A permissions issue was addressed with additional sandbox restrictions.

CVE-2025-24172: an anonymous researcher

manpages Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access sensitive user data

Description: This issue was addressed with improved validation of symlinks.

CVE-2025-30450: Pwn2car

Maps Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to read sensitive location information

Description: A path handling issue was addressed with improved logic.

CVE-2025-30470: LFY@secsys from Fudan University

NetworkExtension Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to enumerate a user's installed apps

Description: This issue was addressed with additional entitlement checks.

CVE-2025-30426: Jimmy

Notes Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A sandboxed app may be able to access sensitive user data in system logs

Description: A privacy issue was addressed with improved private data redaction for log entries.

CVE-2025-24262: LFY@secsys from Fudan University

NSDocument Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A malicious app may be able to access arbitrary files

Description: This issue was addressed through improved state management.

CVE-2025-24232: an anonymous researcher

OpenSSH Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access user-sensitive data

Description: An injection issue was addressed with improved validation.

CVE-2025-24246: Mickey Jin (@patch1t)

PackageKit Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to modify protected parts of the file system

Description: The issue was addressed with improved checks.

CVE-2025-24261: Mickey Jin (@patch1t)

PackageKit Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to modify protected parts of the file system

Description: A logic issue was addressed with improved checks.

CVE-2025-24164: Mickey Jin (@patch1t)

PackageKit Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A malicious app with root privileges may be able to modify the contents of system files

Description: A permissions issue was addressed with additional restrictions.

CVE-2025-30446: Pedro Tôrres (@t0rr3sp3dr0)

Parental Controls Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to retrieve Safari bookmarks without an entitlement check

Description: This issue was addressed with additional entitlement checks.

CVE-2025-24259: Noah Gregory (wts.dev)

Photos Storage Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: Deleting a conversation in Messages may expose user contact information in system logging

Description: A logging issue was addressed with improved data redaction.

CVE-2025-30424: an anonymous researcher

Power Services Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to break out of its sandbox

Description: This issue was addressed with additional entitlement checks.

CVE-2025-24173: Mickey Jin (@patch1t)

Python Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A remote attacker may be able to bypass sender policy checks and deliver malicious content via email

Description: This is a vulnerability in open source code and Apple Software is among the affected projects. The CVE-ID was assigned by a third party. Learn more about the issue and CVE-ID at cve.org.

CVE-2023-27043

RPAC Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to modify protected parts of the file system

Description: The issue was addressed with improved validation of environment variables.

CVE-2025-24191: Claudio Bozzato and Francesco Benvenuto of Cisco Talos

Safari Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: Visiting a malicious website may lead to user interface spoofing

Description: The issue was addressed with improved UI.

CVE-2025-24113: @RenwaX23

Safari Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: Visiting a malicious website may lead to address bar spoofing

Description: The issue was addressed with improved checks.

CVE-2025-30467: @RenwaX23

Safari Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A website may be able to access sensor information without user consent

Description: The issue was addressed with improved checks.

CVE-2025-31192: Jaydev Ahire

Safari Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A download's origin may be incorrectly associated

Description: This issue was addressed through improved state management.

CVE-2025-24167: Syarif Muhammad Sajjad

Sandbox Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access removable volumes without user consent

Description: A permissions issue was addressed with additional restrictions.

CVE-2025-24093: Yiğit Can YILMAZ (@yilmazcanyigit)

Sandbox Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An input validation issue was addressed

Description: The issue was addressed with improved checks.

CVE-2025-30452: an anonymous researcher

Sandbox Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access protected user data

Description: A permissions issue was addressed with additional restrictions.

CVE-2025-24181: Arsenii Kostromin (0x3c3e)

SceneKit Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to read files outside of its sandbox

Description: A permissions issue was addressed with additional restrictions.

CVE-2025-30458: Mickey Jin (@patch1t)

Security Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A remote user may be able to cause a denial-of-service

Description: A validation issue was addressed with improved logic.

CVE-2025-30471: Bing Shi, Wenchao Li, Xiaolong Bai of Alibaba Group, Luyi Xing of Indiana University Bloomington

Security Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A malicious app acting as a HTTPS proxy could get access to sensitive user data

Description: This issue was addressed with improved access restrictions.

CVE-2025-24250: Wojciech Regula of SecuRing (wojciechregula.blog)

Share Sheet Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A malicious app may be able to dismiss the system notification on the Lock Screen that a recording was started

Description: This issue was addressed with improved access restrictions.

CVE-2025-30438: Halle Winkler, Politepix theoffcuts.org

Shortcuts Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A shortcut may be able to access files that are normally inaccessible to the Shortcuts app

Description: A permissions issue was addressed with improved validation.

CVE-2025-30465: an anonymous researcher

Shortcuts Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access user-sensitive data

Description: An access issue was addressed with additional sandbox restrictions.

CVE-2025-24280: Kirin (@Pwnrin)

Shortcuts Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A Shortcut may run with admin privileges without authentication

Description: An authentication issue was addressed with improved state management.

CVE-2025-31194: Dolf Hoegaerts

Shortcuts Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A shortcut may be able to access files that are normally inaccessible to the Shortcuts app

Description: This issue was addressed with improved access restrictions.

CVE-2025-30433: Andrew James Gonzalez

Siri Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access sensitive user data

Description: The issue was addressed with improved restriction of data container access.

CVE-2025-31183: Kirin (@Pwnrin), Bohdan Stasiuk (@bohdan_stasiuk)

Siri Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A sandboxed app may be able to access sensitive user data in system logs

Description: This issue was addressed with improved redaction of sensitive information.

CVE-2025-30435: K宝 (@Pwnrin) and luckyu (@uuulucky)

Siri Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access sensitive user data

Description: This issue was addressed with improved redaction of sensitive information.

CVE-2025-24217: Kirin (@Pwnrin)

Siri Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access sensitive user data

Description: A privacy issue was addressed by not logging contents of text fields.

CVE-2025-24214: Kirin (@Pwnrin)

Siri Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to enumerate devices that have signed into the user's Apple Account

Description: A permissions issue was addressed with additional restrictions.

CVE-2025-24248: Minghao Lin (@Y1nKoc) and Tong Liu@Lyutoon_ and 风(binary_fmyy) and F00L

Siri Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access user-sensitive data

Description: An authorization issue was addressed with improved state management.

CVE-2025-24205: YingQi Shi(@Mas0nShi) of DBAppSecurity's WeBin lab and Minghao Lin (@Y1nKoc)

Siri Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An attacker with physical access may be able to use Siri to access sensitive user data

Description: This issue was addressed by restricting options offered on a locked device.

CVE-2025-24198: Richard Hyunho Im (@richeeta) with routezero.security

SMB Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to cause unexpected system termination

Description: The issue was addressed with improved memory handling.

CVE-2025-24269: Alex Radocea of Supernetworks

SMB Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: Mounting a maliciously crafted SMB network share may lead to system termination

Description: A race condition was addressed with improved locking.

CVE-2025-30444: Dave G.

SMB Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to execute arbitrary code with kernel privileges

Description: A buffer overflow issue was addressed with improved memory handling.

CVE-2025-24228: Joseph Ravichandran (@0xjprx) of MIT CSAIL

smbx Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An attacker in a privileged position may be able to perform a denial-of-service

Description: The issue was addressed with improved memory handling.

CVE-2025-24260: zbleet of QI-ANXIN TianGong Team

Software Update Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to modify protected parts of the file system

Description: A library injection issue was addressed with additional restrictions.

CVE-2025-24282: Claudio Bozzato and Francesco Benvenuto of Cisco Talos

Software Update Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A user may be able to elevate privileges

Description: This issue was addressed with improved validation of symlinks.

CVE-2025-24254: Arsenii Kostromin (0x3c3e)

Software Update Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to modify protected parts of the file system

Description: The issue was addressed with improved checks.

CVE-2025-24231: Claudio Bozzato and Francesco Benvenuto of Cisco Talos

StickerKit Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to observe unprotected user data

Description: A privacy issue was addressed by moving sensitive data to a protected location.

CVE-2025-24263: Cristian Dinca of "Tudor Vianu" National High School of Computer Science, Romania

Storage Management Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to enable iCloud storage features without user consent

Description: A permissions issue was addressed with additional restrictions.

CVE-2025-24207: YingQi Shi (@Mas0nShi) of DBAppSecurity's WeBin lab, 风沐云烟 (binary_fmyy) and Minghao Lin (@Y1nKoc)

StorageKit Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to gain root privileges

Description: A permissions issue was addressed with additional restrictions.

CVE-2025-30449: Arsenii Kostromin (0x3c3e), and an anonymous researcher

StorageKit Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access protected user data

Description: This issue was addressed with improved handling of symlinks.

CVE-2025-24253: Mickey Jin (@patch1t), Csaba Fitzl (@theevilbit) of Kandji

StorageKit Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access user-sensitive data

Description: A race condition was addressed with additional validation.

CVE-2025-24240: Mickey Jin (@patch1t)

StorageKit Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to bypass Privacy preferences

Description: A race condition was addressed with additional validation.

CVE-2025-31188: Mickey Jin (@patch1t)

Summarization Services Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access information about a user's contacts

Description: A privacy issue was addressed with improved private data redaction for log entries.

CVE-2025-24218: Kirin and FlowerCode, Bohdan Stasiuk (@bohdan_stasiuk)

System Settings Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access protected user data

Description: This issue was addressed with improved validation of symlinks.

CVE-2025-24278: Zhongquan Li (@Guluisacat)

System Settings Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app with root privileges may be able to access private information

Description: This issue was addressed with improved handling of symlinks.

CVE-2025-24242: Koh M. Nakagawa (@tsunek0h) of FFRI Security, Inc.

SystemMigration Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A malicious app may be able to create symlinks to protected regions of the disk

Description: This issue was addressed with improved validation of symlinks.

CVE-2025-30457: Mickey Jin (@patch1t)

Voice Control Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to access contacts

Description: This issue was addressed with improved file handling.

CVE-2025-24279: Mickey Jin (@patch1t)

Web Extensions Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may gain unauthorized access to Local Network

Description: This issue was addressed with improved permissions checking.

CVE-2025-31184: Alexander Heinrich (@Sn0wfreeze), SEEMOO, TU Darmstadt & Mathy Vanhoef (@vanhoefm) and Jeroen Robben (@RobbenJeroen), DistriNet, KU Leuven

Web Extensions Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: Visiting a website may leak sensitive data

Description: A script imports issue was addressed with improved isolation.

CVE-2025-24192: Vsevolod Kokorin (Slonser) of Solidlab

WebKit Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected Safari crash

Description: The issue was addressed with improved memory handling.

WebKit Bugzilla: 285892

CVE-2025-24264: Gary Kwong, and an anonymous researcher

WebKit Bugzilla: 284055

CVE-2025-24216: Paul Bakker of ParagonERP

WebKit Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A type confusion issue could lead to memory corruption

Description: This issue was addressed with improved handling of floats.

WebKit Bugzilla: 286694

CVE-2025-24213: Google V8 Security Team

WebKit Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash

Description: A buffer overflow issue was addressed with improved memory handling.

WebKit Bugzilla: 286462

CVE-2025-24209: Francisco Alonso (@revskills), and an anonymous researcher

WebKit Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected Safari crash

Description: A use-after-free issue was addressed with improved memory management.

WebKit Bugzilla: 285643

CVE-2025-30427: rheza (@ginggilBesel)

WebKit Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: A malicious website may be able to track users in Safari private browsing mode

Description: This issue was addressed through improved state management.

WebKit Bugzilla: 286580

CVE-2025-30425: an anonymous researcher

WindowServer Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An attacker may be able to cause unexpected app termination

Description: A type confusion issue was addressed with improved checks.

CVE-2025-24247: PixiePoint Security

WindowServer Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to trick a user into copying sensitive data to the pasteboard

Description: A configuration issue was addressed with additional restrictions.

CVE-2025-24241: Andreas Hegenberg (folivora.AI GmbH)

Xsan Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to cause unexpected system termination

Description: A buffer overflow was addressed with improved bounds checking.

CVE-2025-24266: an anonymous researcher

Xsan Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to cause unexpected system termination

Description: An out-of-bounds read was addressed with improved bounds checking.

CVE-2025-24265: an anonymous researcher

Xsan Available for: macOS Sequoia

Impact: An app may be able to cause unexpected system termination or corrupt kernel memory

Description: A buffer overflow issue was addressed with improved memory handling.

CVE-2025-24157: an anonymous researcher

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 3f770d65:7a745b24

At the recent Launch Music Festival and Conference in Lancaster, PA, featuring over 120 musicians across three days, I volunteered my time with Tunestr and Phantom Power Music's initiative to introduce artists to Bitcoin, Nostr, and the value-for-value model. Tunestr sponsored a stage, live-streaming 21 bands to platforms like Tunestr.io, Fountain.fm and other Nostr/Podcasting 2.0 apps and on-boarding as many others as possible at our conference booth. You may have seen me spamming about this over the last few days.

V4V Earnings

Day 1: 180,000 sats

Day 2: 300,000 sats

Day 3: Over 500,000 sats

Who?

Here are the artists that were on-boarded to Fountain and were live streaming on the Value-for-Value stage:

nostr:npub1cruu4z0hwg7n3r2k7262vx8jsmra3xpku85frl5fnfvrwz7rd7mq7e403w nostr:npub12xeh3n7w8700z4tpd6xlhlvg4vtg4pvpxd584ll5sva539tutc3q0tn3tz nostr:npub1rc80p4v60uzfhvdgxemhvcqnzdj7t59xujxdy0lcjxml3uwdezyqtrpe0j @npub16vxr4pc2ww3yaez9q4s53zkejjfd0djs9lfe55sjhnqkh nostr:npub10uspdzg4fl7md95mqnjszxx82ckdly8ezac0t3s06a0gsf4f3lys8ypeak nostr:npub1gnyzexr40qut0za2c4a0x27p4e3qc22wekhcw3uvdx8mwa3pen0s9z90wk nostr:npub13qrrw2h4z52m7jh0spefrwtysl4psfkfv6j4j672se5hkhvtyw7qu0almy nostr:npub1p0kuqxxw2mxczc90vcurvfq7ljuw2394kkqk6gqnn2cq0y9eq5nq87jtkk nostr:npub182kq0sdp7chm67uq58cf4vvl3lk37z8mm5k5067xe09fqqaaxjsqlcazej nostr:npub162hr8kd96vxlanvggl08hmyy37qsn8ehgj7za7squl83um56epnswkr399 nostr:npub17jzk5ex2rafres09c4dnn5mm00eejye6nrurnlla6yn22zcpl7vqg6vhvx nostr:npub176rnksulheuanfx8y8cr2mrth4lh33svvpztggjjm6j2pqw6m56sq7s9vz nostr:npub1akv7t7xpalhsc4nseljs0c886jzuhq8u42qdcwvu972f3mme9tjsgp5xxk nostr:npub18x0gv872489lrczp9d9m4hx59r754x7p9rg2jkgvt7ul3kuqewtqsssn24

Many more musicians were on-boarded to Fountain, however, we were unable to obtain all of their npubs.

THANK YOU TO ALL ZAPPERS AND BOOSTERS!

Musicians “Get It”

My key takeaway was the musicians' absolute understanding that the current digital landscape along with legacy social media is failing them. Every artist I spoke with recognized how algorithms hinder fan connection and how gatekeepers prevent fair compensation for their work. They all use Spotify, but they only do so out of necessity. They felt the music industry is primed for both a social and monetary revolution. Some of them were even speaking my language…

Because of this, concepts like decentralization, censorship resistance, owning your content, and controlling your social graph weren't just understood by them, they were instantly embraced. The excitement was real; they immediately saw the potential and agreed with me. Bitcoin and Nostr felt genuinely punk rock and that helped a lot of them identify with what we were offering them.

The Tools and the Issues

While the Nostr ecosystem offers a wide variety of tools, we focused on introducing three key applications at this event to keep things clear for newcomers:

1. Fountain, with a music focus, was the primary tool for onboarding attendees onto Nostr. Fountain was also chosen thanks to Fountain’s built-in Lightning wallet.
2. Primal, as a social alternative, was demonstrated to show how users can take their Nostr identity and content seamlessly between different applications.
3. Tunestr.io, lastly was showcased for its live video streaming capabilities.

Although we highlighted these three, we did inform attendees about the broader range of available apps and pointed them to nostrapps.com if they wanted to explore further, aiming to educate without overwhelming them.

This review highlights several UX issues with the Fountain app, particularly concerning profile updates, wallet functionality, and user discovery. While Fountain does work well, these minor hiccups make it extremely hard for on-boarding and education.

• Profile Issues:
• When a user edits their profile (e.g., Username/Nostr address, Lightning address) either during or after creation, the changes don't appear to consistently update across the app or sync correctly with Nostr relays.
• Specifically, the main profile display continues to show the old default Username/Nostr address and Lightning address inside Fountain and on other Nostr clients.
• However, the updated Username/Nostr address does appear on https://fountain.fm (chosen-username@fountain.fm) and is visible within the "Edit Profile" screen itself in the app.
• This inconsistency is confusing for users, as they see their updated information in some places but not on their main public-facing profile within the app. I confirmed this by observing a new user sign up and edit their username – the edit screen showed the new name, but the profile display in Fountain did not update and we did not see it inside Primal, Damus, Amethyst, etc.
• Wallet Limitations:
• The app's built-in wallet cannot scan Lightning address QR codes to initiate payments.
• This caused problems during the event where users imported Bitcoin from Azte.co vouchers into their Fountain wallets. When they tried to Zap a band by scanning a QR code on the live tally board, Fountain displayed an error message stating the invoice or QR code was invalid.
• While suggesting musicians install Primal as a second Nostr app was a potential fix for the QR code issue, (and I mentioned it to some), the burden of onboarding users onto two separate applications, potentially managing two different wallets, and explaining which one works for specific tasks creates a confusing and frustrating user experience.
• Search Difficulties:
• Finding other users within the Fountain app is challenging. I was unable to find profiles from brand new users by entering their chosen Fountain username.
• To find a new user, I had to resort to visiting their profile on the web (fountain.fm/username) to retrieve their npub. Then, open Primal and follow them. Finally, when searching for their username, since I was now following them, I was able to find their profile.
• This search issue is compounded by the profile syncing problem mentioned earlier, as even if found via other clients, their displayed information is outdated.
• Searching for the event to Boost/Zap inside Fountain was harder than it should have been the first two days as the live stream did not appear at the top of the screen inside the tap. This was resolved on the third day of the event.

Improving the Onboarding Experience

To better support user growth, educators and on-boarders need more feature complete and user-friendly applications. I love our developers and I will always sing their praises from the highest mountain tops, however I also recognize that the current tools present challenges that hinder a smooth onboarding experience.

One potential approach explored was guiding users to use Primal (including its built-in wallet) in conjunction with Wavlake via Nostr Wallet Connect (NWC). While this could facilitate certain functions like music streaming, zaps, and QR code scanning (which require both Primal and Wavlake apps), Wavlake itself has usability issues. These include inconsistent or separate profiles between web and mobile apps, persistent "Login" buttons even when logged in on the mobile app with a Nostr identity, and the minor inconvenience of needing two separate applications. Although NWC setup is relatively easy and helps streamline the process, the need to switch between apps adds complexity, especially when time is limited and we’re aiming to showcase the benefits of this new system.

Ultimately, we need applications that are more feature-complete and intuitive for mainstream users to improve the onboarding experience significantly.

Looking forward to the future

I anticipate that most of these issues will be resolved when these applications address them in the near future. Specifically, this would involve Fountain fixing its profile issues and integrating Nostr Wallet Connect (NWC) to allow users to utilize their Primal wallet, or by enabling the scanning of QR codes that pay out to Lightning addresses. Alternatively, if Wavlake resolves the consistency problems mentioned earlier, this would also significantly improve the situation giving us two viable solutions for musicians.

My ideal onboarding event experience would involve having all the previously mentioned issues resolved. Additionally, I would love to see every attendee receive a $5 or $10 voucher to help them start engaging with value-for-value, rather than just the limited number we distributed recently. The goal is to have everyone actively zapping and sending Bitcoin throughout the event. Maybe we can find a large sponsor to facilitate this in the future?

What's particularly exciting is the Launch conference's strong interest in integrating value-for-value across their entire program for all musicians and speakers at their next event in Dallas, Texas, coming later this fall. This presents a significant opportunity to onboard over 100+ musicians to Bitcoin and Nostr, which in turn will help onboard their fans and supporters.

We need significantly more zaps and more zappers! It's unreasonable to expect the same dedicated individuals to continuously support new users; they are being bled dry. A shift is needed towards more people using bitcoin for everyday transactions, treating it as money. This brings me back to my ideal onboarding experience: securing a sponsor to essentially give participants bitcoin funds specifically for zapping and tipping artists. This method serves as a practical lesson in using bitcoin as money and showcases the value-for-value principle from the outset.

@ 1bda7e1f:bb97c4d9

Tldr

• Nostr is a new open social protocol for the internet
• You can use it to create your own online community website/app for your users
• This needs only a few simple components that are free and open source
• Jumble.Social client is a front-end for showing your community content to your users
• Simple With Whitelist relay (SW2) is a back-end with simple auth for your community content
• In this blog I explain the components and set up a online community website/app that any community or company can use for their own users, for free.

You Can Run Your Own Private "X" For Free

Nostr is a new open social protocol for the internet. Because it is a protocol it is not controlled by any one company, does not reside on any one set of servers, does not require any licenses, and no one can stop you from using it however you like.

When the name Nostr is recognised, it is as a "Twitter/X alternative" – that is an online open public forum. Nostr is more than just this. The open nature of the protocol means that you can use it however you feel like, including that you can use it for creating your own social websites to suit whatever goals you have – anything from running your own team collaboration app, to running your own online community.

Nostr can be anything – not just an alternative to X, but also to Slack, Teams, Discord, Telegram (etc) – any kind of social app you'd like to run for your users can be run on Nostr.

In this blog I will show you how to launch your own community website, for your community members to use however they like, with low code, and for free.

Simple useful components

Nostr has a few simple components that work together to provide your experience –

• Your "client" – an app or a website front-end that you log into, which displays the content you want to see
• Your "relay" – a server back-end which receives and stores content, and sends it to clients
• Your "user" – a set of keys which represents a user on the network,
• Your "content" – any user content created and signed by a user, distributed to any relay, which can be picked up and viewed by any client.

It is a pattern that is used by every other social app on the internet, excepting that in those cases you can usually only view content in their app, and only post your content to their server.

Vs with Nostr where you can use any client (app) and any relay (server), including your own.

This is defined as a standard in NIP-01 which is simple enough that you can master it in a weekend, and with which you can build any kind of application.

The design space is wide open for anyone to build anything–

• Clones of Twitter, Instagram, Telegram, Medium, Twitch, etc,
• Whole new things like Private Ephemeral Messengers, Social Podcasting Apps, etc,
• Anything else you can dream up, like replacements for B2B SaaS or ERP systems.

Including that you can set up and run your own "X" for your community.

Super powers for –private– social internet

When considering my use of social internet, it is foremost private not public. Email, Whatsapp, Slack, Teams, Discord, Telegram (etc), are all about me, as a user, creating content for a selected group of individuals – close friends, colleagues, community members – not the wider public.

This private social internet is crying out for the kind of powers that Nostr provides. The list of things that Nostr solves for private social internet goes on-and-on.

Let me eat my own dog food for a moment.

• I am a member of a community of technology entrepreneurs with an app for internal community comms. The interface is not fit for this purpose. Good content gets lost. Any content created within the walled kingdom cannot be shared externally. Community members cannot migrate to a different front-end, or cross-post to public social channels.
• I am a member of many communities for kids social groups, each one with a different application and log in. There is no way to view a consolidated feed. There is no way to send one message to many communities, or share content between them. Remembering to check every feed separately is a drag.
• I am a member of a team with an app for team comms. It costs $XXX per user per month where it should be free. I can't self-host. I can't control or export my data. I can't make it interoperate natively with other SaaS. All of my messages probably go to train a Big Co AI without my consent.

In each instance "Nostr fixes this."

Ready now for low-code admins

To date Nostr has been best suited to a more technical user. To use the Nostr protocol directly has been primarily a field of great engineers building great foundations.

IMO these foundations are built. They are open source, free to use, and accessible for anyone who wants to create an administer their own online community, with only low code required.

To prove it, in this blog I will scratch my own itch. I need a X / Slack / Teams alternative to use with a few team members and friends (and a few AIs) as we hack on establishing a new business idea.

I will set this up with Nostr using only open source code, for free.

Designing the Solution

I am mostly non-technical with helpful AI. To set up your own community website in the style of X / Slack / Teams should be possible for anyone with basic technology skills.

• I have a cheap VPS which currently runs some other unrelated Nostr projects in Docker containers,
• My objective was to set up and run my own community website for my own team use, in Docker, hosted on my own server.

User requirements

What will I want from a community website?

• I want my users to be able to log into a website and post content,
• I want to save that content to a server I control accessed only be people I authorise,
• I want my users to view only that content by default, and not be exposed to any wider public social network unless they knowingly select that,
• I want my user's content to be either:
• a) viewable only by other community members (i.e. for internal team comms), or
• b) by the wider public (i.e. for public announcements), at the user's discretion.
• I want it to be open source so that other people maintain the code for me,
• I want it for free.

Nostr solutions

To achieve this with Nostr, I'll need to select some solutions "a-la carte" for each of the core components of the network.

• A client – For my client, I have chosen Jumble. Jumble is a free open-source client by Cody Tseng, available free on Github or at Jumble.social. I have chosen Jumble because it is a "relay-centric" client. In key spots the user interface highlights for the user what relay they are viewing, and what relay they are posting to. As a result, it is a beautiful fit for me to use as the home of all my community content.
• A relay – For my relay, I have chosen Simple With Whitelist (SW2). SW2 is a free open-source relay by Utxo The Webmaster, based on Khatru by Fiatjaf, available free on Github. I have chosen SW2 because it allows for very simple configuration of user auth. Users can be given read access to view notes, and write access to post notes within simple config.json files. This allows you to keep community content private or selectively share it in a variety of ways. Per the Nostr protocol, your client will connect with your relay via websocket.
• A user sign-up flow – Jumble has a user sign-up flow using Nstart by Fiatjaf, or as an admin I can create and provision my own users with any simple tool like NAK or Nostrtool.
• A user content flow – Jumble has a user content flow that can post notes to selected relays of the users choice. Rich media is uploaded to free third-party hosts like Nostr.build, and in the future there is scope to self-host this too.

With each of these boxes ticked I'm ready to start.

Launching a Private Community Website with Jumble and SW2

Install your SW2 relay

The relay is the trickiest part, so let's start there. SW2 is my Nostr relay software of choice. It is a Go application and includes full instructions for Go install. However, I prefer Docker, so I have built a Docker version and maintain a Docker branch here.

1 – In a terminal clone the repo and checkout the Docker branch

git clone https://github.com/r0d8lsh0p/sw2.git cd sw2 git checkout docker

2 – Set up the environment variables

These are specified in the readme. Duplicate the example .env file and fill it with your variables.

cp .env.example .env

For me this .env file was as follows–

```

Relay Metadata

RELAY_NAME="Tbdai relay" RELAY_PUBKEY="ede41352397758154514148b24112308ced96d121229b0e6a66bc5a2b40c03ec" RELAY_DESCRIPTION="An experimental relay for some people and robots working on a TBD AI project." RELAY_URL="wss://assistantrelay.rodbishop.nz" RELAY_ICON="https://image.nostr.build/44654201843fc0f03e9a72fbf8044143c66f0dd4d5350688db69345f9da05007.jpg" RELAY_CONTACT="https://rodbishop.nz" ```

3 – Specify who can read and write to the relay

This is controlled by two config files read_whitelist.json and write_whitelist.json.

• Any user with their pubkey in the read_whitelist can read notes posted to the relay. If empty, anyone can read.
• Any user with their pubkey in the write_whitelist can post notes to the relay. If empty, anyone can write.

We'll get to creating and authorising more users later, for now I suggest to add yourself to each whitelist, by copying your pubkey into each JSON file. For me this looks as follows (note, I use the 'hex' version of the pubkey, rather than the npub)–

{ "pubkeys": [ "1bda7e1f7396bda2d1ef99033da8fd2dc362810790df9be62f591038bb97c4d9" ] }

If this is your first time using Nostr and you don't yet have any user keys, it is easy and free to get one. You can get one from any Nostr client like Jumble.social, any tool like NAK or nostrtool.com or follow a comprehensive guide like my guide on mining a Nostr key.

4 – Launch your relay

If you are using my Docker fork from above, then–

docker compose up

Your relay should now be running on port 3334 and ready to accept web socket connections from your client.

Before you move on to set up the client, it's helpful to quickly test that it is running as expected.

5 – Test your websocket connection

For this I use a tool called wscat to make a websocket connection.

You may need to install wscat, e.g.

npm install -g wscat

And then run it, e.g.

wscat -c ws://localhost:3334

(note use ws:// for localhost, rather than wss://).

If your relay is working successfully then it should receive your websocket connection request and respond with an AUTH token, asking you to identify yourself as a user in the relay's read_whitelist.json (using the standard outlined in NIP-42), e.g.

``` Connected (press CTRL+C to quit) < ["AUTH","13206fea43ef2952"]

```

You do not need to authorise for now.

If you received this kind of message, your relay is working successfully.

Set a subdomain for your relay

Let's connect a domain name so your community members can access your relay.

1 – Configure DNS

At a high level –

1. Get your domain (buy one if you need to)
2. Get the IP address of your VPS
3. In your domain's DNS settings add those records as an A record to the subdomain of your choice, e.g. relay as in relay.your_domain_name.com, or in my case assistantrelay.rodbishop.nz

Your subdomain now points to your server.

2 – Configure reverse proxy

You need to redirect traffic from your subdomain to your relay at port 3334.

On my VPS I use Caddy as a reverse proxy for a few projects, I have it sitting in a separate Docker network. To use it for my SW2 Relay required two steps.

First – I added configuration to Caddy's Caddyfile to tell it what to do with requests for the relay.your_domain_name.com subdomain. For me this looked like–

assistantrelay.rodbishop.nz { reverse_proxy sw2-relay:3334 { # Enable WebSocket support header_up X-Forwarded-For {remote} header_up X-Forwarded-Proto {scheme} header_up X-Forwarded-Port {server_port} } }

Second – I added the Caddy Docker network to the SW2 docker-compose.yml to make it be part of the Caddy network. In my Docker branch, I provide this commented section which you can uncomment and use if you like.

``` services: relay: ... relay configuration here ...

networks:

- caddy # Connect to a Caddy network for reverse proxy

networks:

caddy:

external: true # Connect to a Caddy network for reverse proxy

```

Your relay is now running at your domain name.

Run Jumble.social

Your client set up is very easy, as most heavy lifting is done by your relay. My client of choice is Jumble because it has features that focus the user experience on the community's content first. You have two options for running Jumble.

1. Run your own local copy of Jumble by cloning the Github (optional)
2. Use the public instance at Jumble.social (easier, and what we'll do in this demo)

If you (optionally) want to run your own local copy of Jumble:

git clone https://github.com/CodyTseng/jumble.git cd jumble npm install npm run dev

For this demo, I will just use the public instance at http://jumble.social

Jumble has a very helpful user interface for set up and configuration. But, I wanted to think ahead to onboarding community members, and so instead I will do some work up front in order to give new members a smooth onboarding flow that I would suggest for an administrator to use in onboarding their community.

1 – Create a custom landing page URL for your community members to land on

When your users come to your website for the first time, you want them to get your community experience without any distraction. That will either be–

1. A prompt to sign up or login (if only authorised users can read content)
2. The actual content from your other community members (If all users can read content)

Your landing page URL will look like: http://jumble.social/?r=wss://relay.your_domain_name.com

• http://jumble.social/ – the URL of the Jumble instance you are using
• ?r= – telling Jumble to read from a relay
• wss:// – relays connect via websocket using wss, rather than https
• relay.your_domain_name.com – the domain name of your relay

For me, this URL looks like http://jumble.social/?r=wss://assistantrelay.rodbishop.nz

2 – Visit your custom Jumble URL

This should load the landing page of your relay on Jumble.

In the background, Jumble has attempted to establish a websocket connection to your relay.

If your relay is configured with read authentication, it has sent a challenge to Jumble asking your user to authenticate. Jumble, accordingly should now be showing you a login screen, asking your user to login.

3 – Login or Sign Up

You will see a variety of sign up and login options. To test, log in with the private key that you have configured to have read and write access.

In the background, Jumble has connected via websocket to your relay, checked that your user is authorised to view notes, and if so, has returned all the content on the relay. (If this is your first time here, there would not be any content yet).

If you give this link to your users to use as their landing page, they will land, login, and see only notes from members of your community.

4– Make your first post to your community

Click the "post" button and post a note. Jumble offers you the option to "Send only to relay.your_domain_name.com".

• If set to on, then Jumble will post the note only to your relay, no others. It will also include a specific tag (the "-" tag) which requests relays to not forward the note across the network. Only your community members viewing notes on your community relay can see it.
• If set to off, then Jumble will post the note to your relay and also the wider public Nostr network. Community members viewing notes on the relay can see it, and so can any user of the wider Nostr network.

5– Optional, configure your relay sets

At the top of the screen you should now see a dropdown with the URL of your relay.

Each user can save this relay to a "relay set" for future use, and also view, add or delete other relays sets including some sets which Jumble comes with set up by default.

As an admin you can use this to give users access to multiple relays. And, as a user, you can use this to access posts from multiple different community relays, all within the one client.

Your community website is up and running

That is the basic set up completed.

• You have a website where your community members can visit a URL to post notes and view all notes from all other members of the community.
• You have basic administration to enforce your own read and write permissions very simply in two json files.

Let's check in with my user requirements as a community admin–

• My community is saving content to a server where I control access
• My users view only that content by default, and are not exposed to any wider public social network unless they knowingly select that
• My user's content is a) viewable only by other community members, or b) by the wider public, at the user's discretion
• Other people are maintaining the code for me
• It's free

This setup has scope to solve my dog fooding issues from earlier–

• If adopted, my tech community can iterate the interface to suit its needs, find great content, and share content beyond the community.
• If adopted, my kids social groups can each have their own relays, but I can post to all of them together, or view a consolidated feed.
• If adopted, my team can chat with each other for free. I can self host this. It can natively interoperate with any other Nostr SaaS. It would be entirely private and will not be captured to train a Big Co AI without my consent.

Using your community website in practice

An example onboarding flow

1. A new member joins your IRL community
2. Your admin person gives them your landing page URL where they can view all the posts by your community members – If you have configured your relay to have no read auth required, then they can land on that landing page and immediately start viewing your community's posts, a great landing experience
3. The user user creates a Nostr profile, and provides the admin person with their public key
4. The admin person adds their key to the whitelists to read and write as you desire.

Default inter-op with the wider Nostr network

• If you change your mind on SW2 and want to use a different relay, your notes will be supported natively, and you can migrate on your own terms
• If you change your mind on Jumble and want to use a different client, your relay will be supported natively, and you can migrate on your own terms
• If you want to add other apps to your community's experience, every Nostr app will interoperate with your community by default – see the huge list at Awesome Nostr
• If any of your users want to view your community notes inside some other Nostr client – perhaps to see a consolidated feed of notes from all their different communities – they can.

For me, I use Amethyst app as my main Nostr client to view the public posts from people I follow. I have added my private community relay to Amethyst, and now my community posts appear alongside all these other posts in a single consolidated feed.

Scope to further improve

• You can run multiple different relays with different user access – e.g. one for wider company and one for your team
• You can run your own fork of Jumble and change the interface to suit you needs – e.g. add your logo, change the colours, link to other resources from the sidebar.

Other ideas for running communities

• Guest accounts: You can give a user "guest" access – read auth, but no write auth – to help people see the value of your community before becoming members.
• Running a knowledge base: You can whitelist users to read notes, but only administrators can post notes.
• Running a blind dropbox: You can whitelist users to post notes, but only the administrator can read notes.
• Running on a local terminal only: With Jumble and SW2 installed on a machine, running at – localhost:5173 for Jumble, and localhost:3334 for SW2 you can have an entirely local experience at http://localhost:5173/?r=ws://localhost:3334.

What's Next?

In my first four blogs I explored creating a good Nostr setup with Vanity Npub, Lightning Payments, Nostr Addresses at Your Domain, and Personal Nostr Relay.

Then in my latest three blogs I explored different types of interoperability with NFC cards, n8n Workflow Automation, and now running a private community website on Nostr.

For this community website–

• There is scope to make some further enhancements to SW2, including to add a "Blossom" media server so that community admins can self-host their own rich media, and to create an admin screen for administration of the whitelists using NIP-86.
• There is scope to explore all other kinds of Nostr clients to form the front-end of community websites, including Chachi.chat, Flotilla, and others.
• Nostr includes a whole variety of different optional standards for making more elaborate online communities including NIP-28, NIP-29, NIP-17, NIP-72 (etc). Each gives certain different capabilities, and I haven't used any of them! For this simple demo they are not required, but each could be used to extend the capabilities of the admin and community.

I am also doing a lot of work with AI on Nostr, including that I use my private community website as a front-end for engaging with a Nostr AI. I'll post about this soon too.

Please be sure to let me know if you think there's another Nostr topic you'd like to see me tackle.

GM Nostr.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

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

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

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

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

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

@ d34e832d:383f78d0

Introduction

Unlike other cetaceans that rely on whistles and songs, sperm whales primarily use echolocation and patterned click sequences to convey information. This paper explores the structure, function, and implications of their vocal communication, particularly in relation to their social behaviors and cognitive abilities.

1. The Nature of Sperm Whale Vocalizations

Sperm whales produce three primary types of clicks:
- Echolocation clicks for navigation and hunting.
- Regular clicks used in deep diving.
- Codas, which are rhythmic sequences exchanged between individuals, believed to function in social bonding and identification.

Each whale possesses a monumental sound-producing organ, the spermaceti organ, which allows for the production of powerful sounds that can travel long distances. The structure of these clicks suggests a level of vocal learning and adaptation, as different populations exhibit distinct coda repertoires.

2. Cultural and Regional Variation in Codas

Research indicates that different sperm whale clans have unique dialects, much like human languages. These dialects are not genetically inherited but culturally transmitted, meaning whales learn their communication styles from social interactions rather than instinct alone. Studies conducted in the Caribbean and the Pacific have revealed that whales in different regions have distinct coda patterns, with some being universal and others specific to certain clans.

3. Social Organization and Communication

Sperm whales are matrilineal and live in stable social units composed of mothers, calves, and juveniles, while males often lead solitary lives. Communication plays a critical role in maintaining social bonds within these groups.
- Codas serve as an acoustic signature that helps individuals recognize each other.
- More complex codas may function in coordinating group movements or teaching young whales.
- Some researchers hypothesize that codas convey emotional states, much like tone of voice in human speech.

4. Theories on Whale Intelligence and Language-Like Communication

The complexity of sperm whale vocalization raises profound questions about their cognitive abilities.
- Some researchers argue that sperm whale communication exhibits combinatorial properties, meaning that codas might function in ways similar to human phonemes, allowing for an extensive range of meanings.
- Studies using AI and machine learning have attempted to decode potential syntax patterns, but a full understanding of their language remains elusive.

5. Conservation Implications and the Need for Further Research

Understanding sperm whale communication is essential for conservation efforts. Noise pollution from shipping, sonar, and industrial activities can interfere with whale vocalizations, potentially disrupting social structures and navigation. Future research must focus on long-term coda tracking, cross-species comparisons, and experimental approaches to deciphering their meaning.

Consider

Sperm whale vocal communication represents one of the most intriguing areas of marine mammal research. Their ability to transmit learned vocalizations across generations suggests a high degree of cultural complexity. Although we have yet to fully decode their language, the study of sperm whale codas offers critical insights into non-human intelligence, social structures, and the evolution of communication in the animal kingdom.

@ 16f1a010:31b1074b

grain is a nostr relay built using Go, currently utilizing MongoDB as its database. Binaries are provided for AMD64 Windows and Linux. grain is Go Relay Architecture for Implementing Nostr

Introduction

grain is a nostr relay built using Go, currently utilizing MongoDB as its database. Binaries are provided for AMD64 Windows and Linux. grain is Go Relay Architecture for Implementing Nostr

Prerequisites

• Grain requires a running MongoDB instance. Please refer to this separate guide for instructions on setting up MongoDB: nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzq9h35qgq6n8ll0xyyv8gurjzjrx9sjwp4hry6ejnlks8cqcmzp6tqqxnzde5xg6rwwp5xsuryd3knfdr7g

Download Grain

Download the latest release for your system from the GitHub releases page

amd64 binaries provided for Windows and Linux, if you have a different CPU architecture, you can download and install go to build grain from source

Installation and Execution

• Create a new folder on your system where you want to run Grain.
• The downloaded binary comes bundled with a ZIP file containing a folder named "app," which holds the frontend HTML files. Unzip the "app" folder into the same directory as the Grain executable.

Run Grain

• Open your terminal or command prompt and navigate to the Grain directory.
• Execute the Grain binary.

on linux you will first have to make the program executable

chmod +x grain_linux_amd64

Then you can run the program

./grain_linux_amd64

(alternatively on windows, you can just double click the grain_windows_amd64.exe to start the relay)

You should see a terminal window displaying the port on which your relay and frontend are running.

If you get

Failed to copy app/static/examples/config.example.yml to config.yml: open app/static/examples/config.example.yml: no such file or directory

Then you probably forgot to put the app folder in the same directory as your executable or you did not unzip the folder.

Congrats! You're running grain 🌾!

You may want to change your NIP11 relay information document (relay_metadata.json) This informs clients of the capabilities, administrative contacts, and various server attributes. It's located in the same directory as your executable.

Configuration Files

Once Grain has been executed for the first time, it will generate the default configuration files inside the directory where the executable is located. These files are:

bash config.yml whitelist.yml blacklist.yml

Prerequisites: - Grain requires a running MongoDB instance. Please refer to this separate guide for instructions on setting up MongoDB: [Link to MongoDB setup guide].

Download Grain:

Download the latest release for your system from the GitHub releases page

amd64 binaries provided for Windows and Linux, if you have a different CPU architecture, you can download and install go to build grain from source

Installation and Execution:

• Create a new folder on your system where you want to run Grain.
• The downloaded binary comes bundled with a ZIP file containing a folder named "app," which holds the frontend HTML files. Unzip the "app" folder into the same directory as the Grain executable.

Run Grain:

• Open your terminal or command prompt and navigate to the Grain directory.
• Execute the Grain binary.

on linux you will first have to make the program executable

chmod +x grain_linux_amd64

Then you can run the program

./grain_linux_amd64

(alternatively on windows, you can just double click the grain_windows_amd64.exe to start the relay)

You should see a terminal window displaying the port on which your relay and frontend are running.

If you get

Failed to copy app/static/examples/config.example.yml to config.yml: open app/static/examples/config.example.yml: no such file or directory

Then you probably forgot to put the app folder in the same directory as your executable or you did not unzip the folder.

Congrats! You're running grain 🌾!

You may want to change your NIP11 relay information document (relay_metadata.json) This informs clients of the capabilities, administrative contacts, and various server attributes. It's located in the same directory as your executable.

Configuration Files:

Once Grain has been executed for the first time, it will generate the default configuration files inside the directory where the executable is located. These files are:

bash config.yml whitelist.yml blacklist.yml

Configuration Documentation

You can always find the latest example configs on my site or in the github repo here: config.yml

whitelist.yml

blacklist.yml

Config.yml

This config.yml file is where you customize how your Grain relay operates. Each section controls different aspects of the relay's behavior.

1. mongodb (Database Settings)

• uri: mongodb://localhost:27017/:
  • This is the connection string for your MongoDB database.
  • mongodb://localhost:27017/ indicates that your MongoDB server is running on the same computer as your Grain relay (localhost) and listening on port 27017 (the default MongoDB port).
  • If your MongoDB server is on a different machine, you'll need to change localhost to the server's IP address or hostname.
  • The trailing / indicates the root of the mongodb server. You will define the database in the next line.
• database: grain:
  • This specifies the name of the MongoDB database that Grain will use to store Nostr events. Grain will create this database if it doesn't already exist.
  • You can name the database whatever you want. If you want to run multiple grain relays, you can and they can have different databases running on the same mongo server.

2. server (Relay Server Settings)

• port: :8181:
  • This sets the port on which your Grain relay will listen for incoming nostr websocket connections and what port the frontend will be available at.
• read_timeout: 10 # in seconds:
  • This is the maximum time (in seconds) that the relay will wait for a client to send data before closing the connection.
• write_timeout: 10 # in seconds:
  • This is the maximum time (in seconds) that the relay will wait for a client to receive data before closing the connection.
• idle_timeout: 120 # in seconds:
  • This is the maximum time (in seconds) that the relay will keep a connection open if there's no activity.
• max_connections: 100:
  • This sets the maximum number of simultaneous client connections that the relay will allow.
• max_subscriptions_per_client: 10:
  • This sets the maximum amount of subscriptions a single client can request from the relay.

3. resource_limits (System Resource Limits)

• cpu_cores: 2 # Limit the number of CPU cores the application can use:
  • This restricts the number of CPU cores that Grain can use. Useful for controlling resource usage on your server.
• memory_mb: 1024 # Cap the maximum amount of RAM in MB the application can use:
  • This limits the maximum amount of RAM (in megabytes) that Grain can use.
• heap_size_mb: 512 # Set a limit on the Go garbage collector's heap size in MB:
  • This sets a limit on the amount of memory that the Go programming language's garbage collector can use.

4. auth (Authentication Settings)

• enabled: false # Enable or disable AUTH handling:
  • If set to true, this enables authentication handling, requiring clients to authenticate before using the relay.
• relay_url: "wss://relay.example.com/" # Specify the relay URL:
  • If authentication is enabled, this is the url that clients will use to authenticate.

5. UserSync (User Synchronization)

• user_sync: false:
  • If set to true, the relay will attempt to sync user data from other relays.
• disable_at_startup: true:
  • If user sync is enabled, this will prevent the sync from starting when the relay starts.
• initial_sync_relays: [...]:
  • A list of other relays to pull user data from.
• kinds: []:
  • A list of event kinds to pull from the other relays. Leaving this empty will pull all event kinds.
• limit: 100:
  • The limit of events to pull from the other relays.
• exclude_non_whitelisted: true:
  • If set to true, only users on the whitelist will have their data synced.
• interval: 360:
  • The interval in minutes that the relay will resync user data.

6. backup_relay (Backup Relay)

• enabled: false:
  • If set to true, the relay will send copies of received events to the backup relay.
• url: "wss://some-relay.com":
  • The url of the backup relay.

7. event_purge (Event Purging)

• enabled: false:
  • If set to true, the relay will automatically delete old events.
• keep_interval_hours: 24:
  • The number of hours to keep events before purging them.
• purge_interval_minutes: 240:
  • How often (in minutes) the purging process runs.
• purge_by_category: ...:
  • Allows you to specify which categories of events (regular, replaceable, addressable, deprecated) to purge.
• purge_by_kind_enabled: false:
  • If set to true, events will be purged based on the kinds listed below.
• kinds_to_purge: ...:
  • A list of event kinds to purge.
• exclude_whitelisted: true:
  • If set to true, events from whitelisted users will not be purged.

8. event_time_constraints (Event Time Constraints)

• min_created_at: 1577836800:
  • The minimum created_at timestamp (Unix timestamp) that events must have to be accepted by the relay.
• max_created_at_string: now+5m:
  • The maximum created at time that an event can have. This example shows that the max created at time is 5 minutes in the future from the time the event is received.
  • min_created_at_string and max_created_at work the same way.

9. rate_limit (Rate Limiting)

• ws_limit: 100:
  • The maximum number of WebSocket messages per second that the relay will accept.
• ws_burst: 200:
  • Allows a temporary burst of WebSocket messages.
• event_limit: 50:
  • The maximum number of Nostr events per second that the relay will accept.
• event_burst: 100:
  • Allows a temporary burst of Nostr events.
• req_limit: 50:
  • The limit of http requests per second.
• req_burst: 100:
  • The allowed burst of http requests.
• max_event_size: 51200:
  • The maximum size (in bytes) of a Nostr event that the relay will accept.
• kind_size_limits: ...:
  • Allows you to set size limits for specific event kinds.
• category_limits: ...:
  • Allows you to set rate limits for different event categories (ephemeral, addressable, regular, replaceable).
• kind_limits: ...:
  • Allows you to set rate limits for specific event kinds.

By understanding these settings, you can tailor your Grain Nostr relay to meet your specific needs and resource constraints.

whitelist.yml

The whitelist.yml file is used to control which users, event kinds, and domains are allowed to interact with your Grain relay. Here's a breakdown of the settings:

1. pubkey_whitelist (Public Key Whitelist)

• enabled: false:
  • If set to true, this enables the public key whitelist. Only users whose public keys are listed will be allowed to publish events to your relay.
• pubkeys::
  • A list of hexadecimal public keys that are allowed to publish events.
  • pubkey1 and pubkey2 are placeholders, you will replace these with actual hexadecimal public keys.
• npubs::
  • A list of npubs that are allowed to publish events.
  • npub18ls2km9aklhzw9yzqgjfu0anhz2z83hkeknw7sl22ptu8kfs3rjq54am44 and npub2 are placeholders, replace them with actual npubs.
  • npubs are bech32 encoded public keys.

2. kind_whitelist (Event Kind Whitelist)

• enabled: false:
  • If set to true, this enables the event kind whitelist. Only events with the specified kinds will be allowed.
• kinds::
  • A list of event kinds (as strings) that are allowed.
  • "1" and "2" are example kinds. Replace these with the kinds you want to allow.
  • Example kinds are 0 for metadata, 1 for short text notes, and 2 for recommend server.

3. domain_whitelist (Domain Whitelist)

• enabled: false:
  • If set to true, this enables the domain whitelist. This checks the domains .well-known folder for their nostr.json. This file contains a list of pubkeys. They will be considered whitelisted if on this list.
• domains::
  • A list of domains that are allowed.
  • "example.com" and "anotherdomain.com" are example domains. Replace these with the domains you want to allow.

blacklist.yml

The blacklist.yml file allows you to block specific content, users, and words from your Grain relay. Here's a breakdown of the settings:

1. enabled: true

• This setting enables the blacklist functionality. If set to true, the relay will actively block content and users based on the rules defined in this file.

2. permanent_ban_words:

• This section lists words that, if found in an event, will result in a permanent ban for the event's author.
• - really bad word is a placeholder. Replace it with any words you want to permanently block.

3. temp_ban_words:

• This section lists words that, if found in an event, will result in a temporary ban for the event's author.
• - crypto, - web3, and - airdrop are examples. Replace them with the words you want to temporarily block.

4. max_temp_bans: 3

• This sets the maximum number of temporary bans a user can receive before they are permanently banned.

5. temp_ban_duration: 3600

• This sets the duration of a temporary ban in seconds. 3600 seconds equals one hour.

6. permanent_blacklist_pubkeys:

• This section lists hexadecimal public keys that are permanently blocked from using the relay.
• - db0c9b8acd6101adb9b281c5321f98f6eebb33c5719d230ed1870997538a9765 is an example. Replace it with the public keys you want to block.

7. permanent_blacklist_npubs:

• This section lists npubs that are permanently blocked from using the relay.
• - npub1x0r5gflnk2mn6h3c70nvnywpy2j46gzqwg6k7uw6fxswyz0md9qqnhshtn is an example. Replace it with the npubs you want to block.
• npubs are the human readable version of public keys.

8. mutelist_authors:

• This section lists hexadecimal public keys of author of a kind1000 mutelist. Pubkey authors on this mutelist will be considered on the permanent blacklist. This provides a nostr native way to handle the backlist of your relay
• - 3fe0ab6cbdb7ee27148202249e3fb3b89423c6f6cda6ef43ea5057c3d93088e4 is an example. Replace it with the public keys of authors that have a mutelist you would like to use as a blacklist. Consider using your own.
• Important Note: The mutelist Event MUST be stored in this relay for it to be retrieved. This means your relay must have a copy of the authors kind10000 mutelist to consider them for the blacklist.

Running Grain as a Service:

Windows Service:

To run Grain as a Windows service, you can use tools like NSSM (Non-Sucking Service Manager). NSSM allows you to easily install and manage any application as a Windows service.

* For instructions on how to install NSSM, please refer to this article: [Link to NSSM install guide coming soon].

1. Open Command Prompt as Administrator:

   • Open the Windows Start menu, type "cmd," right-click on "Command Prompt," and select "Run as administrator."

2. Navigate to NSSM Directory:

   • Use the cd command to navigate to the directory where you extracted NSSM. For example, if you extracted it to C:\nssm, you would type cd C:\nssm and press Enter.

3. Install the Grain Service:

   • Run the command nssm install grain.
   • A GUI will appear, allowing you to configure the service.

4. Configure Service Details:

   • In the "Path" field, enter the full path to your Grain executable (e.g., C:\grain\grain_windows_amd64.exe).
   • In the "Startup directory" field, enter the directory where your Grain executable is located (e.g., C:\grain).

5. Install the Service:

   • Click the "Install service" button.

6. Manage the Service:

   • You can now manage the Grain service using the Windows Services manager. Open the Start menu, type "services.msc," and press Enter. You can start, stop, pause, or restart the Grain service from there.

Linux Service (systemd):

To run Grain as a Linux service, you can use systemd, the standard service manager for most modern Linux distributions.

1. Create a Systemd Service File:

   • Open a text editor with root privileges (e.g., sudo nano /etc/systemd/system/grain.service).

2. Add Service Configuration:

   • Add the following content to the grain.service file, replacing the placeholders with your actual paths and user information:

   ```toml [Unit] Description=Grain Nostr Relay After=network.target

   [Service] ExecStart=/path/to/grain_linux_amd64 WorkingDirectory=/path/to/grain/directory Restart=always User=your_user #replace your_user Group=your_group #replace your_group

   [Install] WantedBy=multi-user.target ```

   • Replace /path/to/grain/executable with the full path to your Grain executable.
   • Replace /path/to/grain/directory with the directory containing your Grain executable.
   • Replace your_user and your_group with the username and group that will run the Grain service.

3. Reload Systemd:

   • Run the command sudo systemctl daemon-reload to reload the systemd configuration.

4. Enable the Service:

   • Run the command sudo systemctl enable grain.service to enable the service to start automatically on boot.

5. Start the Service:

   • Run the command sudo systemctl start grain.service to start the service immediately.

6. Check Service Status:

   • Run the command sudo systemctl status grain.service to check the status of the Grain service. This will show you if the service is running and any recent logs.
   • You can run sudo journalctl -f -u grain.service to watch the logs

More guides are in the works for setting up tailscale to access your relay from anywhere over a private network and for setting up a cloudflare tunnel to your domain to deploy a grain relay accessible on a subdomain of your site eg wss://relay.yourdomain.com

@ 17538dc2:71ed77c4

Who were they? Testing long form publication via yakihonne

@ a39d19ec:3d88f61e

Nun da das deutsche Bundesregime den Ruin Deutschlands beschlossen hat, der sehr wahrscheinlich mit dem Werkzeug des Geld druckens "finanziert" wird, kamen mir so viele Gedanken zur Geldmengenausweitung, dass ich diese für einmal niedergeschrieben habe.

Die Ausweitung der Geldmenge führt aus klassischer wirtschaftlicher Sicht immer zu Preissteigerungen, weil mehr Geld im Umlauf auf eine begrenzte Menge an Gütern trifft. Dies lässt sich in mehreren Schritten analysieren:

1. Quantitätstheorie des Geldes

Die klassische Gleichung der Quantitätstheorie des Geldes lautet:

M • V = P • Y

wobei:
- M die Geldmenge ist,
- V die Umlaufgeschwindigkeit des Geldes,
- P das Preisniveau,
- Y die reale Wirtschaftsleistung (BIP).

Wenn M steigt und V sowie Y konstant bleiben, muss P steigen – also Inflation entstehen.

2. Gütermenge bleibt begrenzt

Die Menge an real produzierten Gütern und Dienstleistungen wächst meist nur langsam im Vergleich zur Ausweitung der Geldmenge. Wenn die Geldmenge schneller steigt als die Produktionsgütermenge, führt dies dazu, dass mehr Geld für die gleiche Menge an Waren zur Verfügung steht – die Preise steigen.

3. Erwartungseffekte und Spekulation

Wenn Unternehmen und Haushalte erwarten, dass mehr Geld im Umlauf ist, da eine zentrale Planung es so wollte, können sie steigende Preise antizipieren. Unternehmen erhöhen ihre Preise vorab, und Arbeitnehmer fordern höhere Löhne. Dies kann eine sich selbst verstärkende Spirale auslösen.

4. Internationale Perspektive

Eine erhöhte Geldmenge kann die Währung abwerten, wenn andere Länder ihre Geldpolitik stabil halten. Eine schwächere Währung macht Importe teurer, was wiederum Preissteigerungen antreibt.

5. Kritik an der reinen Geldmengen-Theorie

Der Vollständigkeit halber muss erwähnt werden, dass die meisten modernen Ökonomen im Staatsauftrag argumentieren, dass Inflation nicht nur von der Geldmenge abhängt, sondern auch von der Nachfrage nach Geld (z. B. in einer Wirtschaftskrise). Dennoch zeigt die historische Erfahrung, dass eine unkontrollierte Geldmengenausweitung langfristig immer zu Preissteigerungen führt, wie etwa in der Hyperinflation der Weimarer Republik oder in Simbabwe.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

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

TL;DR please educate your children about online safety.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

@ bc575705:dba3ed39

In our hyper-connected age, the concept of "Know Your Customer" (KYC) has morphed from a regulatory necessity into a pervasive surveillance apparatus, subtly eroding our fundamental liberties. While purported to combat financial crime, KYC has become a tool for mass surveillance, data exploitation, and the gradual dismantling of personal privacy. Let’s embark on a comprehensive exploration of this system, exposing its inherent flaws and advocating for a paradigm shift towards decentralized financial sovereignty.

Beyond the Surface: The Intricate Web of KYC Data Collection

KYC transcends mere identity verification; it's a deep dive into the minutiae of our lives. Consider the breadth and depth of data extracted:

Geographic Surveillance: Proof of address requirements delve into historical residency, creating granular maps of our movements. Combined with location data from mobile devices and online activity, this paints a comprehensive picture of our physical presence.

Financial Autopsy: KYC dissects our financial lives with surgical precision. Income sources, asset declarations, and transaction histories are meticulously cataloged. Algorithmic analysis reveals spending habits, investment strategies, and even potential political affiliations.

Behavioral Predictive Modeling: AI algorithms analyze our financial behavior, predicting future actions and preferences. This data is invaluable for targeted advertising, but also for social engineering and political manipulation.

Biometric Invasiveness: Facial recognition, iris scans, and voice analysis create permanent, immutable records of our physical selves. These biometrics are highly sensitive and vulnerable to breaches, potentially leading to identity theft and even physical harm.

Social Network Mapping: KYC extends beyond individuals, mapping our social and professional networks. Institutions analyze our connections, identifying potential risks based on our associations. This has a chilling effect on free association and dissent, as individuals become hesitant to associate with those deemed "risky."

Psychometric Profiling: With the increase of online tests, and the collection of online data, companies and states can build psychometric profiles. These profiles can be used to predict actions, and even manipulate populations.

The Fallacy of Security: KYC's Ineffectiveness and the Rise of the Surveillance State

Despite its claims, KYC fails to effectively combat sophisticated financial crime. Instead, it creates a system of mass surveillance that disproportionately targets law-abiding citizens.

The Scourge of False Positives: Automated KYC systems frequently generate false positives, flagging innocent individuals as potential criminals. This can lead to financial exclusion, reputational damage, and even legal persecution.

A Ticking Time Bomb: Centralized KYC databases are prime targets for hackers, putting vast amounts of sensitive personal information at risk. Data breaches can lead to identity theft, financial fraud, and even physical harm.

The State's Panopticon: KYC empowers governments to monitor the financial activities of their citizens, creating a powerful tool for surveillance and control. This can be used to suppress dissent, target political opponents, and enforce conformity.

The Criminals Advantage: Sophisticated criminals easily bypass KYC using shell companies, money laundering, and other techniques. This makes KYC a system that punishes the innocent, and gives the criminals a false sense of security for the data collected.

Decentralized Alternatives: Reclaiming Financial Sovereignty and Privacy

In the face of this encroaching surveillance state, decentralized technologies offer a path to financial freedom and privacy.

Cryptocurrency | A Bastion of Financial Freedom: Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies provide censorship-resistant alternatives to traditional financial systems. They empower individuals to transact freely, without the need for intermediaries or government oversight.

Decentralized Finance (DeFi) | Democratizing Finance: DeFi platforms offer a range of financial services, including lending, borrowing, and trading, without the need for traditional banks. These platforms are built on blockchain technology, ensuring transparency, security, and accessibility.

Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI) | Empowering Individuals: SSI solutions enable individuals to control their own digital identities, without relying on centralized authorities. This allows for secure and private verification of identity, without the need to share sensitive personal information with every service provider.

Privacy-Enhancing Technologies (PETs) | Shielding Your Data: Technologies like zero-knowledge proofs, homomorphic encryption, and secure multi-party computation can be used to protect personal data while still allowing for necessary verification.

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) | Creating new forms of governance: DAOs provide new ways for groups to organize, and make decisions. They provide a transparent way to pool resources, and make decisions.

A Call to Action: Defending Our Digital Rights and Building a Decentralized Future

We cannot passively accept the erosion of our fundamental freedoms. We must actively defend our digital rights and demand a more just and equitable financial system.

Advocate for Robust Privacy Laws: Demand stronger regulations that limit the collection and use of personal data.

Champion Decentralized Technologies: Support the development and adoption of cryptocurrencies, DeFi platforms, and other decentralized solutions.

Educate and Empower: Raise awareness about the dangers of KYC and state surveillance.

Cultivate Critical Thinking: Question the narratives presented by governments and corporations.

Build Decentralized Communities: Join and support decentralized communities that are working to build a more free and open financial system.

Demand transparency from all data collection: Insist that all data collection is open, and that there are strong penalties for those that misuse data.

The fight for financial freedom is a fight for human freedom. Let us stand together and reclaim our digital sovereignty.

@ d34e832d:383f78d0

Micro with its operands and keybindings.

---

Micro is a modern, user-friendly text editor designed for the terminal. It offers extensive features, including mouse support, multiple cursors, syntax highlighting, and an intuitive command bar.

---

1. Command Bar

• Open it with Ctrl-e
• Supports shell-like argument parsing (single/double quotes, escaping)
• No environment variable expansion

---

2. Commands Overview

Commands are entered using Ctrl-e followed by the command.

File Management

• save ['filename'] → Save the current buffer (or "Save As" if a filename is given)
• quit → Exit Micro
• open 'filename' → Open a file
• reopen → Reload the current file from disk
• pwd → Print the current working directory
• cd 'path' → Change the working directory

Navigation

• goto 'line[:col]' → Move to an absolute line and column
• jump 'line[:col]' → Move relative to the current line

Editing

• replace 'search' 'value' ['flags'] → Replace text
• -a → Replace all occurrences
• -l → Literal search (no regex)
• replaceall 'search' 'value' → Replace all without confirmation
• textfilter 'sh-command' → Pipe selected text through a shell command and replace it

Splitting and Tabs

• vsplit ['filename'] → Open a vertical split
• hsplit ['filename'] → Open a horizontal split
• tab ['filename'] → Open a file in a new tab
• tabswitch 'tab' → Switch between tabs
• tabmove '[-+]n' → Move tab position

Configuration

• set 'option' 'value' → Set a global option
• setlocal 'option' 'value' → Set an option for the current buffer
• show 'option' → Show the current value of an option
• reset 'option' → Reset an option to its default

Plugins

• plugin list → List installed plugins
• plugin install 'pl' → Install a plugin
• plugin remove 'pl' → Remove a plugin
• plugin update ['pl'] → Update a plugin
• plugin search 'pl' → Search for plugins

Miscellaneous

• run 'sh-command' → Run a shell command in the background
• log → View debug messages
• reload → Reload all runtime files (settings, keybindings, syntax files, etc.)
• raw → Debug terminal escape sequences
• showkey 'key' → Show what action is bound to a key
• term ['exec'] → Open a terminal emulator running a specific command
• lint → Lint the current file
• comment → Toggle comments on a selected line or block

---

3. Keybindings Overview

| Action | Keybinding | |------------------|--------------| | Navigation | | | Move cursor left | ← or h | | Move cursor right | → or l | | Move cursor up | ↑ or k | | Move cursor down | ↓ or j | | Move to start of line | Home | | Move to end of line | End | | Move to start of file | Ctrl-Home | | Move to end of file | Ctrl-End | | Move by word left | Ctrl-← or Ctrl-b | | Move by word right | Ctrl-→ or Ctrl-f | | Editing | | | Copy | Ctrl-c | | Cut | Ctrl-x | | Paste | Ctrl-v | | Undo | Ctrl-z | | Redo | Ctrl-Shift-z | | Delete word left | Ctrl-Backspace | | Delete word right | Ctrl-Delete | | Splitting & Tabs | | | Open horizontal split | Ctrl-w h | | Open vertical split | Ctrl-w v | | Switch tab left | Alt-← | | Switch tab right | Alt-→ |

For more, check the official keybindings:
🔗 Micro Keybindings 🔗Available Here

---

Final Thoughts

Micro is a powerful text editor for terminal users who want an alternative to Vim or Nano. With an intuitive command bar, extensive customization options, and full plugin support, it offers a lightweight yet feature-rich editing experience. 🚀

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hours: Available 24 hours

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

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

Concern

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

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

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

Optimism

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

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

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

Realism

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

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

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Introduction

Throughout human history, the pyramids of Egypt have fascinated scholars, archaeologists, and engineers alike. Traditionally thought of as tombs for pharaohs or religious monuments, alternative theories have speculated that the pyramids may have served advanced technological functions. One such hypothesis suggests that the pyramids acted as large-scale nitrogen fertilizer generators, designed to transform arid desert landscapes into fertile land.

This paper explores the feasibility of such a system by examining how a pyramid could integrate thermal convection, electrolysis, and a self-regulating breeder reactor to sustain nitrogen fixation processes. We will calculate the total power requirements and estimate the longevity of a breeder reactor housed within the structure.

The Pyramid’s Function as a Nitrogen Fertilizer Generator

The hypothesized system involves several key processes:

• Heat and Convection: A fissile material core located in the King's Chamber would generate heat, creating convection currents throughout the pyramid.
• Electrolysis and Hydrogen Production: Water sourced from subterranean channels would undergo electrolysis, splitting into hydrogen and oxygen due to electrical and thermal energy.
• Nitrogen Fixation: The generated hydrogen would react with atmospheric nitrogen (N₂) to produce ammonia (NH₃), a vital component of nitrogen-based fertilizers.

Power Requirements for Continuous Operation

To maintain the pyramid’s core at approximately 450°C, sufficient to drive nitrogen fixation, we estimate a steady-state power requirement of 23.9 gigawatts (GW).

Total Energy Required Over 10,000 Years

Given continuous operation over 10,000 years, the total energy demand can be calculated as:

[ \text{Total time} = 10,000 \times 365.25 \times 24 \times 3600 \text{ seconds} ]

[ \text{Total time} = 3.16 \times 10^{11} \text{ seconds} ]

[ \text{Total energy} = 23.9 \text{ GW} \times 3.16 \times 10^{11} \text{ s} ]

[ \approx 7.55 \times 10^{21} \text{ J} ]

Using a Self-Regulating Breeder Reactor

A breeder reactor could sustain this power requirement by generating more fissile material than it consumes. This reduces the need for frequent refueling.

Pebble Bed Reactor Design

• Self-Regulation: The reactor would use passive cooling and fuel expansion to self-regulate temperature.
• Breeding Process: The reactor would convert thorium-232 into uranium-233, creating a sustainable fuel cycle.

Fissile Material Requirements

Each kilogram of fissile material releases approximately 80 terajoules (TJ) (or 8 × 10^{13} J/kg). Given a 35% efficiency rate, the usable energy per kilogram is:

[ \text{Usable energy per kg} = 8 \times 10^{13} \times 0.35 = 2.8 \times 10^{13} \text{ J/kg} ]

[ \text{Fissile material required} = \frac{7.55 \times 10^{21}}{2.8 \times 10^{13}} ]

[ \approx 2.7 \times 10^{8} \text{ kg} = 270,000 \text{ tons} ]

Impact of a Breeding Ratio

If the reactor operates at a breeding ratio of 1.3, the total fissile material requirement would be reduced to:

[ \frac{270,000}{1.3} \approx 208,000 \text{ tons} ]

Reactor Size and Fuel Replenishment

Assuming a pebble bed reactor housed in the King’s Chamber (~318 cubic meters), the fuel cycle could be sustained with minimal refueling. With a breeding ratio of 1.3, the reactor could theoretically operate for 10,000 years with occasional replenishment of lost material due to inefficiencies.

Managing Scaling in the Steam Generation System

To ensure long-term efficiency, the water supply must be conditioned to prevent mineral scaling. Several strategies could be implemented:

1. Natural Water Softening Using Limestone

• Passing river water through limestone beds could help precipitate out calcium bicarbonate, reducing hardness before entering the steam system.

2. Chemical Additives for Scaling Prevention

• Chelating Agents: Compounds such as citric acid or tannins could be introduced to bind calcium and magnesium ions.
• Phosphate Compounds: These interfere with crystal formation, preventing scale adhesion.

3. Superheating and Pre-Evaporation

• Pre-Evaporation: Water exposed to extreme heat before entering the system would allow minerals to precipitate out before reaching the reactor.
• Superheated Steam: Ensuring only pure vapor enters the steam cycle would prevent mineral buildup.
• Electrolysis of Superheated Steam: Using multi-million volt electrostatic fields to ionize and separate minerals before they enter the steam system.

4. Electrostatic Control for Scaling Mitigation

• The pyramid’s hypothesized high-voltage environment could ionize water molecules, helping to prevent mineral deposits.

Conclusion

If the Great Pyramid were designed as a self-regulating nitrogen fertilizer generator, it would require a continuous 23.9 GW energy supply, which could be met by a breeder reactor housed within its core. With a breeding ratio of 1.3, an initial load of 208,000 tons of fissile material would sustain operations for 10,000 years with minimal refueling.

Additionally, advanced water treatment techniques, including limestone filtration, chemical additives, and electrostatic control, could ensure long-term efficiency by mitigating scaling issues.

While this remains a speculative hypothesis, it presents a fascinating intersection of energy production, water treatment, and environmental engineering as a means to terraform the ancient world.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Introduction

Since the mid-1990s, American media has fractured into two distinct and increasingly isolated ecosystems, each with its own Overton window of acceptable discourse. Once upon a time, Americans of different political leanings shared a common set of facts, even if they interpreted them differently. Today, they don’t even agree on what the facts are—or who has the authority to define them.

This divide stems from a deeper philosophical rift in how each side determines truth and legitimacy. The institutional left derives its authority from the expert class—academics, think tanks, scientific consensus, and mainstream media. The populist right, on the other hand, finds its authority in traditional belief systems—religion, historical precedent, and what many call "common sense." As these two moral and epistemological frameworks drift further apart, the result is not just political division but the emergence of two separate cultural nations sharing the same geographic space.

The Battle of Epistemologies: Experts vs. Tradition

The left-leaning camp sees scientific consensus, peer-reviewed research, and institutional expertise as the gold standard of truth. Universities, media organizations, and policy think tanks function as arbiters of knowledge, shaping the moral and political beliefs of those who trust them. From this perspective, governance should be guided by data-driven decisions, often favoring progressive change and bureaucratic administration over democratic populism.

The right-leaning camp is skeptical of these institutions, viewing them as ideologically captured and detached from real-world concerns. Instead, they look to religion, historical wisdom, and traditional social structures as more reliable sources of truth. To them, the "expert class" is not an impartial source of knowledge but a self-reinforcing elite that justifies its own power while dismissing dissenters as uneducated or morally deficient.

This fundamental disagreement over the source of moral and factual authority means that political debates today are rarely about policy alone. They are battles over legitimacy itself. One side sees resistance to climate policies as "anti-science," while the other sees aggressive climate mandates as an elite power grab. One side views traditional gender roles as oppressive, while the other sees rapid changes in gender norms as unnatural and destabilizing. Each group believes the other is not just wrong, but dangerous.

The Consequences of Non-Overlapping Overton Windows

As these worldviews diverge, so do their respective Overton windows—the range of ideas considered acceptable for public discourse. There is little overlap left. What is considered self-evident truth in one camp is often seen as heresy or misinformation in the other. The result is:

• Epistemic Closure – Each side has its own trusted media sources, and cross-exposure is minimal. The left dismisses right-wing media as conspiracy-driven, while the right views mainstream media as corrupt propaganda. Both believe the other is being systematically misled.
• Moralization of Politics – Since truth itself is contested, policy debates become existential battles. Disagreements over issues like immigration, education, or healthcare are no longer just about governance but about moral purity versus moral corruption.
• Cultural and Political Balkanization – Without a shared understanding of reality, compromise becomes impossible. Americans increasingly consume separate news, live in ideologically homogeneous communities, and even speak different political languages.

Conclusion: Two Nations on One Land

A country can survive disagreements, but can it survive when its people no longer share a common source of truth? Historically, such deep societal fractures have led to secession, authoritarianism, or violent conflict. The United States has managed to avoid these extremes so far, but the trendline is clear: as long as each camp continues reinforcing its own epistemology while rejecting the other's as illegitimate, the divide will only grow.

The question is no longer whether America is divided—it is whether these two cultures can continue to coexist under a single political system. Can anything bridge the gap between institutional authority and traditional wisdom? Or are we witnessing the slow but inevitable unraveling of a once-unified nation into two separate moral and epistemic realities?

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Listen the Podcast:

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7lJWc1zaqA9CNhB8coJXaL?si=4147bca317624d34

https://www.fountain.fm/episode/YEGnlBLZhvuj96GSpuk9

Abstract

This paper examines a hypothetical scenario in which the United States, under Trump’s leadership, withdraws from NATO and reduces its support for Europe, thereby enabling a Russian conquest of Ukraine and the subsequent expansion of Moscow’s influence over Eurasia, while the US consolidates its dominance over South America. Drawing on classical geopolitical theories—specifically those of Halford Mackinder, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Rudolf Kjellén, and Friedrich Ratzel—the study analyzes how these frameworks can elucidate the evolving power dynamics and territorial ambitions in a reconfigured global order. The discussion highlights Mackinder’s notion of the Eurasian Heartland and its strategic importance, Mahan’s emphasis on maritime power and control of strategic routes, Kjellén’s view of the state as an expanding organism, and Ratzel’s concept of Lebensraum as a justification for territorial expansion. The paper also explores contemporary developments, such as the US–Ukraine economic agreement and Trump’s overt territorial ambitions involving Greenland and Canada, in light of these theories. By juxtaposing traditional geopolitical concepts with current international relations, the study aims to shed light on the potential implications of such shifts for regional stability, global security, and the balance of power, particularly in relation to emerging neocolonial practices in Latin America.

Introduction

In recent years, the geopolitical dynamics involving the United States, Russia, and Ukraine have sparked analyses from different theoretical perspectives. This paper examines recent events – presupposing a scenario in which Donald Trump withdraws the US from NATO and reduces its support for Europe, allowing a Russian conquest of Ukraine and the expansion of Moscow’s influence over Eurasia, while the US consolidates its dominance over South America – in light of classical geopolitical theories. The ideas of Halford Mackinder, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Rudolf Kjellén, and Friedrich Ratzel are used as reference points. The proposal is to impartially evaluate how each theory can elucidate the developments of this hypothetical scenario, relating Russian territorial expansion in Eurasia to the strategic retreat of the US to the Western Hemisphere.

Initially, we will outline Mackinder’s conception of the Heartland (the central Eurasian territory) and the crucial role of Eastern Europe and Ukraine in the quest for global dominance. Next, we will discuss Mahan’s ideas regarding maritime power and the control of strategic routes, considering the impacts on the naval power balance among the US, Russia, and other maritime powers such as the United Kingdom and Japan. Subsequently, we will examine Kjellén’s organic theory of the state, interpreting the Russian expansionist strategy as a reflection of a state organism in search of vital space. In the same vein, Ratzel’s concept of “Lebensraum” will be explored, along with how Russia could justify territorial expansion based on resources and territory. Finally, the paper connects these theories to the current political context, analyzing the direct negotiations between Washington and Moscow (overlooking Ukraine and Europe), the US policy toward authoritarian regimes in Latin America, and the notion of a hemispheric division of power – the “Island of the Americas” under North American hegemony versus an Eurasia dominated by Russia. Lastly, it considers the possibility that such a geopolitical arrangement may foster the strengthening of authoritarian governments globally, rather than containing them, thus altering the paradigms of the liberal world order.

The Heartland of Mackinder: Ukraine, Eurasia, and Global Dominance

Halford J. Mackinder, a British geographer and pioneer of geopolitics, proposed the celebrated Heartland Theory in the early twentieth century. Mackinder divided the world into geostrategic zones and identified the Heartland—the central continental mass of Eurasia—as the “geographical pivot of history” [5]. His most famous maxim encapsulates this vision: “who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; who rules the World Island commands the world” [5]. Eastern Europe and, in particular, the region of present-day Ukraine, play a key role in this formula. This is because, for Mackinder, Eastern Europe functions as a gateway to the Heartland, providing access to resources and a strategic position for the projection of continental power [5].

Applying this theory to our scenario, the conquest of Ukraine and Eastern European countries by Russia would have profound geopolitical implications. From a Mackinderian point of view, such a conquest would enormously strengthen Russia’s position in the Heartland by adding manpower (population) and Ukraine’s industrial and agricultural resources to its power base [5]. In fact, Mackinder argued that controlling the Heartland conferred formidable geostrategic advantages—a vast terrestrial “natural fortress” protected from naval invasions and rich in resources such as wheat, minerals, and fuels [5]. Thus, if Moscow were to incorporate Ukraine (renowned for its fertile soil and grain production, as well as its mineral reserves) and extend its influence over Eastern Europe, Russia would consolidate the Heartland under its direct control. In this context, the absence of the USA (withdrawn from NATO and less engaged in Europe) would remove an important obstacle to Russian predominance in the region.

With central and eastern Eurasia under Russian influence, it would be possible to move toward the realization of the geopolitical nightmare described by Mackinder for Western maritime powers: a hegemonic continental power capable of projecting power to both Europe and Asia. Mackinder himself warned that if a Heartland power gained additional access to an oceanic coastline—in other words, if it combined land power with a significant maritime front—it would constitute a “danger” to global freedom [5]. In the scenario considered, besides advancing into Eastern Europe, Russia would already possess strategic maritime outlets (for example, in the Black Sea, via Crimea, and in the Baltic, via Kaliningrad or the Baltic States if influenced). Thus, the control of Ukraine would reinforce Russia’s position in the Black Sea and facilitate projection into the Eastern Mediterranean, expanding its oceanic front. From a Mackinderian perspective, this could potentially transform Russia into the dominant power of the “World Island” (the combined mass of Europe, Asia, and Africa), thereby unbalancing the global geopolitical order [5].

It is worth noting that, historically, Mackinder’s doctrine influenced containment strategies: both in the interwar period and during the Cold War, efforts were made to prevent a single power from controlling the Heartland and Eastern Europe. NATO, for example, can be seen as an instrument to prevent Soviet/Russian advances in Europe, in line with Mackinder’s imperative to “contain the Heartland.” Thus, if the USA were to abandon that role—by leaving NATO and tacitly accepting the Russian sphere of influence in Eurasia—we would be witnessing an inversion of the principles that have guided Western policy for decades. In short, under Mackinder’s theory, the Russian conquest of Ukraine and beyond would represent the key for Russia to command the Heartland and, potentially, challenge global hegemony, especially in a scenario where the USA self-restricts to the Western Hemisphere.

The Maritime Power of Mahan and the Naval Balance between West and East

While Mackinder emphasized continental land power, Alfred Thayer Mahan, a nineteenth-century American naval strategist, highlighted the crucial role of maritime power in global dominance. In his work The Influence of Sea Power upon History (1890), Mahan studied the example of the British Empire and concluded that control of the seas paved the way for British supremacy as a world power [10]. He argued that a strong navy and the control of strategic maritime routes were decisive factors for projecting military, political, and economic power. His doctrine can be summarized in the following points: (1) the United States should aspire to be a world power; (2) control of the seas is necessary to achieve that status; (3) such control is obtained through a powerful fleet of warships [17]. In other words, for Mahan, whoever dominates the maritime routes and possesses naval superiority will be in a position to influence global destinies, ensuring trade, supplies, and the rapid movement of military forces.

In the proposed scenario, in which the USA withdraws militarily from Europe and possibly from the Eurasian stage, Mahan’s ideas raise questions about the distribution of maritime power and its effects. Traditionally, the US Navy operates globally, ensuring freedom of navigation and deterring challenges in major seas (Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, etc.). A withdrawal of the USA from NATO could also signal a reduction in its naval presence in the Northeast Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea, and other areas close to Eurasia. In such a case, who would fill this naval vacuum? Russia, although primarily a land power, has been attempting to modernize its navy and has specific interests—for example, consolidating its dominance in the Black Sea and maintaining a presence in the Mediterranean (with a naval base in Tartus, Syria). The United Kingdom, a historic European maritime power, would remain aligned with the USA but, without American military support in Europe, might potentially be overwhelmed trying to contain an increasingly assertive Russian navy in European waters on its own. Japan, another significant maritime actor allied with the USA, is concerned with the naval balance in the Pacific; without full American engagement, Tokyo might be compelled to expand its own naval power to contain both Russia in the Far East (which maintains a fleet in the Pacific) and, especially, the growing Chinese navy.

According to Mahan’s thinking, strategic maritime routes and choke points (crucial straits and channels) become contested prizes in this power game. With the USA focusing on the Americas, one could imagine Washington reinforcing control over the Panama Canal and Caribbean routes—reviving an “American Gulf” policy in the Western Atlantic and Eastern Pacific. In fact, indications of this orientation emerge in statements attributed to Trump, who once suggested reclaiming direct control over Panama, transforming Canada into a North American state, and even “annexing” Greenland due to its Arctic geopolitical importance [18]. These aspirations reflect a quest to secure advantageous maritime positions near the American continent.

Conversely, in the absence of American presence in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, Russia would have free rein for regional maritime projection. This could include anything from the unrestricted use of the Black Sea (after dominating Ukraine, thereby ensuring full access to Crimea and Ukrainian ports) to greater influence in the Eastern Mediterranean via Syria and partnerships with countries such as Iran or Egypt. The Baltic Sea would also become an area of expanded Russian interest, pressuring coastal countries and perhaps reducing NATO’s traditional local naval supremacy. However, it is worth noting that even with these regional expansions, Russia lacks a blue-water navy comparable to that of the USA; thus, its initial global maritime impact would be limited without alliances.

An important aspect of Mahan’s theories is that naval power serves as a counterbalance to the land power of the Heartland. Therefore, even if Russia were to dominate the Eurasian continental mass, the continued presence of American naval might on the oceans could prevent complete global domination by Moscow. However, if the USA voluntarily restricts its naval reach to the Americas, it would forgo influencing the power balance in the seas adjacent to Eurasia. Consequently, the balance of maritime power would tend to shift in favor of regional Eurasian actors. The United Kingdom and Japan, traditional allies of the USA, could intensify their naval capabilities to defend regional interests—the United Kingdom safeguarding the North Atlantic and the North Sea, and Japan patrolling the Northwest Pacific—but both would face budgetary and structural limitations in fully compensating for the absence of the American superpower. Consequently, Mahan’s vision suggests that the withdrawal of the USA from the extra-regional scene would weaken the liberal maritime regime, possibly opening space for revisionist powers to contest routes that were previously secured (for example, Russia and China encountering less opposition on the routes of the Arctic and the Indo-Pacific, respectively). In summary, naval hegemony would fragment, and control of strategic seas would become contested, reconfiguring the relative influence of the USA, Russia, and maritime allies such as the United Kingdom and Japan.

Kjellén and the State as a Living Organism: Russian Expansion as an Organic Necessity

Another useful theoretical lens to interpret Russian geopolitical posture is that of Rudolf Kjellén, a Swedish political scientist of the early twentieth century who conceived the State as a living organism. Kjellén, who even coined the term “geopolitics,” was influenced by Friedrich Ratzel’s ideas and by social Darwinism, arguing that States are born, grow, and decline analogously to living beings [13]. In his work Staten som livsform (The State as a Form of Life, 1916), he maintained that States possess an organic dimension in addition to the legal one and that “just as any form of life, States must expand or die” [14]. This expansion would not be motivated merely by aggressive conquest but seen as a necessary growth for the self-preservation of the state organism [14]. In complement, Kjellén echoed Ratzel’s “law of expanding spaces” by asserting that large States expand at the expense of smaller ones, with it being only a matter of time before the great realms fill the available spaces [14]. That is, from the organic perspective, vigorous States tend to incorporate smaller neighboring territories, consolidating territorially much like an organism absorbing nutrients.

Applying this theory to the strategy of contemporary Russia, we can interpret Moscow’s actions—including the invasion of Ukraine and the ambition to restore its sphere of influence in Eurasia—as the expression of an organic drive for expansion. For a strategist influenced by this school, Russia (viewed as a state organism with a long imperial history) needs to expand its territory and influence to ensure its survival and security. The loss of control over spaces that once were part of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union (such as Ukraine itself, the Caucasus, or Central Asia) may be perceived by Russian elites as an atrophy of the state organism, rendering it vulnerable. Thus, the reincorporation of these territories—whether directly (annexation) or indirectly (political vassalage)—would equate to restoring lost members or strengthening vital organs of the state body. In fact, official Russian arguments often portray Ukraine as an intrinsic part of “Russian historicity,” denying it a fully separate identity—a narrative that aligns with the idea that Russian expansion in that region is natural and necessary for the Russian State (seen as encompassing also Russian speakers beyond its current borders).

Kjellén would thus provide a theoretical justification for Russian territorial expansion as an organic phenomenon. As a great power, Russia would inevitably seek to expand at the expense of smaller neighbors (Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic States, etc.), as dictated by the tendency of “great spaces to organize” to the detriment of the small [14]. This view can be identified in contemporary Russian doctrines that value spheres of influence and the notion that neighboring countries must gravitate around Moscow in order for the natural order to be maintained. The very idea of “Eurasia” united under Russian leadership (advocated by modern Russian thinkers) echoes this organic conception of vital space and expansion as a sign of the State’s vitality.

However, Kjellén’s theory also warns of the phenomenon of “imperial overstretch,” should a State exceed its internal cohesion limits by expanding excessively [14]. He recognized that extending borders too far could increase friction and vulnerabilities, making it difficult to maintain cohesion—a very large organism may lack functional integration. In the Russian context, this suggests that although expansion is seen as necessary, there are risks if Russia tries to encompass more than it can govern effectively. Conquering Ukraine and subjugating Eastern Europe, for example, could economically and militarily overburden the Russian State, especially if it faced resistance or had to manage hostile populations. However, in the hypothetical scenario we adopt (isolated USA and a weakened Europe), Russia might calculate that the organic benefits of expansion (territory, resources, strategic depth) would outweigh the costs, since external interference would be limited. Thus, through Kjellén’s lens, expansionist Russia behaves as an organism following its instinct for survival and growth, absorbing weaker neighbors; yet such a process is not devoid of challenges, requiring that the “organism Russia” manages to assimilate these new spaces without collapsing under its own weight.

Ratzel and Lebensraum: Resources, Territory, and the Justification for Expansion

Parallel to Kjellén’s organic view, Friedrich Ratzel’s theory offers another conceptual basis for understanding Russian expansion: the concept of Lebensraum (vital space). Ratzel, a German geographer of the late nineteenth century, proposed that the survival and development of a people or nation depended critically on the available physical space and resources. Influenced by Darwinist ideas, he applied the notion of “survival of the fittest” to nations, arguing that human societies need to conquer territory and resources to prosper, and that the stronger and fittest civilizations will naturally prevail over the weaker ones [12]. In 1901, Ratzel coined the term Lebensraum to describe this need for “vital space” as a geographical factor in national power [15].

Subsequently, this idea would be adopted—and extremely distorted—by Nazi ideology to justify Germany’s aggressions in Europe. However, the core of Ratzel’s concept is that territorial expansion is essential for the survival and growth of a State, especially to secure food, raw materials, and space for its population [12].

When examining Russia’s stance under this perspective, we can see several narratives that evoke the logic of Lebensraum. Russia is the largest country in the world by area; however, much of its territory is characterized by adverse climates (tundra, taiga) and is relatively sparsely populated in Siberia. On the other hand, adjacent regions such as Ukraine possess highly arable lands (chernozem—black soil), significant Slavic population density, and additional natural resources (coal in the Donbass, for example). An implicit justification for Russian expansion could be the search for supplementary resources and fertile lands to secure its self-sufficiency and power—exactly as Ratzel described that vigorous nations do. Historical records show that Ratzel emphasized agrarian primacy: he believed that new territories should be colonized by farmers, providing the food base for the nation [12]. Ukraine, historically called the “breadbasket of Europe,” fits perfectly into this vision of conquest for sustenance and agricultural wealth.

Furthermore, Ratzel viewed geography as a determinant of the destiny of nations—peoples adapted to certain habitats seek to expand them if they aspire to grow. In contemporary Russian discourse, there is often mention of the need to ensure security and territorial depth in the face of NATO, or to unite brotherly peoples (Russians and Russian speakers) within a single political space. Such arguments can be read as a modern translation of Lebensraum: the idea that the Russian nation, in order to be secure and flourish, must control a larger space, encompassing buffer zones and critical resources. This Russian “vital space” would naturally include Ukraine and other former Soviet republics, given the historical and infrastructural interdependence. Ratzel emphasized that peoples migrated and expanded when their original homeland no longer met their needs or aspirations [12]. Although contemporary Russia does not suffer from demographic pressure (on the contrary, it faces population decline), under the logic of a great power there is indeed a sentiment of geopolitical insufficiency for having lost influence over areas considered strategic. Thus, reconquering these areas would mean recovering the “habitat” necessary for the Russian nation to prosper and feel secure.

It is important to mention that, in Ratzel’s and Kjellén’s formulations, the pursuit of Lebensraum or organic expansion is not morally qualified—it is treated as a natural process in the politics of power. Thus, on the discursive level, Russia can avoid overly aggressive rhetoric and resort to “natural” justifications: for example, claiming that it needs to occupy Ukraine for defensive purposes (security space) or to reunify peoples (a common cultural and historical space). Beneath these justifications, however, resonates the geopolitical imperative to acquire more territory and resources as a guarantee of national survival, something consonant with Ratzel’s theory. In fact, Russian Realpolitik frequently prioritizes the control of energy resources (gas, oil) and transportation routes. Expanding its influence over central Eurasia would also mean controlling oil pipelines, gas lines, and logistical corridors—essential elements of modern Lebensraum understood as access to vital resources and infrastructure.

In summary, by conquering Ukraine and extending its reach into Eurasia, Russia could effectively invoke the concept of Lebensraum: presenting its expansion not as mere imperialism, but as a necessity to secure indispensable lands and resources for its people and to correct the “injustice” of a vital space diminished by post-Cold War territorial losses. The theories of Ratzel and Kjellén together paint a picture in which Russian expansion emerges almost as a natural law—the great State reclaiming space to ensure its survival and development at the expense of smaller neighbors.

Trump, NATO, and the Threat of American Withdrawal

One of the most alarming changes with Trump's return to power is the tense relationship with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Trump has long criticized allies for not meeting military spending targets, even threatening during his first term to withdraw the US from the alliance if members did not increase their contributions [2]. This threat, initially viewed with skepticism, became concrete after his re-election, leading European allies to seriously consider the possibility of having to defend themselves without American support [1]. In fact, Trump suggested in post-election interviews that the US would only remain in NATO if the allies “paid their bills” – otherwise, he “would seriously consider” leaving [2]. Such statements reinforced the warning that the US might not honor NATO's mutual defense commitment, precisely at a time of continuous Russian threat due to the war in Ukraine [1].

From a theoretical point of view, this posture of American retrenchment evokes the classic tension between maritime power and land power. Alfred Thayer Mahan emphasized that the global power of the US derived largely from its naval superiority and from alliances that ensured control over strategic maritime routes [9]. NATO, since 1949, has served not only to deter Soviet terrestrial advances in Eurasia, but also to secure the US naval presence in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean – a fundamental element according to Mahan. In turn, Halford Mackinder warned that the balance of global power depended on the control of the Eurasian “Heartland” (the central region of Eurasia). The withdrawal or disengagement of the US (a maritime power) from this region could open the way for a continental power (such as Russia) to expand its influence in Eastern Europe, unbalancing the power balance [3]. In other words, by threatening to leave NATO, Trump jeopardizes the principle of containment that prevented Russian dominance over Eastern Europe – something that Mackinder would see as a dangerous shift in global power in favor of the Heartland power.

Adopting an impartial tone, it is observed that European countries have reacted to this new reality with precautionary measures. Strategic reports already calculate the cost of an autonomous European defense: hundreds of thousands of additional soldiers and investments of hundreds of billions of euros would be required if the US ceased to guarantee the security of the continent [1]. European dependence on American military power is significant and, without it, there would be a need for a major reinforcement of European Armed Forces [1]. This mobilization practically reflects the anticipation of a power vacuum left by the US – a scenario in which Mackinder’s theory (on the primacy of the Heartland and the vulnerability of the “external crescent” where Western Europe is located) regains its relevance.

The US–Ukraine Economic Agreement: Strategic Minerals in Exchange for Support?

Another novelty of Trump's second term is the unprecedented and transactional manner in which Washington has been dealing with the war in Ukraine. Instead of emphasizing security guarantees and alliances, the Trump administration proposed a trade agreement with Ukraine focused on the exploitation of strategic minerals, linking American support to a direct economic benefit. According to sources close to the negotiations, the US and Ukraine are about to sign a pact to share the revenues from the exploitation of critical mineral resources on Ukrainian territory [19]. Materials such as titanium, lithium, rare earths, and uranium – vital for high-tech and defense industries – would be at the core of this agreement [6]. According to the known draft, Ukraine would allocate 50% of the profits from new mineral ventures to a fund controlled by the US, which would reinvest part of the resources in the country’s own reconstruction [6] [19].

It is noteworthy that the pact does not include explicit security guarantees for Kyiv, despite Ukraine remaining under direct military threat from Russia [19]. Essentially, the Trump administration offers financial support and economic investment in exchange for a share in Ukrainian natural resources, but without formally committing to Ukraine's defense in the event of a renewed Russian offensive [19]. American authorities argue that this economic partnership would already be sufficient to “secure Ukrainian interests,” as it would provide the US with its own incentives to desire Ukraine’s stability [19]. “What could be better for Ukraine than being in an economic partnership with the United States?” stated Mike Waltz, a US national security advisor, defending the proposal [19].

Analysts, however, assess the agreement in divided terms. For some, it represents a form of economic exploitation at a time of Ukraine's fragility – comparing the demand to share mineral wealth amid war to a scheme of “mafia protection” [19]. Steven Cook, from the Council on Foreign Relations, classified the offer as “extortion,” and political scientist Virginia P. Fortna observed that charging resources from an invaded country resembles predatory practices [19]. Joseph Nye adds that it is a short-term gain strategy that could be “disastrous in the long run” for American credibility, reflecting the transactional approach that Trump even adopted with close allies in other contexts [19]. On the other hand, some see a future advantage for Kyiv: journalist Pierre Briançon suggests that at least this agreement aligns American commercial interests with Ukraine’s future, which could, in theory, keep the US involved in Ukrainian prosperity in the long term [19]. It is even recalled that President Zelensky himself proposed last year the idea of sharing natural resources with the US to bring the interests of the two countries closer together [19].

From the perspective of geopolitical theories, this agreement illustrates a shift towards economic pragmatism in international relations, approaching concepts proposed by Kjellén. Rudolf Kjellén, who coined the term “geopolitics,” saw the State as a territorial organism that seeks to ensure its survival through self-sufficiency and the control of strategic resources [4]. Trump's demand for a share in Ukrainian resources in order to continue supporting the country reflects a logic of autarky and direct national interest – that is, foreign policy serving primarily to reinforce the economic and material position of the US. This view contrasts with the traditional cooperative approach, but aligns with Kjellén’s idea that powerful States tend to transform international relations into opportunities for their own gain, ensuring access to vital raw materials. Similarly, Friedrich Ratzel argued that States have a “propensity to expand their borders according to their capacities,” seeking vital space (Lebensraum) and resources to sustain their development [11]. The US–Ukraine pact, by conditioning military/economic aid on obtaining tangible advantages (half of the mineral profits), is reminiscent of Ratzel’s perspective: the US, as a rising economic power, expands its economic influence over Ukrainian territory like an organism extending itself to obtain the necessary resources for its well-being. It is, therefore, a form of economic expansionism at the expense of purely ideological commitments or collective security.

Peace Negotiations Excluding Ukraine and the Legitimacy of the Agreement

Another controversial point is the manner in which peace negotiations between Russia and the West have been conducted under Trump's administration. Since taking office, the American president has engaged directly with Moscow in pursuit of a ceasefire, deliberately keeping the Ukrainian government out of the initial discussions [6]. Trump expressed his desire to “leave Zelensky out of the conversation” and also excluded the European Union from any influence in the process [6]. This negotiation strategy—conducted without the presence of the primary interested party, Ukraine—raises serious questions about the legitimacy and sustainability of any resulting agreement.

Historically, peace agreements reached without the direct participation of one of the conflicting parties tend to face problems in implementation and acceptance.

The exclusion of Ukraine in the decision-making phase brings to light the issue of guarantees. As noted, the emerging agreement lacks formal US security guarantees for Ukraine. This implies that, after the agreement is signed, nothing will prevent Russia from launching a new offensive if it deems it convenient, knowing that the US has not committed to defending it militarily. Experts have already warned that a ceasefire without robust protection may only be a pause for Russian rearmament, rendering the conflict “frozen” temporarily and potentially resumed in the near future. The European strategic community has expressed similar concern: without American deterrence, the risk of further Russian aggressions in the region increases considerably [1]. Denmark, for example, has released intelligence reports warning of possible imminent Russian attacks, prompting neighboring countries to accelerate plans for independent defense [1].

The legitimacy of this asymmetric peace agreement (negotiated without Ukraine fully at the table and under economic coercion) is also questionable from a legal and moral point of view. It violates the principle of self-determination by imposing terms decided by great powers on a sovereign country—a practice reminiscent of dark chapters in diplomacy, such as the Munich Agreement of 1938, when powers determined the fate of Czechoslovakia without its consent. In the current case, Ukraine would end up signing the agreement, but from a position of weakness, raising doubts about how durable such a commitment would be.

From Mackinder’s perspective, Ukraine’s removal from the battlefield without guarantees essentially means admitting a greater influence of Russia (the Heartland power) over Eastern Europe. This would alter the balance in Eurasia in a potentially lasting way. Furthermore, the fact that great powers negotiate over the heads of a smaller country evokes the imperial logic of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when empires decided among themselves the divisions of foreign territories—a behavior that Mackinder saw as likely in a world of a “closed system.” With the entire world already occupied by States, Mackinder predicted that powers would begin to compete for influence within this consolidated board, often subjugating smaller states to gain advantage [3]. The US–Russia negotiation regarding Ukraine, without proper Ukrainian representation, exemplifies this type of neo-imperial dynamic in the twenty-first century.

Also noteworthy is the consonance with the ideas of Ratzel and Kjellén: both viewed smaller states as easily relegated to the status of satellites or even “parasitic organisms” in the orbit of larger states. Kjellén spoke of the intrinsic vulnerability of states with little territorial depth or economic dependence, making them susceptible to external pressures [4][20]. Ukraine, weakened by war and dependent on external aid, becomes a concrete example of this theorized vulnerability: it has had to cede strategic resources and accept terms dictated against its will in an attempt to secure its immediate survival. The resulting agreement, therefore, reflects a power imbalance characteristic of the hierarchical international relations described by classical geopolitical theorists.

Implicit Territorial Concessions and Trump’s Public Discourse

A central and controversial point in Trump’s statements regarding the war in Ukraine is the insinuation of territorial concessions to Russia as part of the conflict’s resolution. Publicly, Trump avoided explicitly condemning Russian aggression and even stated that he considered it “unlikely” that Ukraine would be able to retake all the areas occupied by the Russians [16]. In debates and interviews, he suggested that “if I were president, the war would end in 24 hours,” implying that he would force an understanding between Kyiv and Moscow that would likely involve ceding some territory in exchange for peace. This position marks a break with the previous US policy of not recognizing any territorial acquisitions made by force and fuels speculations that a future peace agreement sponsored by Trump would legitimize at least part of Russia’s gains since 2014 (Crimea, Donbass, and areas seized during the 2022 invasion).

The actions of his administration corroborate this interpretation. As discussed, the economic agreement focuses on the exploitation of Ukrainian natural resources, many of which are located precisely in regions currently under Russian military control, such as parts of the Zaporizhzhia Oblast, Donetsk, Lugansk, and the Azov Sea area [6]. A Ukrainian geologist, Hanna Liventseva, highlighted that “most of these elements (strategic minerals) are found in the south of the Ukrainian Shield, mainly in the Azov region, and most of these territories are currently invaded by Russia” [6]. This means that, to make joint exploitation viable, Russia’s de facto control over these areas would have to be recognized—or at least tolerated—in the short term. In other words, the pact indirectly and tacitly accepts Russian territorial gains, as it involves sharing the profits from resources that are not currently accessible to the Kyiv government.

Furthermore, figures close to Trump have made explicit statements regarding the possibility of territorial cession. Mike Waltz, Trump’s national security advisor, publicly stated that Zelensky might need to “cede land to Russia” to end the war [8]. This remark—made public in March 2025—confirms that the Trump White House considers it natural for Ukraine to relinquish parts of its territory in favor of an agreement. Such a stance marks a break from the previous Western consensus, which condemned any territorial gains by force. Under Trump, a pragmatic view (in the eyes of his supporters) or a cynical one (according to his critics) seems to prevail: sacrificing principles of territorial integrity to quickly end hostilities and secure immediate economic benefits.

In theoretical terms, this inclination to validate territorial gains by force recalls the concept of Realpolitik and the geopolitical Darwinism that influenced thinkers such as Ratzel. In Ratzel’s organic conception, expanding states naturally absorb neighboring territories when they are strong enough to do so, while declining states lose territory—a process almost biological in the selection of the fittest [11]. The Trump administration’s acceptance that Ukraine should “give something” to Moscow to seal peace reflects a normalization of this geopolitical selection process: it recognizes the aggressor (Russia) as having the “right” to retain conquered lands, because that is how power realities on the ground dictate. Mackinder, although firmly opposed to allowing Russia to dominate the Heartland, would see this outcome as the logical consequence of the lack of engagement from maritime powers (the USA and the United Kingdom, for example) in sustaining the Ukrainian counterattack. Without the active involvement of maritime power to balance the dispute, land power prevails in Eastern Europe.

From the perspective of international legitimacy, the cession of Ukrainian territories—whether de jure or de facto—creates a dangerous precedent in the post-Cold War era. Rewarding violent aggression with territorial gains may encourage similar strategies in other parts of the world, undermining the architecture of collective security. This is possibly a return to a world of spheres of influence, where great powers define borders and zones of control according to their convenience—something that the rules-based order after 1945 sought to avoid. Here, academic impartiality requires noting that coercion for territorial concessions rarely produces lasting peace, as the aggrieved party—in this case, Ukraine—may accept temporarily but will continue to assert its rights in the long term, as has occurred with other territorial injustices in history.

Territorial Ambitions of Trump: Greenland and Canada

Beyond the Eurasian theater of war, Trump revived geopolitical ambitions involving territories traditionally allied with the US: Greenland (an autonomous territory of Denmark) and Canada. As early as 2019, during his first term, Trump shocked the world by proposing to buy Greenland—rich in minerals and strategically positioned in the Arctic. Upon his return to power, he went further: expressing a “renewed interest” in acquiring Greenland and publicly suggesting the incorporation of Canada as the 51st American state [2].

In January 2025, during a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, he even displayed maps in which the US and Canada appeared merged into a single country, while Greenland was marked as a future American possession [2]. Posts by the president on social media included satirical images with a map of North America where Canada was labeled “51st” and Greenland designated as “Our Land” [2].

Such moves were met with concern and disbelief by allies. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was caught on an open microphone warning that Trump’s fixation on annexation “is real” and not just a joke [7]. Trudeau emphasized that Washington appeared to covet Canada’s vast mineral resources, which would explain the insistence on the idea of absorption [7]. In public, Trump argued that Canadians “would be more prosperous as American citizens,” promising tax cuts and better services should they become part of the US [7]. On the Danish side, the reaction to the revived plan regarding Greenland was firmly negative—as it was in 2019—reaffirming that the territory is not for sale. Trump, however, insinuated that the issue might be one of national security, indicating that American possession of Greenland would prevent adverse influences (a reference to China and Russia in the Arctic) [2]. More worryingly, he refused to rule out the use of military means to obtain the island, although he assured that he had no intention of invading Canada by force (in the Canadian case, he spoke of “economic force” to forge a union) [2].

This series of initiatives reflects an unprecedented expansionist impetus by the US in recent times, at least in discourse. Analyzing this through the lens of classical geopolitics offers interesting insights. Friedrich Ratzel and his notion of Lebensraum suggest that powerful states, upon reaching a certain predominance, seek to expand their territory by influencing or incorporating adjacent areas. Trump, by targeting the immediate neighbor (Canada) and a nearby strategic territory (Greenland), appears to resurrect this logic of territorial expansion for the sake of gaining space and resources. Ratzel saw such expansion almost as a natural process for vigorous states, comparable to the growth of an organism [11]. From this perspective, the US would be exercising its “right” of expansion in North America and the polar region, integrating areas of vital interest.

Additionally, Alfred Mahan’s view on maritime power helps to understand the strategic value of Greenland. Mahan postulated that control of key maritime chokepoints and naval bases ensures global advantage [9]. Greenland, situated between the North Atlantic and the Arctic, has become increasingly relevant as climate change opens new polar maritime routes and reveals vast mineral deposits (including rare earth elements and oil). For the US, having a presence or sovereignty over Greenland would mean dominating the gateway to the Arctic and denying this space to rivals. This aligns with Mahan’s strategy of securing commercial and military routes (in this case, potential Arctic routes) and resources to consolidate naval supremacy. On the other hand, the incorporation of Canada—with its enormous territory, Arctic coastline, and abundant natural resources—would provide the US with formidable geoeconomic and geopolitical reinforcement, practically eliminating vulnerabilities along its northern border. This is an ambitious project that also echoes ideas of Kjellén, for whom an ideal State should seek territorial completeness and economic self-sufficiency within its region. Incorporating Canada would be the pinnacle of American regional autarky, turning North America into a unified bloc under Washington (a scenario reminiscent of the “pan-regions” conceived by twentieth-century geopoliticians influenced by Kjellén).

It is important to note, however, that these ambitions face enormous legal and political obstacles. The sovereignty of Canada and Greenland (Denmark) is guaranteed by international law, and both peoples categorically reject the idea of annexation. Any hostile action by the US against these countries would shake alliances and the world order itself. Even so, the very fact that an American president suggests such possibilities already produces geopolitical effects: traditional partners begin to distrust Washington’s intentions, seek alternative alliances, and strengthen nationalist discourses of resistance. In summary, Trump’s expansionist intentions in Greenland and Canada rekindle old territorial issues and paradoxically place the US in the position of a revisionist power—a role once associated with empires in search of colonies.

Implications for Brazil and South America: A New Neocolonization?

In light of this geopolitical reconfiguration driven by Trump's USA—with a reordering of alliances and a possible partition of spheres of influence among great powers—the question arises: what is the impact on Brazil and the other countries of South America? Traditionally, Latin America has been under the aegis of the Monroe Doctrine (1823), which established non-interference by Europe in the region and, implicitly, the primacy of the USA in the Western Hemisphere. In the post–Cold War period, this influence translated more into political and economic leadership, without formal annexations or direct territorial domination. However, the current context points to a kind of “neocolonization” of the Global South, in which larger powers seek to control resources and peripheral governments in an indirect yet effective manner.

Mackinder’s theories can be used to illuminate this dynamic. As mentioned, Mackinder envisioned the twentieth-century world as a closed system, in which there were no longer any unknown lands to be colonized—hence, the powers would fight among themselves for control over already occupied regions [3]. He predicted that Africa and Latin America (then largely European colonies or semi-colonies) would continue as boards upon which the great powers would project their disputes, a form of neocolonialism. In the current scenario, we see the USA proposing exchanges of protection for resources (as in Ukraine) and even leaders of developing countries seeking similar agreements. A notable example: the President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Felix Tshisekedi, praised the USA–Ukraine initiative and suggested an analogous agreement involving Congolese mineral wealth in exchange for US support against internal rebels (M23) [19]. In other words, African countries and possibly South American ones may enter into this logic of offering privileged access to resources (cobalt, lithium, food, biodiversity) in order to obtain security guarantees or investments. This represents a regression to the times when external powers dictated the directions of the South in exchange for promises of protection, characterizing a strategic neocolonialism.

For Brazil, in particular, this rearrangement generates both opportunities and risks. As a regional power with considerable diplomatic autonomy, Brazil has historically sought to balance relationships with the USA, Europe, China, and other actors, avoiding automatic alignments. However, in a world where Trump’s USA is actively redefining spheres of influence—possibly making deals with Russia that divide priorities (for example, Washington focusing on the Western Hemisphere and Moscow on the Eastern)—South America could once again be seen as an exclusive American sphere of influence. From this perspective, Washington could pressure South American countries to align with its directives, limiting partnerships with rivals (such as China) and seeking privileged access to strategic resources (such as the Amazon, fresh water, minerals, and agricultural commodities). Some indications are already emerging: Trump’s transactional approach mentioned by Nye included pressures on Canada and Mexico regarding border and trade issues, under the threat of commercial sanctions. It would not be unthinkable to adopt a hard line, for example, with regard to Brazilian environmental policies (linked to the Amazon) or Brazil’s relations with China, using tariffs or incentives as leverage—a sort of geopolitics of economic coercion.

On the other hand, Brazil and its neighbors could also attempt to take advantage of the Sino–North American competition. If the USA is distracted consolidating its hemispheric “hard power” hegemony (even with annexation fantasies in the north), powers such as China may advance their economic presence in South America through investments and trade (Belt and Road, infrastructure financing)—which is already happening. This would constitute an indirect neocolonial dispute in the South: Chinese loans and investments versus American demands and agreements, partly reminiscent of the nineteenth-century imperial competition (when the United Kingdom, USA, and others competed for Latin American markets and resources).

From a conceptual standpoint, Mackinder might classify South America as part of the “Outer Crescent” (external insular crescent)—peripheral to the great Eurasian “World-Island,” yet still crucial as a source of resources and a strategic position in the South Atlantic and Pacific. If the USA consolidates an informal empire in the Americas, it would be reinforcing its “insular bastion” far from the Eurasian Heartland, a strategy that Mackinder once suggested for maritime powers: to control islands and peripheral continents to compensate for the disadvantage of not controlling the Heartland. However, an excessive US dominance in the South could lead to local resistance and alternative alignments, unbalancing the region.

Kjellén would add that for Brazil to maintain its decisive sovereignty, it will need to strengthen its autarky and internal cohesion—in other words, reduce vulnerabilities (economic, military, social) that external powers might exploit [4]. Meanwhile, Mahan might point out the importance for Brazil of controlling its maritime routes and coastlines (South Atlantic) to avoid being at the mercy of a naval power like the USA. And Ratzel would remind us that states that do not expand their influence tend to be absorbed by foreign influences—which, in the context of Brazil, does not mean conquering neighboring territories, but rather actively leading South American integration to create a block more resilient to external intrusion.

In summary, South America finds itself in a more competitive and segmented world, where major players are resurrecting practices from past eras. The notion of “neocolonization” here does not imply direct occupation, but rather mechanisms of dependency: whether through unequal economic agreements or through diplomatic or military pressure for alignment. Brazil, as the largest economy and territory on the subcontinent, will have to navigate with heightened caution. A new global power balance, marked by the division of spheres of influence among the USA, China, and Russia, may reduce the sovereign maneuvering space of South American countries unless they act jointly. Thus, theoretical reflection suggests the need for South–South strategies, reinforcement of regional organizations, and diversification of partnerships to avoid falling into modern “neocolonial traps.”

Conclusion

The emerging post–re-election geopolitical conjuncture of Donald Trump signals a return to classical geopolitical principles, after several decades of predominance of institutional liberal views. We witness the revaluation of concepts such as spheres of influence, exchanges of protection for resources, naval power versus land power, and disputes over territory and raw materials—all central themes in the writings of Mackinder, Mahan, Kjellén, and Ratzel at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. An impartial analysis of these events, in light of these theories, shows internal coherence in Trump’s actions: although controversial, they follow a logic of maximizing national interest and the relative power of the USA on the world stage, even at the expense of established principles and alliances.

Halford Mackinder reminds us that, in a closed world with no new lands to conquer, the great powers will seek to redistribute the world among themselves [3]. This seems to manifest in the direct understandings between the USA and Russia over the fate of Ukraine, and in American ambitions in the Arctic and the Western Hemisphere. Alfred Mahan emphasizes that the control of the seas and strategic positions ensures supremacy—we see reflections of this in Trump’s obsession with Greenland (Arctic) and the possible neglect of the importance of maintaining NATO (and therefore the North Atlantic) as a cohesive bloc, something that Mahan’s theory would criticize due to the risk of a naval vacuum. Rudolf Kjellén and Friedrich Ratzel provide the framework to understand the more aggressive facet of expansionist nationalism: the idea of the State as an organism that needs to grow, secure resources, and seek self-sufficiency explains everything from the extortionate agreement imposed on Ukraine to the annexation rhetoric regarding Canada.

The potential consequences are profound. In the short term, we may witness a precarious ceasefire in the Ukraine war, with consolidated Russian territorial gains and Ukraine economically tied to the USA, but without formal military protection—a fragile “armed peace.” Western Europe, alarmed, may accelerate its independent militarization, perhaps marking the beginning of European defense autonomy, as is already openly debated [1]. At the far end of the globe, American activism in the Arctic and the Americas may reshape alliances: countries like Canada, once aligned with Washington, might seek to guarantee their sovereignty by distancing themselves from it; powers like China could take advantage of the openings to increase their presence in Latin America and Africa through economic diplomacy; and emerging countries of the Global South may have to choose between submitting to new “guardianships” or strengthening South–South cooperation.

Ultimately, the current situation reinforces the relevance of studying geopolitics through historical lenses. The actions of the Trump administration indicate that, despite all technological and normative advances, the competition for geographic power has not disappeared—it has merely assumed new formats. Academic impartiality obliges us not to prematurely judge whether these strategies will be successful or beneficial, but history and theory warn that neo-imperial movements tend to generate counter-reactions. As Mackinder insinuated, “every shock or change anywhere reverberates around the world,” and a sudden move by a superpower tends to provoke unforeseen adjustments and chain conflicts. It remains to be seen how the other actors—including Brazil and its neighbors—will adapt to this new chapter in the great struggle for global power, in which centuries-old theories once again have a surprising explanatory power over present events.

Bibliography

[1] A Referência. (2025). Europa calcula o custo de se defender sem os EUA: 300 mil soldados e 250 bilhões de euros a mais. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://areferencia.com/europa/europa-calcula-o-custo-de-se-defender-sem-os-eua-300-mil-soldados-e-250-bilhoes-de-euros-a-mais/#:\~:text=Europa%20calcula%20o%20custo%20de,bilh%C3%B5es%20de%20euros%20a%20mais

[2] Brexit Institute. (2025). What happens if Trump invades Greenland? Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://dcubrexitinstitute.eu/2025/01/what-happens-if-trump-invades-greenland/#:\~:text=Ever%20since%20Donald%20Trump%20announced,agreed%20in%20Wales%20in%202014

[3] Cfettweis C:CST22(2)8576.DVI. (2025). Mackinder and Angell. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://cfettweis.com/wp-content/uploads/Mackinder-and-Angell.pdf#:\~:text=meant%20the%20beginning%20of%20an,Mackinder

[4] Diva-Portal. (2025). The geopolitics of territorial relativity. Poland seen by Rudolf Kjellén. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1696547/FULLTEXT02#:\~:text=,The%20state%20territory

[5] Geopolitical Monitor. (2025). The Russo-Ukrainian War and Mackinder’s Heartland Thesis. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/the-ukraine-war-and-mackinders-heartland-thesis/#:\~:text=In%201904%2C%20Sir%20Halford%20J,in%20adding%20a%20substantial%20oceanic

[6] Instituto Humanitas Unisinos. (2025). Trump obriga Zelensky a hipotecar a exploração de minerais críticos em troca do seu apoio. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.ihu.unisinos.br/648986-trump-obriga-zelensky-a-hipotecar-a-exploracao-de-minerais-criticos-em-troca-do-seu-apoio#:\~:text=Essa%20troca%20inclui%20os%20cobi%C3%A7ados,s%C3%A3o%20praticamente%20inexploradas%20no%20pa%C3%ADs

[7] Politico. (2025). Trump’s annexation fixation is no joke, Trudeau warns. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/07/canada-trudeau-trump-51-state-00203156#:\~:text=TORONTO%20%E2%80%94%20Prime%20Minister%20Justin,Canada%20becoming%20the%2051st%20state%2C%E2%80%9D%20Trudeau%20said

[8] The Daily Beast. (2025). Top Trump Adviser Moves Goalpost for Ukraine to End War. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.thedailybeast.com/top-trump-adviser-moves-goalpost-for-ukraine-to-end-war/#:\~:text=LAND%20GRAB

[9] The Geostrata. (2025). Alfred Thayer Mahan and Supremacy of Naval Power. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.thegeostrata.com/post/alfred-thayer-mahan-and-supremacy-of-naval-power#:\~:text=Alfred%20Thayer%20Mahan%20and%20Supremacy,control%20over%20maritime%20trade%20routes

[10] U.S. Department of State. (2025). Mahan’s The Influence of Sea Power upon History: Securing International Markets in the 1890s. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/mahan#:\~:text=Mahan%20argued%20that%20British%20control,American%20politicians%20believed%20that%20these

[11] Britannica. (2025a). Friedrich Ratzel | Biogeography, Anthropogeography, Political Geography. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.britannica.com/biography/Friedrich-Ratzel#:\~:text=webster,Swedish%20political%20scientist%20%2076

[12] Britannica. (2025b). Lebensraum. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lebensraum#:\~:text=defined,The

[13] Britannica. (2025c). Rudolf Kjellén. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rudolf-Kjellen

[14] Wikipedia (ZH). (2025). Rudolf Kjellén. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/w:Rudolf_Kjell%C3%A9n#:\~:text=Besides%20legalistic%2C%20states%20have%20organic,preservation.%20%5B%203

[15] Wikipedia. (2025). Lebensraum. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum#:\~:text=The%20German%20geographer%20and%20ethnographer,into%20the%20Greater%20Germanic%20Reich

[16] YouTube. (2025). Trump says Ukraine 'unlikely to get all land back' or join NATO [Vídeo]. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmHzAVLhsXU#:\~:text=Trump%20says%20Ukraine%20%27unlikely%20to,for%20it%20to%20join%20NATO

[17] U.S. Naval Institute. (2025) Operation World Peace. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1955/june/operation-world-peace#:\\~:text=“The Mahan doctrine%2C” according to,the word “airships” is more

[18] Emissary. (2024) Trump’s Greenland and Panama Canal Threats Are a Throwback to an Old, Misguided Foreign Policy. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/01/trump-greenland-panama-canal-monroe-doctrine-policy?lang=en

[19] A Referência. Acordo EUA-Ucrânia está praticamente fechado, mas analistas se dividem sobre quem sairá ganhando. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://areferencia.com/europa/acordo-eua-ucrania-esta-praticamente-fechado-mas-analistas-se-dividem-sobre-quem-saira-ganhando/#:\\~:text=EUA e 17,o acordo a seu favor

[20] Wikipedia. (2025) Geopolitik. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopolitik#:\\~:text=Rudolph Kjellén was Ratzel's Swedish,Kjellén's State

@ d34e832d:383f78d0

---

A comprehensive system for archiving and managing large datasets efficiently on Linux.

---

1. Planning Your Data Archiving Strategy

Before starting, define the structure of your archive:

✅ What are you storing? Books, PDFs, videos, software, research papers, backups, etc.
✅ How often will you access the data? Frequently accessed data should be on SSDs, while deep archives can remain on HDDs.
✅ What organization method will you use? Folder hierarchy and indexing are critical for retrieval.

---

2. Choosing the Right Storage Setup

Since you plan to use 2TB HDDs and store them away, here are Linux-friendly storage solutions:

📀 Offline Storage: Hard Drives & Optical Media

✔ External HDDs (2TB each) – Use ext4 or XFS for best performance.
✔ M-DISC Blu-rays (100GB per disc) – Excellent for long-term storage.
✔ SSD (for fast access archives) – More durable than HDDs but pricier.

🛠 Best Practices for Hard Drive Storage on Linux

🔹 Use smartctl to monitor drive health
bash sudo apt install smartmontools sudo smartctl -a /dev/sdX 🔹 Store drives vertically in anti-static bags.
🔹 Rotate drives periodically to prevent degradation.
🔹 Keep in a cool, dry, dark place.

☁ Cloud Backup (Optional)

✔ Arweave – Decentralized storage for public data.
✔ rclone + Backblaze B2/Wasabi – Cheap, encrypted backups.
✔ Self-hosted options – Nextcloud, Syncthing, IPFS.

---

3. Organizing and Indexing Your Data

📂 Folder Structure (Linux-Friendly)

Use a clear hierarchy:
plaintext 📁 /mnt/archive/ 📁 Books/ 📁 Fiction/ 📁 Non-Fiction/ 📁 Software/ 📁 Research_Papers/ 📁 Backups/ 💡 Use YYYY-MM-DD format for filenames
✅ 2025-01-01_Backup_ProjectX.tar.gz
✅ 2024_Complete_Library_Fiction.epub

📑 Indexing Your Archives

Use Linux tools to catalog your archive:

✔ Generate a file index of a drive:
bash find /mnt/DriveX > ~/Indexes/DriveX_index.txt

✔ Use locate for fast searches:
bash sudo updatedb # Update database locate filename

✔ Use Recoll for full-text search:
bash sudo apt install recoll recoll

🚀 Store index files on a "Master Archive Index" USB drive.

---

4. Compressing & Deduplicating Data

To save space and remove duplicates, use:

✔ Compression Tools:
- tar -cvf archive.tar folder/ && zstd archive.tar (fast, modern compression)
- 7z a archive.7z folder/ (best for text-heavy files)

✔ Deduplication Tools:
- fdupes -r /mnt/archive/ (finds duplicate files)
- rdfind -deleteduplicates true /mnt/archive/ (removes duplicates automatically)

💡 Use par2 to create parity files for recovery:
bash par2 create -r10 file.par2 file.ext This helps reconstruct corrupted archives.

---

5. Ensuring Long-Term Data Integrity

Data can degrade over time. Use checksums to verify files.

✔ Generate Checksums:
bash sha256sum filename.ext > filename.sha256 ✔ Verify Data Integrity Periodically:
bash sha256sum -c filename.sha256

🔹 Use SnapRAID for multi-disk redundancy:
bash sudo apt install snapraid snapraid sync snapraid scrub

🔹 Consider ZFS or Btrfs for automatic error correction:
bash sudo apt install zfsutils-linux zpool create archivepool /dev/sdX

---

6. Accessing Your Data Efficiently

Even when archived, you may need to access files quickly.

✔ Use Symbolic Links to "fake" files still being on your system:
bash ln -s /mnt/driveX/mybook.pdf ~/Documents/ ✔ Use a Local Search Engine (Recoll):
bash recoll ✔ Search within text files using grep:
bash grep -rnw '/mnt/archive/' -e 'Bitcoin'

---

7. Scaling Up & Expanding Your Archive

Since you're storing 2TB drives and setting them aside, keep them numbered and logged.

📦 Physical Storage & Labeling

✔ Store each drive in fireproof safe or waterproof cases.
✔ Label drives (Drive_001, Drive_002, etc.).
✔ Maintain a printed master list of drive contents.

📶 Network Storage for Easy Access

If your archive grows too large, consider:
- NAS (TrueNAS, OpenMediaVault) – Linux-based network storage.
- JBOD (Just a Bunch of Disks) – Cheap and easy expansion.
- Deduplicated Storage – ZFS/Btrfs with auto-checksumming.

---

8. Automating Your Archival Process

If you frequently update your archive, automation is essential.

✔ Backup Scripts (Linux)

Use rsync for incremental backups:

bash rsync -av --progress /source/ /mnt/archive/

Automate Backup with Cron Jobs

bash crontab -e Add: plaintext 0 3 * * * rsync -av --delete /source/ /mnt/archive/ This runs the backup every night at 3 AM.

Automate Index Updates

bash 0 4 * * * find /mnt/archive > ~/Indexes/master_index.txt

---

So Making These Considerations

✔ Be Consistent – Maintain a structured system.
✔ Test Your Backups – Ensure archives are not corrupted before deleting originals.
✔ Plan for Growth – Maintain an efficient catalog as data expands.

For data hoarders seeking reliable 2TB storage solutions and appropriate physical storage containers, here's a comprehensive overview:

2TB Storage Options

1. Hard Disk Drives (HDDs):

• Western Digital My Book Series: These external HDDs are designed to resemble a standard black hardback book. They come in various editions, such as Essential, Premium, and Studio, catering to different user needs. citeturn0search19

• Seagate Barracuda Series: Known for affordability and performance, these HDDs are suitable for general usage, including data hoarding. They offer storage capacities ranging from 500GB to 8TB, with speeds up to 190MB/s. citeturn0search20

2. Solid State Drives (SSDs):

• Seagate Barracuda SSDs: These SSDs come with either SATA or NVMe interfaces, storage sizes from 240GB to 2TB, and read speeds up to 560MB/s for SATA and 3,400MB/s for NVMe. They are ideal for faster data access and reliability. citeturn0search20

3. Network Attached Storage (NAS) Drives:

• Seagate IronWolf Series: Designed for NAS devices, these drives offer HDD storage capacities from 1TB to 20TB and SSD capacities from 240GB to 4TB. They are optimized for multi-user environments and continuous operation. citeturn0search20

Physical Storage Containers for 2TB Drives

Proper storage of your drives is crucial to ensure data integrity and longevity. Here are some recommendations:

1. Anti-Static Bags:

Essential for protecting drives from electrostatic discharge, especially during handling and transportation.

2. Protective Cases:

• Hard Drive Carrying Cases: These cases offer padded compartments to securely hold individual drives, protecting them from physical shocks and environmental factors.

3. Storage Boxes:

• Anti-Static Storage Boxes: Designed to hold multiple drives, these boxes provide organized storage with anti-static protection, ideal for archiving purposes.

4. Drive Caddies and Enclosures:

• HDD/SSD Enclosures: These allow internal drives to function as external drives, offering both protection and versatility in connectivity.

5. Fireproof and Waterproof Safes:

For long-term storage, consider safes that protect against environmental hazards, ensuring data preservation even in adverse conditions.

Storage Tips:

• Labeling: Clearly label each drive with its contents and date of storage for easy identification.

• Climate Control: Store drives in a cool, dry environment to prevent data degradation over time.

By selecting appropriate 2TB storage solutions and ensuring they are stored in suitable containers, you can effectively manage and protect your data hoard.

Here’s a set of custom Bash scripts to automate your archival workflow on Linux:

1️⃣ Compression & Archiving Script

This script compresses and archives files, organizing them by date.
```bash

!/bin/bash

Compress and archive files into dated folders

ARCHIVE_DIR="/mnt/backup" DATE=$(date +"%Y-%m-%d") BACKUP_DIR="$ARCHIVE_DIR/$DATE"

mkdir -p "$BACKUP_DIR"

Find and compress files

find ~/Documents -type f -mtime -7 -print0 | tar --null -czvf "$BACKUP_DIR/archive.tar.gz" --files-from -

echo "Backup completed: $BACKUP_DIR/archive.tar.gz" ```

---

2️⃣ Indexing Script

This script creates a list of all archived files and saves it for easy lookup.
```bash

!/bin/bash

Generate an index file for all backups

ARCHIVE_DIR="/mnt/backup" INDEX_FILE="$ARCHIVE_DIR/index.txt"

find "$ARCHIVE_DIR" -type f -name "*.tar.gz" > "$INDEX_FILE"

echo "Index file updated: $INDEX_FILE" ```

---

3️⃣ Storage Space Monitor

This script alerts you if the disk usage exceeds 90%.
```bash

!/bin/bash

Monitor storage usage

THRESHOLD=90 USAGE=$(df -h | grep '/mnt/backup' | awk '{print $5}' | sed 's/%//')

if [ "$USAGE" -gt "$THRESHOLD" ]; then echo "WARNING: Disk usage at $USAGE%!" fi ```

---

4️⃣ Automatic HDD Swap Alert

This script checks if a new 2TB drive is connected and notifies you.
```bash

!/bin/bash

Detect new drives and notify

WATCHED_SIZE="2T" DEVICE=$(lsblk -dn -o NAME,SIZE | grep "$WATCHED_SIZE" | awk '{print $1}')

if [ -n "$DEVICE" ]; then echo "New 2TB drive detected: /dev/$DEVICE" fi ```

---

5️⃣ Symbolic Link Organizer

This script creates symlinks to easily access archived files from a single directory.
```bash

!/bin/bash

Organize files using symbolic links

ARCHIVE_DIR="/mnt/backup" LINK_DIR="$HOME/Archive_Links"

mkdir -p "$LINK_DIR" ln -s "$ARCHIVE_DIR"//.tar.gz "$LINK_DIR/"

echo "Symbolic links updated in $LINK_DIR" ```

---

🔥 How to Use These Scripts:

1. Save each script as a .sh file.
2. Make them executable using:
   bash chmod +x script_name.sh
3. Run manually or set up a cron job for automation:
   bash crontab -e
   Add this line to run the backup every Sunday at midnight:
   bash 0 0 * * 0 /path/to/backup_script.sh

Here's a Bash script to encrypt your backups using GPG (GnuPG) for strong encryption. 🚀

---

🔐 Backup & Encrypt Script

This script will:
✅ Compress files into an archive
✅ Encrypt it using GPG
✅ Store it in a secure location

```bash

!/bin/bash

Backup and encrypt script

ARCHIVE_DIR="/mnt/backup" DATE=$(date +"%Y-%m-%d") BACKUP_FILE="$ARCHIVE_DIR/backup_$DATE.tar.gz" ENCRYPTED_FILE="$BACKUP_FILE.gpg" GPG_RECIPIENT="your@email.com" # Change this to your GPG key or use --symmetric for password-based encryption

mkdir -p "$ARCHIVE_DIR"

Compress files

tar -czvf "$BACKUP_FILE" ~/Documents

Encrypt the backup using GPG

gpg --output "$ENCRYPTED_FILE" --encrypt --recipient "$GPG_RECIPIENT" "$BACKUP_FILE"

Verify encryption success

if [ -f "$ENCRYPTED_FILE" ]; then echo "Backup encrypted successfully: $ENCRYPTED_FILE" rm "$BACKUP_FILE" # Remove unencrypted file for security else echo "Encryption failed!" fi ```

---

🔓 Decrypting a Backup

To restore a backup, run:
bash gpg --decrypt --output backup.tar.gz backup_YYYY-MM-DD.tar.gz.gpg tar -xzvf backup.tar.gz

---

🔁 Automating with Cron

To run this script every Sunday at midnight:
bash crontab -e Add this line:
bash 0 0 * * 0 /path/to/encrypt_backup.sh

---

🔐 Backup & Encrypt Script (Password-Based)

This script:
✅ Compresses files into an archive
✅ Encrypts them using GPG with a passphrase
✅ Stores them in a secure location

```bash

!/bin/bash

Backup and encrypt script (password-based)

ARCHIVE_DIR="/mnt/backup" DATE=$(date +"%Y-%m-%d") BACKUP_FILE="$ARCHIVE_DIR/backup_$DATE.tar.gz" ENCRYPTED_FILE="$BACKUP_FILE.gpg" PASSPHRASE="YourStrongPassphraseHere" # Change this!

mkdir -p "$ARCHIVE_DIR"

Compress files

tar -czvf "$BACKUP_FILE" ~/Documents

Encrypt the backup with a password

gpg --batch --yes --passphrase "$PASSPHRASE" --symmetric --cipher-algo AES256 --output "$ENCRYPTED_FILE" "$BACKUP_FILE"

Verify encryption success

if [ -f "$ENCRYPTED_FILE" ]; then echo "Backup encrypted successfully: $ENCRYPTED_FILE" rm "$BACKUP_FILE" # Remove unencrypted file for security else echo "Encryption failed!" fi ```

---

🔓 Decrypting a Backup

To restore a backup, run:
bash gpg --batch --yes --passphrase "YourStrongPassphraseHere" --decrypt --output backup.tar.gz backup_YYYY-MM-DD.tar.gz.gpg tar -xzvf backup.tar.gz

---

🔁 Automating with Cron

To run this script every Sunday at midnight:
bash crontab -e Add this line:
bash 0 0 * * 0 /path/to/encrypt_backup.sh

---

🔥 Security Best Practices

• Do NOT hardcode the password in the script. Instead, store it in a secure location like a .gpg-pass file and use:
  bash PASSPHRASE=$(cat /path/to/.gpg-pass)
• Use a strong passphrase with at least 16+ characters.
• Consider using a hardware security key or YubiKey for extra security.

---

Here's how you can add automatic cloud syncing to your encrypted backups. This script will sync your encrypted backups to a cloud storage service like Rsync, Dropbox, or Nextcloud using the rclone tool, which is compatible with many cloud providers.

Step 1: Install rclone

First, you need to install rclone if you haven't already. It’s a powerful tool for managing cloud storage.

1. Install rclone: bash curl https://rclone.org/install.sh | sudo bash

2. Configure rclone with your cloud provider (e.g., Google Drive): bash rclone config

Follow the prompts to set up your cloud provider. After configuration, you'll have a "remote" (e.g., rsync for https://rsync.net) to use in the script.

---

🔐 Backup, Encrypt, and Sync to Cloud Script

This script will: ✅ Compress files into an archive
✅ Encrypt them with a password
✅ Sync the encrypted backup to the cloud storage

```bash

!/bin/bash

Backup, encrypt, and sync to cloud script (password-based)

ARCHIVE_DIR="/mnt/backup" DATE=$(date +"%Y-%m-%d") BACKUP_FILE="$ARCHIVE_DIR/backup_$DATE.tar.gz" ENCRYPTED_FILE="$BACKUP_FILE.gpg" PASSPHRASE="YourStrongPassphraseHere" # Change this!

Cloud configuration (rclone remote name)

CLOUD_REMOTE="gdrive" # Change this to your remote name (e.g., 'gdrive', 'dropbox', 'nextcloud') CLOUD_DIR="backups" # Cloud directory where backups will be stored

mkdir -p "$ARCHIVE_DIR"

Compress files

tar -czvf "$BACKUP_FILE" ~/Documents

Encrypt the backup with a password

gpg --batch --yes --passphrase "$PASSPHRASE" --symmetric --cipher-algo AES256 --output "$ENCRYPTED_FILE" "$BACKUP_FILE"

Verify encryption success

if [ -f "$ENCRYPTED_FILE" ]; then echo "Backup encrypted successfully: $ENCRYPTED_FILE" rm "$BACKUP_FILE" # Remove unencrypted file for security

# Sync the encrypted backup to the cloud using rclone
rclone copy "$ENCRYPTED_FILE" "$CLOUD_REMOTE:$CLOUD_DIR" --progress

# Verify sync success
if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then
    echo "Backup successfully synced to cloud: $CLOUD_REMOTE:$CLOUD_DIR"
    rm "$ENCRYPTED_FILE"  # Remove local backup after syncing
else
    echo "Cloud sync failed!"
fi

else echo "Encryption failed!" fi ```

---

How to Use the Script:

1. Edit the script:
2. Change the PASSPHRASE to a secure passphrase.
3. Change CLOUD_REMOTE to your cloud provider’s rclone remote name (e.g., gdrive, dropbox).

4. Change CLOUD_DIR to the cloud folder where you'd like to store the backup.

5. Set up a cron job for automatic backups:

6. To run the backup every Sunday at midnight, add this line to your crontab:
   bash crontab -e Add:
   bash 0 0 * * 0 /path/to/backup_encrypt_sync.sh

---

🔥 Security Tips:

• Store the passphrase securely (e.g., use a .gpg-pass file with cat /path/to/.gpg-pass).
• Use rclone's encryption feature for sensitive data in the cloud if you want to encrypt before uploading.
• Use multiple cloud services (e.g., Google Drive and Dropbox) for redundancy.

---

                   📌 START → **Planning Your Data Archiving Strategy**

├── What type of data? (Docs, Media, Code, etc.)
├── How often will you need access? (Daily, Monthly, Rarely)
├── Choose storage type: SSD (fast), HDD (cheap), Tape (long-term)
├── Plan directory structure (YYYY-MM-DD, Category-Based, etc.)
└── Define retention policy (Keep Forever? Auto-Delete After X Years?)
↓

📌 Choosing the Right Storage & Filesystem
├── Local storage: (ext4, XFS, Btrfs, ZFS for snapshots)
├── Network storage: (NAS, Nextcloud, Syncthing)
├── Cold storage: (M-DISC, Tape Backup, External HDD)
├── Redundancy: (RAID, SnapRAID, ZFS Mirror, Cloud Sync)
└── Encryption: (LUKS, VeraCrypt, age, gocryptfs)
↓

📌 Organizing & Indexing Data
├── Folder structure: (YYYY/MM/Project-Based)
├── Metadata tagging: (exiftool, Recoll, TagSpaces)
├── Search tools: (fd, fzf, locate, grep)
├── Deduplication: (rdfind, fdupes, hardlinking)
└── Checksum integrity: (sha256sum, blake3)
↓

📌 Compression & Space Optimization
├── Use compression (tar, zip, 7z, zstd, btrfs/zfs compression)
├── Remove duplicate files (rsync, fdupes, rdfind)
├── Store archives in efficient formats (ISO, SquashFS, borg)
├── Use incremental backups (rsync, BorgBackup, Restic)
└── Verify archive integrity (sha256sum, snapraid sync)
↓

📌 Ensuring Long-Term Data Integrity
├── Check data periodically (snapraid scrub, btrfs scrub)
├── Refresh storage media every 3-5 years (HDD, Tape)
├── Protect against bit rot (ZFS/Btrfs checksums, ECC RAM)
├── Store backup keys & logs separately (Paper, YubiKey, Trezor)
└── Use redundant backups (3-2-1 Rule: 3 copies, 2 locations, 1 offsite)
↓

📌 Accessing Data Efficiently
├── Use symbolic links & bind mounts for easy access
├── Implement full-text search (Recoll, Apache Solr, Meilisearch)
├── Set up a file index database (mlocate, updatedb)
├── Utilize file previews (nnn, ranger, vifm)
└── Configure network file access (SFTP, NFS, Samba, WebDAV)
↓

📌 Scaling & Expanding Your Archive
├── Move old data to slower storage (HDD, Tape, Cloud)
├── Upgrade storage (LVM expansion, RAID, NAS upgrades)
├── Automate archival processes (cron jobs, systemd timers)
├── Optimize backups for large datasets (rsync --link-dest, BorgBackup)
└── Add redundancy as data grows (RAID, additional HDDs)
↓

📌 Automating the Archival Process
├── Schedule regular backups (cron, systemd, Ansible)
├── Auto-sync to offsite storage (rclone, Syncthing, Nextcloud)
├── Monitor storage health (smartctl, btrfs/ZFS scrub, netdata)
├── Set up alerts for disk failures (Zabbix, Grafana, Prometheus)
└── Log & review archive activity (auditd, logrotate, shell scripts)
↓

✅ GOAT STATUS: DATA ARCHIVING COMPLETE & AUTOMATED! 🎯

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

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

Small Wins

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

Ego is Volatile

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

Simplicity

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

The Big Picture

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

@ d34e832d:383f78d0

[npub16d8gxt2z4k9e8sdpc0yyqzf5gp0np09ls4lnn630qzxzvwpl0rgq5h4rzv]

Helical Visualization of Time's Passage in Orbital Motion and Celestial Mechanics

Exploring the dynamics of our Solar System through helical visualization opens new possibilities for understanding time, orbital motion, and planetary trajectories. By visualizing time as a continuous helical path, we gain insights into the cyclical and evolving nature of celestial mechanics, where each planet's orbit interacts with others in both predictable and dynamic patterns.

1. Helical Visualization of Time’s Passage

• Time as a Continuous Helix: Instead of viewing planetary orbits as fixed ellipses, this model represents the passage of time as a helical curve, linking each orbital cycle to the next. This visualization allows for a deeper understanding of the long-term movement of celestial bodies.
• Progression of Orbital Events: As planets follow their helical paths, we can track the passage of time from multiple perspectives, observing how their positions and velocities evolve in relation to one another. The helical model offers an elegant representation of periodic cycles that emphasizes the interconnectedness of cosmic events.
• Temporal Interactions: In this model, events like eclipses, conjunctions, and retrogrades become visualized as intersecting points on the helical path, emphasizing their importance in the grand tapestry of the Solar System's motion.

2. Orbital Motion and Celestial Mechanics

• Interplanetary Influences: The interactions between planetary bodies are inherently governed by gravitational forces, which create orbital motions that are often predictable yet influenced by external factors like planetary alignments and the gravitational pull of distant stars.
• Orbital Resonance and Tidal Forces: The gravitational interactions between planets, moons, and even asteroids can result in phenomena like orbital resonance. These interactions can be visualized in a helical model, showing how bodies can affect each other's orbits over time, much like the push and pull of a dance.
• The Dance of the Planets: Each planet’s orbit is not only a path through space but a part of a cosmic ballet, where their gravitational interactions affect one another's orbits. The helical model of motion helps us visualize how these interactions evolve over millions of years, helping to predict future trajectories.

3. Planetary Orbits and the Structure of the Solar System

• Elliptical and Spiral Patterns: While many planetary orbits are elliptical, the helical model introduces a dynamic spiral element to represent the combined motion of planets both around the Sun and through space. As the planets move, their orbits could resemble intricate spirals that reflect the cumulative effect of their motion through time.
• Resonance and Stability: Certain orbits may stabilize or shift over long periods due to gravitational interactions between planets. This helical view provides a tool for observing how minor orbital shifts can amplify over time, affecting not only the planets but the overall structure of the Solar System.
• Nonlinear Progression: Planets do not follow predictable paths in a simple two-dimensional plane. Instead, their orbits are affected by multiple forces, including interactions with other celestial bodies, making the helical model an ideal tool for visualizing the complexity and evolving nature of these planetary orbits.

4. Space Visualization and the Expanding Universe

• Moving Beyond the Solar System: The helical model of time and orbital motion does not end with our Solar System. As we visualize the movement of our Solar System within the broader context of the Milky Way, we begin to understand how our own galaxy's orbit affects our local motion through the universe.
• Helical Paths in Cosmic Space: This visualization method allows us to consider the Solar System’s motion as part of a larger, spiraling pattern that reaches across the galaxy, suggesting that our journey through space follows an intricate, three-dimensional helical path.

Connections (Links to Other Notes)

• The Mathematical Foundations of Orbital Mechanics
• Time as a Dimension in Celestial Navigation
• Gravitational Forces and Orbital Stability

Tags

SolarSystem #HelicalMotion #TimeVisualization #OrbitalMechanics #CelestialBodies #PlanetaryOrbits #SpaceExploration

Donations via

• ZeroSumFreeParity@primal.net

@ d34e832d:383f78d0

https://pub-53ed77d5544b46628691823c1795f2c7.r2.dev/Reticulum-Unstoppable-Network-Compressed.mp4

[npub16d8gxt2z4k9e8sdpc0yyqzf5gp0np09ls4lnn630qzxzvwpl0rgq5h4rzv]

What is Reticulum?

Reticulum is a cryptographic networking stack designed for resilient, decentralized, and censorship-resistant communication. Unlike the traditional internet, Reticulum enables fully independent digital communications over various physical mediums, such as radio, LoRa, serial links, and even TCP/IP.

The key advantages of Reticulum include:
- Decentralization – No reliance on centralized infrastructure.
- Encryption & Privacy – End-to-end encryption built-in.
- Resilience – Operates over unreliable and low-bandwidth links.
- Interoperability – Works over WiFi, LoRa, Bluetooth, and more.
- Ease of Use – Can run on minimal hardware, including Raspberry Pi and embedded devices.

Reticulum is ideal for off-grid, censorship-resistant communications, emergency preparedness, and secure messaging.

---

1. Getting Started with Reticulum

To quickly get started with Reticulum, follow the official guide:
Reticulum: Getting Started Fast

Step 1: Install Reticulum

On Linux (Debian/Ubuntu-based systems)

sh sudo apt update && sudo apt upgrade -y sudo apt install -y python3-pip pip3 install rns

On Raspberry Pi or ARM-based Systems

sh pip3 install rns

On Windows

Using Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) or Python:
sh pip install rns

On macOS

sh pip3 install rns

---

2. Configuring Reticulum

Once installed, Reticulum needs a configuration file. The default location is:
sh ~/.config/reticulum/config.toml

To generate the default configuration:
sh rnsd This creates a configuration file with default settings.

---

3. Using Reticulum

Starting the Reticulum Daemon

To run the Reticulum daemon (rnsd), use:
sh rnsd This starts the network stack, allowing applications to communicate over Reticulum.

Testing Your Reticulum Node

Run the diagnostic tool to ensure your node is functioning:
sh rnstatus This shows the status of all connected interfaces and peers.

---

4. Adding Interfaces

LoRa Interface (for Off-Grid Communications)

Reticulum supports long-range LoRa radios like the RAK Wireless and Meshtastic devices. To add a LoRa interface, edit config.toml and add:
toml [[interfaces]] type = "LoRa" name = "My_LoRa_Interface" frequency = 868.0 bandwidth = 125 spreading_factor = 9 Restart Reticulum to apply the changes.

Serial (For Direct Device-to-Device Links)

For communication over serial links (e.g., between two Raspberry Pis):
toml [[interfaces]] type = "Serial" port = "/dev/ttyUSB0" baudrate = 115200

TCP/IP (For Internet-Based Nodes)

If you want to bridge your Reticulum node over an existing IP network:
toml [[interfaces]] type = "TCP" listen = true bind = "0.0.0.0" port = 4242

---

5. Applications Using Reticulum

LXMF (LoRa Mesh Messaging Framework)

LXMF is a delay-tolerant, fully decentralized messaging system that operates over Reticulum. It allows encrypted, store-and-forward messaging without requiring an always-online server.

To install:
sh pip3 install lxmf To start the LXMF node:
sh lxmfd

Nomad Network (Decentralized Chat & File Sharing)

Nomad is a Reticulum-based chat and file-sharing platform, ideal for off-grid communication.
To install:
sh pip3 install nomad-network To run:
sh nomad

Mesh Networking with Meshtastic & Reticulum

Reticulum can work alongside Meshtastic for true decentralized long-range communication.
To set up a Meshtastic bridge:
toml [[interfaces]] type = "LoRa" port = "/dev/ttyUSB0" baudrate = 115200

---

6. Security & Privacy Features

• Automatic End-to-End Encryption – Every message is encrypted by default.
• No Centralized Logging – Communication leaves no metadata traces.
• Self-Healing Routing – Designed to work in unstable or hostile environments.

---

7. Practical Use Cases

• Off-Grid Communication – Works in remote areas without cellular service.
• Censorship Resistance – Cannot be blocked by ISPs or governments.
• Emergency Networks – Enables resilient communication during disasters.
• Private P2P Networks – Create a secure, encrypted communication layer.

---

8. Further Exploration & Documentation

• Reticulum Official Manual: https://markqvist.github.io/Reticulum/manual/
• Reticulum GitHub Repository: https://github.com/markqvist/Reticulum
• Nomad Network: https://github.com/markqvist/NomadNet
• Meshtastic + Reticulum: https://meshtastic.org

---

Connections (Links to Other Notes)

• Mesh Networking for Decentralized Communication
• LoRa and Off-Grid Bitcoin Transactions
• Censorship-Resistant Communication Using Nostr & Reticulum

Tags

Reticulum #DecentralizedComms #MeshNetworking #CensorshipResistance #LoRa

Donations via

• Bitcoin Lightning: lightninglayerhash@getalby.com

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

This piece is the first in a series that will focus on things I think are a priority if your focus is similar to mine: building a strong family and safeguarding their future.

---

Choosing the ideal place to raise a family is one of the most significant decisions you will ever make. For simplicity sake I will break down my thought process into key factors: strong property rights, the ability to grow your own food, access to fresh water, the freedom to own and train with guns, and a dependable community.

A Jurisdiction with Strong Property Rights

Strong property rights are essential and allow you to build on a solid foundation that is less likely to break underneath you. Regions with a history of limited government and clear legal protections for landowners are ideal. Personally I think the US is the single best option globally, but within the US there is a wide difference between which state you choose. Choose carefully and thoughtfully, think long term. Obviously if you are not American this is not a realistic option for you, there are other solid options available especially if your family has mobility. I understand many do not have this capability to easily move, consider that your first priority, making movement and jurisdiction choice possible in the first place.

Abundant Access to Fresh Water

Water is life. I cannot overstate the importance of living somewhere with reliable, clean, and abundant freshwater. Some regions face water scarcity or heavy regulations on usage, so prioritizing a place where water is plentiful and your rights to it are protected is critical. Ideally you should have well access so you are not tied to municipal water supplies. In times of crisis or chaos well water cannot be easily shutoff or disrupted. If you live in an area that is drought prone, you are one drought away from societal chaos. Not enough people appreciate this simple fact.

Grow Your Own Food

A location with fertile soil, a favorable climate, and enough space for a small homestead or at the very least a garden is key. In stable times, a small homestead provides good food and important education for your family. In times of chaos your family being able to grow and raise healthy food provides a level of self sufficiency that many others will lack. Look for areas with minimal restrictions, good weather, and a culture that supports local farming.

Guns

The ability to defend your family is fundamental. A location where you can legally and easily own guns is a must. Look for places with a strong gun culture and a political history of protecting those rights. Owning one or two guns is not enough and without proper training they will be a liability rather than a benefit. Get comfortable and proficient. Never stop improving your skills. If the time comes that you must use a gun to defend your family, the skills must be instinct. Practice. Practice. Practice.

A Strong Community You Can Depend On

No one thrives alone. A ride or die community that rallies together in tough times is invaluable. Seek out a place where people know their neighbors, share similar values, and are quick to lend a hand. Lead by example and become a good neighbor, people will naturally respond in kind. Small towns are ideal, if possible, but living outside of a major city can be a solid balance in terms of work opportunities and family security.

---

Let me know if you found this helpful. My plan is to break down how I think about these five key subjects in future posts.

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Abstract

This paper examines a hypothetical scenario in which the United States, under Trump’s leadership, withdraws from NATO and reduces its support for Europe, thereby enabling a Russian conquest of Ukraine and the subsequent expansion of Moscow’s influence over Eurasia, while the US consolidates its dominance over South America. Drawing on classical geopolitical theories—specifically those of Halford Mackinder, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Rudolf Kjellén, and Friedrich Ratzel—the study analyzes how these frameworks can elucidate the evolving power dynamics and territorial ambitions in a reconfigured global order. The discussion highlights Mackinder’s notion of the Eurasian Heartland and its strategic importance, Mahan’s emphasis on maritime power and control of strategic routes, Kjellén’s view of the state as an expanding organism, and Ratzel’s concept of Lebensraum as a justification for territorial expansion. The paper also explores contemporary developments, such as the US–Ukraine economic agreement and Trump’s overt territorial ambitions involving Greenland and Canada, in light of these theories. By juxtaposing traditional geopolitical concepts with current international relations, the study aims to shed light on the potential implications of such shifts for regional stability, global security, and the balance of power, particularly in relation to emerging neocolonial practices in Latin America.

Introduction

In recent years, the geopolitical dynamics involving the United States, Russia, and Ukraine have sparked analyses from different theoretical perspectives. This paper examines recent events – presupposing a scenario in which Donald Trump withdraws the US from NATO and reduces its support for Europe, allowing a Russian conquest of Ukraine and the expansion of Moscow’s influence over Eurasia, while the US consolidates its dominance over South America – in light of classical geopolitical theories. The ideas of Halford Mackinder, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Rudolf Kjellén, and Friedrich Ratzel are used as reference points. The proposal is to impartially evaluate how each theory can elucidate the developments of this hypothetical scenario, relating Russian territorial expansion in Eurasia to the strategic retreat of the US to the Western Hemisphere.

Initially, we will outline Mackinder’s conception of the Heartland (the central Eurasian territory) and the crucial role of Eastern Europe and Ukraine in the quest for global dominance. Next, we will discuss Mahan’s ideas regarding maritime power and the control of strategic routes, considering the impacts on the naval power balance among the US, Russia, and other maritime powers such as the United Kingdom and Japan. Subsequently, we will examine Kjellén’s organic theory of the state, interpreting the Russian expansionist strategy as a reflection of a state organism in search of vital space. In the same vein, Ratzel’s concept of “Lebensraum” will be explored, along with how Russia could justify territorial expansion based on resources and territory. Finally, the paper connects these theories to the current political context, analyzing the direct negotiations between Washington and Moscow (overlooking Ukraine and Europe), the US policy toward authoritarian regimes in Latin America, and the notion of a hemispheric division of power – the “Island of the Americas” under North American hegemony versus an Eurasia dominated by Russia. Lastly, it considers the possibility that such a geopolitical arrangement may foster the strengthening of authoritarian governments globally, rather than containing them, thus altering the paradigms of the liberal world order.

The Heartland of Mackinder: Ukraine, Eurasia, and Global Dominance

Halford J. Mackinder, a British geographer and pioneer of geopolitics, proposed the celebrated Heartland Theory in the early twentieth century. Mackinder divided the world into geostrategic zones and identified the Heartland—the central continental mass of Eurasia—as the “geographical pivot of history” [5]. His most famous maxim encapsulates this vision: “who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; who rules the World Island commands the world” [5]. Eastern Europe and, in particular, the region of present-day Ukraine, play a key role in this formula. This is because, for Mackinder, Eastern Europe functions as a gateway to the Heartland, providing access to resources and a strategic position for the projection of continental power [5].

Applying this theory to our scenario, the conquest of Ukraine and Eastern European countries by Russia would have profound geopolitical implications. From a Mackinderian point of view, such a conquest would enormously strengthen Russia’s position in the Heartland by adding manpower (population) and Ukraine’s industrial and agricultural resources to its power base [5]. In fact, Mackinder argued that controlling the Heartland conferred formidable geostrategic advantages—a vast terrestrial “natural fortress” protected from naval invasions and rich in resources such as wheat, minerals, and fuels [5]. Thus, if Moscow were to incorporate Ukraine (renowned for its fertile soil and grain production, as well as its mineral reserves) and extend its influence over Eastern Europe, Russia would consolidate the Heartland under its direct control. In this context, the absence of the USA (withdrawn from NATO and less engaged in Europe) would remove an important obstacle to Russian predominance in the region.

With central and eastern Eurasia under Russian influence, it would be possible to move toward the realization of the geopolitical nightmare described by Mackinder for Western maritime powers: a hegemonic continental power capable of projecting power to both Europe and Asia. Mackinder himself warned that if a Heartland power gained additional access to an oceanic coastline—in other words, if it combined land power with a significant maritime front—it would constitute a “danger” to global freedom [5]. In the scenario considered, besides advancing into Eastern Europe, Russia would already possess strategic maritime outlets (for example, in the Black Sea, via Crimea, and in the Baltic, via Kaliningrad or the Baltic States if influenced). Thus, the control of Ukraine would reinforce Russia’s position in the Black Sea and facilitate projection into the Eastern Mediterranean, expanding its oceanic front. From a Mackinderian perspective, this could potentially transform Russia into the dominant power of the “World Island” (the combined mass of Europe, Asia, and Africa), thereby unbalancing the global geopolitical order [5].

It is worth noting that, historically, Mackinder’s doctrine influenced containment strategies: both in the interwar period and during the Cold War, efforts were made to prevent a single power from controlling the Heartland and Eastern Europe. NATO, for example, can be seen as an instrument to prevent Soviet/Russian advances in Europe, in line with Mackinder’s imperative to “contain the Heartland.” Thus, if the USA were to abandon that role—by leaving NATO and tacitly accepting the Russian sphere of influence in Eurasia—we would be witnessing an inversion of the principles that have guided Western policy for decades. In short, under Mackinder’s theory, the Russian conquest of Ukraine and beyond would represent the key for Russia to command the Heartland and, potentially, challenge global hegemony, especially in a scenario where the USA self-restricts to the Western Hemisphere.

The Maritime Power of Mahan and the Naval Balance between West and East

While Mackinder emphasized continental land power, Alfred Thayer Mahan, a nineteenth-century American naval strategist, highlighted the crucial role of maritime power in global dominance. In his work The Influence of Sea Power upon History (1890), Mahan studied the example of the British Empire and concluded that control of the seas paved the way for British supremacy as a world power [10]. He argued that a strong navy and the control of strategic maritime routes were decisive factors for projecting military, political, and economic power. His doctrine can be summarized in the following points: (1) the United States should aspire to be a world power; (2) control of the seas is necessary to achieve that status; (3) such control is obtained through a powerful fleet of warships [17]. In other words, for Mahan, whoever dominates the maritime routes and possesses naval superiority will be in a position to influence global destinies, ensuring trade, supplies, and the rapid movement of military forces.

In the proposed scenario, in which the USA withdraws militarily from Europe and possibly from the Eurasian stage, Mahan’s ideas raise questions about the distribution of maritime power and its effects. Traditionally, the US Navy operates globally, ensuring freedom of navigation and deterring challenges in major seas (Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, etc.). A withdrawal of the USA from NATO could also signal a reduction in its naval presence in the Northeast Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea, and other areas close to Eurasia. In such a case, who would fill this naval vacuum? Russia, although primarily a land power, has been attempting to modernize its navy and has specific interests—for example, consolidating its dominance in the Black Sea and maintaining a presence in the Mediterranean (with a naval base in Tartus, Syria). The United Kingdom, a historic European maritime power, would remain aligned with the USA but, without American military support in Europe, might potentially be overwhelmed trying to contain an increasingly assertive Russian navy in European waters on its own. Japan, another significant maritime actor allied with the USA, is concerned with the naval balance in the Pacific; without full American engagement, Tokyo might be compelled to expand its own naval power to contain both Russia in the Far East (which maintains a fleet in the Pacific) and, especially, the growing Chinese navy.

According to Mahan’s thinking, strategic maritime routes and choke points (crucial straits and channels) become contested prizes in this power game. With the USA focusing on the Americas, one could imagine Washington reinforcing control over the Panama Canal and Caribbean routes—reviving an “American Gulf” policy in the Western Atlantic and Eastern Pacific. In fact, indications of this orientation emerge in statements attributed to Trump, who once suggested reclaiming direct control over Panama, transforming Canada into a North American state, and even “annexing” Greenland due to its Arctic geopolitical importance [18]. These aspirations reflect a quest to secure advantageous maritime positions near the American continent.

Conversely, in the absence of American presence in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, Russia would have free rein for regional maritime projection. This could include anything from the unrestricted use of the Black Sea (after dominating Ukraine, thereby ensuring full access to Crimea and Ukrainian ports) to greater influence in the Eastern Mediterranean via Syria and partnerships with countries such as Iran or Egypt. The Baltic Sea would also become an area of expanded Russian interest, pressuring coastal countries and perhaps reducing NATO’s traditional local naval supremacy. However, it is worth noting that even with these regional expansions, Russia lacks a blue-water navy comparable to that of the USA; thus, its initial global maritime impact would be limited without alliances.

An important aspect of Mahan’s theories is that naval power serves as a counterbalance to the land power of the Heartland. Therefore, even if Russia were to dominate the Eurasian continental mass, the continued presence of American naval might on the oceans could prevent complete global domination by Moscow. However, if the USA voluntarily restricts its naval reach to the Americas, it would forgo influencing the power balance in the seas adjacent to Eurasia. Consequently, the balance of maritime power would tend to shift in favor of regional Eurasian actors. The United Kingdom and Japan, traditional allies of the USA, could intensify their naval capabilities to defend regional interests—the United Kingdom safeguarding the North Atlantic and the North Sea, and Japan patrolling the Northwest Pacific—but both would face budgetary and structural limitations in fully compensating for the absence of the American superpower. Consequently, Mahan’s vision suggests that the withdrawal of the USA from the extra-regional scene would weaken the liberal maritime regime, possibly opening space for revisionist powers to contest routes that were previously secured (for example, Russia and China encountering less opposition on the routes of the Arctic and the Indo-Pacific, respectively). In summary, naval hegemony would fragment, and control of strategic seas would become contested, reconfiguring the relative influence of the USA, Russia, and maritime allies such as the United Kingdom and Japan.

Kjellén and the State as a Living Organism: Russian Expansion as an Organic Necessity

Another useful theoretical lens to interpret Russian geopolitical posture is that of Rudolf Kjellén, a Swedish political scientist of the early twentieth century who conceived the State as a living organism. Kjellén, who even coined the term “geopolitics,” was influenced by Friedrich Ratzel’s ideas and by social Darwinism, arguing that States are born, grow, and decline analogously to living beings [13]. In his work Staten som livsform (The State as a Form of Life, 1916), he maintained that States possess an organic dimension in addition to the legal one and that “just as any form of life, States must expand or die” [14]. This expansion would not be motivated merely by aggressive conquest but seen as a necessary growth for the self-preservation of the state organism [14]. In complement, Kjellén echoed Ratzel’s “law of expanding spaces” by asserting that large States expand at the expense of smaller ones, with it being only a matter of time before the great realms fill the available spaces [14]. That is, from the organic perspective, vigorous States tend to incorporate smaller neighboring territories, consolidating territorially much like an organism absorbing nutrients.

Applying this theory to the strategy of contemporary Russia, we can interpret Moscow’s actions—including the invasion of Ukraine and the ambition to restore its sphere of influence in Eurasia—as the expression of an organic drive for expansion. For a strategist influenced by this school, Russia (viewed as a state organism with a long imperial history) needs to expand its territory and influence to ensure its survival and security. The loss of control over spaces that once were part of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union (such as Ukraine itself, the Caucasus, or Central Asia) may be perceived by Russian elites as an atrophy of the state organism, rendering it vulnerable. Thus, the reincorporation of these territories—whether directly (annexation) or indirectly (political vassalage)—would equate to restoring lost members or strengthening vital organs of the state body. In fact, official Russian arguments often portray Ukraine as an intrinsic part of “Russian historicity,” denying it a fully separate identity—a narrative that aligns with the idea that Russian expansion in that region is natural and necessary for the Russian State (seen as encompassing also Russian speakers beyond its current borders).

Kjellén would thus provide a theoretical justification for Russian territorial expansion as an organic phenomenon. As a great power, Russia would inevitably seek to expand at the expense of smaller neighbors (Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic States, etc.), as dictated by the tendency of “great spaces to organize” to the detriment of the small [14]. This view can be identified in contemporary Russian doctrines that value spheres of influence and the notion that neighboring countries must gravitate around Moscow in order for the natural order to be maintained. The very idea of “Eurasia” united under Russian leadership (advocated by modern Russian thinkers) echoes this organic conception of vital space and expansion as a sign of the State’s vitality.

However, Kjellén’s theory also warns of the phenomenon of “imperial overstretch,” should a State exceed its internal cohesion limits by expanding excessively [14]. He recognized that extending borders too far could increase friction and vulnerabilities, making it difficult to maintain cohesion—a very large organism may lack functional integration. In the Russian context, this suggests that although expansion is seen as necessary, there are risks if Russia tries to encompass more than it can govern effectively. Conquering Ukraine and subjugating Eastern Europe, for example, could economically and militarily overburden the Russian State, especially if it faced resistance or had to manage hostile populations. However, in the hypothetical scenario we adopt (isolated USA and a weakened Europe), Russia might calculate that the organic benefits of expansion (territory, resources, strategic depth) would outweigh the costs, since external interference would be limited. Thus, through Kjellén’s lens, expansionist Russia behaves as an organism following its instinct for survival and growth, absorbing weaker neighbors; yet such a process is not devoid of challenges, requiring that the “organism Russia” manages to assimilate these new spaces without collapsing under its own weight.

Ratzel and Lebensraum: Resources, Territory, and the Justification for Expansion

Parallel to Kjellén’s organic view, Friedrich Ratzel’s theory offers another conceptual basis for understanding Russian expansion: the concept of Lebensraum (vital space). Ratzel, a German geographer of the late nineteenth century, proposed that the survival and development of a people or nation depended critically on the available physical space and resources. Influenced by Darwinist ideas, he applied the notion of “survival of the fittest” to nations, arguing that human societies need to conquer territory and resources to prosper, and that the stronger and fittest civilizations will naturally prevail over the weaker ones [12]. In 1901, Ratzel coined the term Lebensraum to describe this need for “vital space” as a geographical factor in national power [15].

Subsequently, this idea would be adopted—and extremely distorted—by Nazi ideology to justify Germany’s aggressions in Europe. However, the core of Ratzel’s concept is that territorial expansion is essential for the survival and growth of a State, especially to secure food, raw materials, and space for its population [12].

When examining Russia’s stance under this perspective, we can see several narratives that evoke the logic of Lebensraum. Russia is the largest country in the world by area; however, much of its territory is characterized by adverse climates (tundra, taiga) and is relatively sparsely populated in Siberia. On the other hand, adjacent regions such as Ukraine possess highly arable lands (chernozem—black soil), significant Slavic population density, and additional natural resources (coal in the Donbass, for example). An implicit justification for Russian expansion could be the search for supplementary resources and fertile lands to secure its self-sufficiency and power—exactly as Ratzel described that vigorous nations do. Historical records show that Ratzel emphasized agrarian primacy: he believed that new territories should be colonized by farmers, providing the food base for the nation [12]. Ukraine, historically called the “breadbasket of Europe,” fits perfectly into this vision of conquest for sustenance and agricultural wealth.

Furthermore, Ratzel viewed geography as a determinant of the destiny of nations—peoples adapted to certain habitats seek to expand them if they aspire to grow. In contemporary Russian discourse, there is often mention of the need to ensure security and territorial depth in the face of NATO, or to unite brotherly peoples (Russians and Russian speakers) within a single political space. Such arguments can be read as a modern translation of Lebensraum: the idea that the Russian nation, in order to be secure and flourish, must control a larger space, encompassing buffer zones and critical resources. This Russian “vital space” would naturally include Ukraine and other former Soviet republics, given the historical and infrastructural interdependence. Ratzel emphasized that peoples migrated and expanded when their original homeland no longer met their needs or aspirations [12]. Although contemporary Russia does not suffer from demographic pressure (on the contrary, it faces population decline), under the logic of a great power there is indeed a sentiment of geopolitical insufficiency for having lost influence over areas considered strategic. Thus, reconquering these areas would mean recovering the “habitat” necessary for the Russian nation to prosper and feel secure.

It is important to mention that, in Ratzel’s and Kjellén’s formulations, the pursuit of Lebensraum or organic expansion is not morally qualified—it is treated as a natural process in the politics of power. Thus, on the discursive level, Russia can avoid overly aggressive rhetoric and resort to “natural” justifications: for example, claiming that it needs to occupy Ukraine for defensive purposes (security space) or to reunify peoples (a common cultural and historical space). Beneath these justifications, however, resonates the geopolitical imperative to acquire more territory and resources as a guarantee of national survival, something consonant with Ratzel’s theory. In fact, Russian Realpolitik frequently prioritizes the control of energy resources (gas, oil) and transportation routes. Expanding its influence over central Eurasia would also mean controlling oil pipelines, gas lines, and logistical corridors—essential elements of modern Lebensraum understood as access to vital resources and infrastructure.

In summary, by conquering Ukraine and extending its reach into Eurasia, Russia could effectively invoke the concept of Lebensraum: presenting its expansion not as mere imperialism, but as a necessity to secure indispensable lands and resources for its people and to correct the “injustice” of a vital space diminished by post-Cold War territorial losses. The theories of Ratzel and Kjellén together paint a picture in which Russian expansion emerges almost as a natural law—the great State reclaiming space to ensure its survival and development at the expense of smaller neighbors.

Trump, NATO, and the Threat of American Withdrawal

One of the most alarming changes with Trump's return to power is the tense relationship with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Trump has long criticized allies for not meeting military spending targets, even threatening during his first term to withdraw the US from the alliance if members did not increase their contributions [2]. This threat, initially viewed with skepticism, became concrete after his re-election, leading European allies to seriously consider the possibility of having to defend themselves without American support [1]. In fact, Trump suggested in post-election interviews that the US would only remain in NATO if the allies “paid their bills” – otherwise, he “would seriously consider” leaving [2]. Such statements reinforced the warning that the US might not honor NATO's mutual defense commitment, precisely at a time of continuous Russian threat due to the war in Ukraine [1].

From a theoretical point of view, this posture of American retrenchment evokes the classic tension between maritime power and land power. Alfred Thayer Mahan emphasized that the global power of the US derived largely from its naval superiority and from alliances that ensured control over strategic maritime routes [9]. NATO, since 1949, has served not only to deter Soviet terrestrial advances in Eurasia, but also to secure the US naval presence in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean – a fundamental element according to Mahan. In turn, Halford Mackinder warned that the balance of global power depended on the control of the Eurasian “Heartland” (the central region of Eurasia). The withdrawal or disengagement of the US (a maritime power) from this region could open the way for a continental power (such as Russia) to expand its influence in Eastern Europe, unbalancing the power balance [3]. In other words, by threatening to leave NATO, Trump jeopardizes the principle of containment that prevented Russian dominance over Eastern Europe – something that Mackinder would see as a dangerous shift in global power in favor of the Heartland power.

Adopting an impartial tone, it is observed that European countries have reacted to this new reality with precautionary measures. Strategic reports already calculate the cost of an autonomous European defense: hundreds of thousands of additional soldiers and investments of hundreds of billions of euros would be required if the US ceased to guarantee the security of the continent [1]. European dependence on American military power is significant and, without it, there would be a need for a major reinforcement of European Armed Forces [1]. This mobilization practically reflects the anticipation of a power vacuum left by the US – a scenario in which Mackinder’s theory (on the primacy of the Heartland and the vulnerability of the “external crescent” where Western Europe is located) regains its relevance.

The US–Ukraine Economic Agreement: Strategic Minerals in Exchange for Support?

Another novelty of Trump's second term is the unprecedented and transactional manner in which Washington has been dealing with the war in Ukraine. Instead of emphasizing security guarantees and alliances, the Trump administration proposed a trade agreement with Ukraine focused on the exploitation of strategic minerals, linking American support to a direct economic benefit. According to sources close to the negotiations, the US and Ukraine are about to sign a pact to share the revenues from the exploitation of critical mineral resources on Ukrainian territory [19]. Materials such as titanium, lithium, rare earths, and uranium – vital for high-tech and defense industries – would be at the core of this agreement [6]. According to the known draft, Ukraine would allocate 50% of the profits from new mineral ventures to a fund controlled by the US, which would reinvest part of the resources in the country’s own reconstruction [6] [19].

It is noteworthy that the pact does not include explicit security guarantees for Kyiv, despite Ukraine remaining under direct military threat from Russia [19]. Essentially, the Trump administration offers financial support and economic investment in exchange for a share in Ukrainian natural resources, but without formally committing to Ukraine's defense in the event of a renewed Russian offensive [19]. American authorities argue that this economic partnership would already be sufficient to “secure Ukrainian interests,” as it would provide the US with its own incentives to desire Ukraine’s stability [19]. “What could be better for Ukraine than being in an economic partnership with the United States?” stated Mike Waltz, a US national security advisor, defending the proposal [19].

Analysts, however, assess the agreement in divided terms. For some, it represents a form of economic exploitation at a time of Ukraine's fragility – comparing the demand to share mineral wealth amid war to a scheme of “mafia protection” [19]. Steven Cook, from the Council on Foreign Relations, classified the offer as “extortion,” and political scientist Virginia P. Fortna observed that charging resources from an invaded country resembles predatory practices [19]. Joseph Nye adds that it is a short-term gain strategy that could be “disastrous in the long run” for American credibility, reflecting the transactional approach that Trump even adopted with close allies in other contexts [19]. On the other hand, some see a future advantage for Kyiv: journalist Pierre Briançon suggests that at least this agreement aligns American commercial interests with Ukraine’s future, which could, in theory, keep the US involved in Ukrainian prosperity in the long term [19]. It is even recalled that President Zelensky himself proposed last year the idea of sharing natural resources with the US to bring the interests of the two countries closer together [19].

From the perspective of geopolitical theories, this agreement illustrates a shift towards economic pragmatism in international relations, approaching concepts proposed by Kjellén. Rudolf Kjellén, who coined the term “geopolitics,” saw the State as a territorial organism that seeks to ensure its survival through self-sufficiency and the control of strategic resources [4]. Trump's demand for a share in Ukrainian resources in order to continue supporting the country reflects a logic of autarky and direct national interest – that is, foreign policy serving primarily to reinforce the economic and material position of the US. This view contrasts with the traditional cooperative approach, but aligns with Kjellén’s idea that powerful States tend to transform international relations into opportunities for their own gain, ensuring access to vital raw materials. Similarly, Friedrich Ratzel argued that States have a “propensity to expand their borders according to their capacities,” seeking vital space (Lebensraum) and resources to sustain their development [11]. The US–Ukraine pact, by conditioning military/economic aid on obtaining tangible advantages (half of the mineral profits), is reminiscent of Ratzel’s perspective: the US, as a rising economic power, expands its economic influence over Ukrainian territory like an organism extending itself to obtain the necessary resources for its well-being. It is, therefore, a form of economic expansionism at the expense of purely ideological commitments or collective security.

Peace Negotiations Excluding Ukraine and the Legitimacy of the Agreement

Another controversial point is the manner in which peace negotiations between Russia and the West have been conducted under Trump's administration. Since taking office, the American president has engaged directly with Moscow in pursuit of a ceasefire, deliberately keeping the Ukrainian government out of the initial discussions [6]. Trump expressed his desire to “leave Zelensky out of the conversation” and also excluded the European Union from any influence in the process [6]. This negotiation strategy—conducted without the presence of the primary interested party, Ukraine—raises serious questions about the legitimacy and sustainability of any resulting agreement.

Historically, peace agreements reached without the direct participation of one of the conflicting parties tend to face problems in implementation and acceptance.

The exclusion of Ukraine in the decision-making phase brings to light the issue of guarantees. As noted, the emerging agreement lacks formal US security guarantees for Ukraine. This implies that, after the agreement is signed, nothing will prevent Russia from launching a new offensive if it deems it convenient, knowing that the US has not committed to defending it militarily. Experts have already warned that a ceasefire without robust protection may only be a pause for Russian rearmament, rendering the conflict “frozen” temporarily and potentially resumed in the near future. The European strategic community has expressed similar concern: without American deterrence, the risk of further Russian aggressions in the region increases considerably [1]. Denmark, for example, has released intelligence reports warning of possible imminent Russian attacks, prompting neighboring countries to accelerate plans for independent defense [1].

The legitimacy of this asymmetric peace agreement (negotiated without Ukraine fully at the table and under economic coercion) is also questionable from a legal and moral point of view. It violates the principle of self-determination by imposing terms decided by great powers on a sovereign country—a practice reminiscent of dark chapters in diplomacy, such as the Munich Agreement of 1938, when powers determined the fate of Czechoslovakia without its consent. In the current case, Ukraine would end up signing the agreement, but from a position of weakness, raising doubts about how durable such a commitment would be.

From Mackinder’s perspective, Ukraine’s removal from the battlefield without guarantees essentially means admitting a greater influence of Russia (the Heartland power) over Eastern Europe. This would alter the balance in Eurasia in a potentially lasting way. Furthermore, the fact that great powers negotiate over the heads of a smaller country evokes the imperial logic of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when empires decided among themselves the divisions of foreign territories—a behavior that Mackinder saw as likely in a world of a “closed system.” With the entire world already occupied by States, Mackinder predicted that powers would begin to compete for influence within this consolidated board, often subjugating smaller states to gain advantage [3]. The US–Russia negotiation regarding Ukraine, without proper Ukrainian representation, exemplifies this type of neo-imperial dynamic in the twenty-first century.

Also noteworthy is the consonance with the ideas of Ratzel and Kjellén: both viewed smaller states as easily relegated to the status of satellites or even “parasitic organisms” in the orbit of larger states. Kjellén spoke of the intrinsic vulnerability of states with little territorial depth or economic dependence, making them susceptible to external pressures [4][20]. Ukraine, weakened by war and dependent on external aid, becomes a concrete example of this theorized vulnerability: it has had to cede strategic resources and accept terms dictated against its will in an attempt to secure its immediate survival. The resulting agreement, therefore, reflects a power imbalance characteristic of the hierarchical international relations described by classical geopolitical theorists.

Implicit Territorial Concessions and Trump’s Public Discourse

A central and controversial point in Trump’s statements regarding the war in Ukraine is the insinuation of territorial concessions to Russia as part of the conflict’s resolution. Publicly, Trump avoided explicitly condemning Russian aggression and even stated that he considered it “unlikely” that Ukraine would be able to retake all the areas occupied by the Russians [16]. In debates and interviews, he suggested that “if I were president, the war would end in 24 hours,” implying that he would force an understanding between Kyiv and Moscow that would likely involve ceding some territory in exchange for peace. This position marks a break with the previous US policy of not recognizing any territorial acquisitions made by force and fuels speculations that a future peace agreement sponsored by Trump would legitimize at least part of Russia’s gains since 2014 (Crimea, Donbass, and areas seized during the 2022 invasion).

The actions of his administration corroborate this interpretation. As discussed, the economic agreement focuses on the exploitation of Ukrainian natural resources, many of which are located precisely in regions currently under Russian military control, such as parts of the Zaporizhzhia Oblast, Donetsk, Lugansk, and the Azov Sea area [6]. A Ukrainian geologist, Hanna Liventseva, highlighted that “most of these elements (strategic minerals) are found in the south of the Ukrainian Shield, mainly in the Azov region, and most of these territories are currently invaded by Russia” [6]. This means that, to make joint exploitation viable, Russia’s de facto control over these areas would have to be recognized—or at least tolerated—in the short term. In other words, the pact indirectly and tacitly accepts Russian territorial gains, as it involves sharing the profits from resources that are not currently accessible to the Kyiv government.

Furthermore, figures close to Trump have made explicit statements regarding the possibility of territorial cession. Mike Waltz, Trump’s national security advisor, publicly stated that Zelensky might need to “cede land to Russia” to end the war [8]. This remark—made public in March 2025—confirms that the Trump White House considers it natural for Ukraine to relinquish parts of its territory in favor of an agreement. Such a stance marks a break from the previous Western consensus, which condemned any territorial gains by force. Under Trump, a pragmatic view (in the eyes of his supporters) or a cynical one (according to his critics) seems to prevail: sacrificing principles of territorial integrity to quickly end hostilities and secure immediate economic benefits.

In theoretical terms, this inclination to validate territorial gains by force recalls the concept of Realpolitik and the geopolitical Darwinism that influenced thinkers such as Ratzel. In Ratzel’s organic conception, expanding states naturally absorb neighboring territories when they are strong enough to do so, while declining states lose territory—a process almost biological in the selection of the fittest [11]. The Trump administration’s acceptance that Ukraine should “give something” to Moscow to seal peace reflects a normalization of this geopolitical selection process: it recognizes the aggressor (Russia) as having the “right” to retain conquered lands, because that is how power realities on the ground dictate. Mackinder, although firmly opposed to allowing Russia to dominate the Heartland, would see this outcome as the logical consequence of the lack of engagement from maritime powers (the USA and the United Kingdom, for example) in sustaining the Ukrainian counterattack. Without the active involvement of maritime power to balance the dispute, land power prevails in Eastern Europe.

From the perspective of international legitimacy, the cession of Ukrainian territories—whether de jure or de facto—creates a dangerous precedent in the post-Cold War era. Rewarding violent aggression with territorial gains may encourage similar strategies in other parts of the world, undermining the architecture of collective security. This is possibly a return to a world of spheres of influence, where great powers define borders and zones of control according to their convenience—something that the rules-based order after 1945 sought to avoid. Here, academic impartiality requires noting that coercion for territorial concessions rarely produces lasting peace, as the aggrieved party—in this case, Ukraine—may accept temporarily but will continue to assert its rights in the long term, as has occurred with other territorial injustices in history.

Territorial Ambitions of Trump: Greenland and Canada

Beyond the Eurasian theater of war, Trump revived geopolitical ambitions involving territories traditionally allied with the US: Greenland (an autonomous territory of Denmark) and Canada. As early as 2019, during his first term, Trump shocked the world by proposing to buy Greenland—rich in minerals and strategically positioned in the Arctic. Upon his return to power, he went further: expressing a “renewed interest” in acquiring Greenland and publicly suggesting the incorporation of Canada as the 51st American state [2].

In January 2025, during a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, he even displayed maps in which the US and Canada appeared merged into a single country, while Greenland was marked as a future American possession [2]. Posts by the president on social media included satirical images with a map of North America where Canada was labeled “51st” and Greenland designated as “Our Land” [2].

Such moves were met with concern and disbelief by allies. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was caught on an open microphone warning that Trump’s fixation on annexation “is real” and not just a joke [7]. Trudeau emphasized that Washington appeared to covet Canada’s vast mineral resources, which would explain the insistence on the idea of absorption [7]. In public, Trump argued that Canadians “would be more prosperous as American citizens,” promising tax cuts and better services should they become part of the US [7]. On the Danish side, the reaction to the revived plan regarding Greenland was firmly negative—as it was in 2019—reaffirming that the territory is not for sale. Trump, however, insinuated that the issue might be one of national security, indicating that American possession of Greenland would prevent adverse influences (a reference to China and Russia in the Arctic) [2]. More worryingly, he refused to rule out the use of military means to obtain the island, although he assured that he had no intention of invading Canada by force (in the Canadian case, he spoke of “economic force” to forge a union) [2].

This series of initiatives reflects an unprecedented expansionist impetus by the US in recent times, at least in discourse. Analyzing this through the lens of classical geopolitics offers interesting insights. Friedrich Ratzel and his notion of Lebensraum suggest that powerful states, upon reaching a certain predominance, seek to expand their territory by influencing or incorporating adjacent areas. Trump, by targeting the immediate neighbor (Canada) and a nearby strategic territory (Greenland), appears to resurrect this logic of territorial expansion for the sake of gaining space and resources. Ratzel saw such expansion almost as a natural process for vigorous states, comparable to the growth of an organism [11]. From this perspective, the US would be exercising its “right” of expansion in North America and the polar region, integrating areas of vital interest.

Additionally, Alfred Mahan’s view on maritime power helps to understand the strategic value of Greenland. Mahan postulated that control of key maritime chokepoints and naval bases ensures global advantage [9]. Greenland, situated between the North Atlantic and the Arctic, has become increasingly relevant as climate change opens new polar maritime routes and reveals vast mineral deposits (including rare earth elements and oil). For the US, having a presence or sovereignty over Greenland would mean dominating the gateway to the Arctic and denying this space to rivals. This aligns with Mahan’s strategy of securing commercial and military routes (in this case, potential Arctic routes) and resources to consolidate naval supremacy. On the other hand, the incorporation of Canada—with its enormous territory, Arctic coastline, and abundant natural resources—would provide the US with formidable geoeconomic and geopolitical reinforcement, practically eliminating vulnerabilities along its northern border. This is an ambitious project that also echoes ideas of Kjellén, for whom an ideal State should seek territorial completeness and economic self-sufficiency within its region. Incorporating Canada would be the pinnacle of American regional autarky, turning North America into a unified bloc under Washington (a scenario reminiscent of the “pan-regions” conceived by twentieth-century geopoliticians influenced by Kjellén).

It is important to note, however, that these ambitions face enormous legal and political obstacles. The sovereignty of Canada and Greenland (Denmark) is guaranteed by international law, and both peoples categorically reject the idea of annexation. Any hostile action by the US against these countries would shake alliances and the world order itself. Even so, the very fact that an American president suggests such possibilities already produces geopolitical effects: traditional partners begin to distrust Washington’s intentions, seek alternative alliances, and strengthen nationalist discourses of resistance. In summary, Trump’s expansionist intentions in Greenland and Canada rekindle old territorial issues and paradoxically place the US in the position of a revisionist power—a role once associated with empires in search of colonies.

Implications for Brazil and South America: A New Neocolonization?

In light of this geopolitical reconfiguration driven by Trump's USA—with a reordering of alliances and a possible partition of spheres of influence among great powers—the question arises: what is the impact on Brazil and the other countries of South America? Traditionally, Latin America has been under the aegis of the Monroe Doctrine (1823), which established non-interference by Europe in the region and, implicitly, the primacy of the USA in the Western Hemisphere. In the post–Cold War period, this influence translated more into political and economic leadership, without formal annexations or direct territorial domination. However, the current context points to a kind of “neocolonization” of the Global South, in which larger powers seek to control resources and peripheral governments in an indirect yet effective manner.

Mackinder’s theories can be used to illuminate this dynamic. As mentioned, Mackinder envisioned the twentieth-century world as a closed system, in which there were no longer any unknown lands to be colonized—hence, the powers would fight among themselves for control over already occupied regions [3]. He predicted that Africa and Latin America (then largely European colonies or semi-colonies) would continue as boards upon which the great powers would project their disputes, a form of neocolonialism. In the current scenario, we see the USA proposing exchanges of protection for resources (as in Ukraine) and even leaders of developing countries seeking similar agreements. A notable example: the President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Felix Tshisekedi, praised the USA–Ukraine initiative and suggested an analogous agreement involving Congolese mineral wealth in exchange for US support against internal rebels (M23) [19]. In other words, African countries and possibly South American ones may enter into this logic of offering privileged access to resources (cobalt, lithium, food, biodiversity) in order to obtain security guarantees or investments. This represents a regression to the times when external powers dictated the directions of the South in exchange for promises of protection, characterizing a strategic neocolonialism.

For Brazil, in particular, this rearrangement generates both opportunities and risks. As a regional power with considerable diplomatic autonomy, Brazil has historically sought to balance relationships with the USA, Europe, China, and other actors, avoiding automatic alignments. However, in a world where Trump’s USA is actively redefining spheres of influence—possibly making deals with Russia that divide priorities (for example, Washington focusing on the Western Hemisphere and Moscow on the Eastern)—South America could once again be seen as an exclusive American sphere of influence. From this perspective, Washington could pressure South American countries to align with its directives, limiting partnerships with rivals (such as China) and seeking privileged access to strategic resources (such as the Amazon, fresh water, minerals, and agricultural commodities). Some indications are already emerging: Trump’s transactional approach mentioned by Nye included pressures on Canada and Mexico regarding border and trade issues, under the threat of commercial sanctions. It would not be unthinkable to adopt a hard line, for example, with regard to Brazilian environmental policies (linked to the Amazon) or Brazil’s relations with China, using tariffs or incentives as leverage—a sort of geopolitics of economic coercion.

On the other hand, Brazil and its neighbors could also attempt to take advantage of the Sino–North American competition. If the USA is distracted consolidating its hemispheric “hard power” hegemony (even with annexation fantasies in the north), powers such as China may advance their economic presence in South America through investments and trade (Belt and Road, infrastructure financing)—which is already happening. This would constitute an indirect neocolonial dispute in the South: Chinese loans and investments versus American demands and agreements, partly reminiscent of the nineteenth-century imperial competition (when the United Kingdom, USA, and others competed for Latin American markets and resources).

From a conceptual standpoint, Mackinder might classify South America as part of the “Outer Crescent” (external insular crescent)—peripheral to the great Eurasian “World-Island,” yet still crucial as a source of resources and a strategic position in the South Atlantic and Pacific. If the USA consolidates an informal empire in the Americas, it would be reinforcing its “insular bastion” far from the Eurasian Heartland, a strategy that Mackinder once suggested for maritime powers: to control islands and peripheral continents to compensate for the disadvantage of not controlling the Heartland. However, an excessive US dominance in the South could lead to local resistance and alternative alignments, unbalancing the region.

Kjellén would add that for Brazil to maintain its decisive sovereignty, it will need to strengthen its autarky and internal cohesion—in other words, reduce vulnerabilities (economic, military, social) that external powers might exploit [4]. Meanwhile, Mahan might point out the importance for Brazil of controlling its maritime routes and coastlines (South Atlantic) to avoid being at the mercy of a naval power like the USA. And Ratzel would remind us that states that do not expand their influence tend to be absorbed by foreign influences—which, in the context of Brazil, does not mean conquering neighboring territories, but rather actively leading South American integration to create a block more resilient to external intrusion.

In summary, South America finds itself in a more competitive and segmented world, where major players are resurrecting practices from past eras. The notion of “neocolonization” here does not imply direct occupation, but rather mechanisms of dependency: whether through unequal economic agreements or through diplomatic or military pressure for alignment. Brazil, as the largest economy and territory on the subcontinent, will have to navigate with heightened caution. A new global power balance, marked by the division of spheres of influence among the USA, China, and Russia, may reduce the sovereign maneuvering space of South American countries unless they act jointly. Thus, theoretical reflection suggests the need for South–South strategies, reinforcement of regional organizations, and diversification of partnerships to avoid falling into modern “neocolonial traps.”

Conclusion

The emerging post–re-election geopolitical conjuncture of Donald Trump signals a return to classical geopolitical principles, after several decades of predominance of institutional liberal views. We witness the revaluation of concepts such as spheres of influence, exchanges of protection for resources, naval power versus land power, and disputes over territory and raw materials—all central themes in the writings of Mackinder, Mahan, Kjellén, and Ratzel at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. An impartial analysis of these events, in light of these theories, shows internal coherence in Trump’s actions: although controversial, they follow a logic of maximizing national interest and the relative power of the USA on the world stage, even at the expense of established principles and alliances.

Halford Mackinder reminds us that, in a closed world with no new lands to conquer, the great powers will seek to redistribute the world among themselves [3]. This seems to manifest in the direct understandings between the USA and Russia over the fate of Ukraine, and in American ambitions in the Arctic and the Western Hemisphere. Alfred Mahan emphasizes that the control of the seas and strategic positions ensures supremacy—we see reflections of this in Trump’s obsession with Greenland (Arctic) and the possible neglect of the importance of maintaining NATO (and therefore the North Atlantic) as a cohesive bloc, something that Mahan’s theory would criticize due to the risk of a naval vacuum. Rudolf Kjellén and Friedrich Ratzel provide the framework to understand the more aggressive facet of expansionist nationalism: the idea of the State as an organism that needs to grow, secure resources, and seek self-sufficiency explains everything from the extortionate agreement imposed on Ukraine to the annexation rhetoric regarding Canada.

The potential consequences are profound. In the short term, we may witness a precarious ceasefire in the Ukraine war, with consolidated Russian territorial gains and Ukraine economically tied to the USA, but without formal military protection—a fragile “armed peace.” Western Europe, alarmed, may accelerate its independent militarization, perhaps marking the beginning of European defense autonomy, as is already openly debated [1]. At the far end of the globe, American activism in the Arctic and the Americas may reshape alliances: countries like Canada, once aligned with Washington, might seek to guarantee their sovereignty by distancing themselves from it; powers like China could take advantage of the openings to increase their presence in Latin America and Africa through economic diplomacy; and emerging countries of the Global South may have to choose between submitting to new “guardianships” or strengthening South–South cooperation.

Ultimately, the current situation reinforces the relevance of studying geopolitics through historical lenses. The actions of the Trump administration indicate that, despite all technological and normative advances, the competition for geographic power has not disappeared—it has merely assumed new formats. Academic impartiality obliges us not to prematurely judge whether these strategies will be successful or beneficial, but history and theory warn that neo-imperial movements tend to generate counter-reactions. As Mackinder insinuated, “every shock or change anywhere reverberates around the world,” and a sudden move by a superpower tends to provoke unforeseen adjustments and chain conflicts. It remains to be seen how the other actors—including Brazil and its neighbors—will adapt to this new chapter in the great struggle for global power, in which centuries-old theories once again have a surprising explanatory power over present events.

Bibliography

[1] A Referência. (2025). Europa calcula o custo de se defender sem os EUA: 300 mil soldados e 250 bilhões de euros a mais. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://areferencia.com/europa/europa-calcula-o-custo-de-se-defender-sem-os-eua-300-mil-soldados-e-250-bilhoes-de-euros-a-mais/#:\~:text=Europa%20calcula%20o%20custo%20de,bilh%C3%B5es%20de%20euros%20a%20mais

[2] Brexit Institute. (2025). What happens if Trump invades Greenland? Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://dcubrexitinstitute.eu/2025/01/what-happens-if-trump-invades-greenland/#:\~:text=Ever%20since%20Donald%20Trump%20announced,agreed%20in%20Wales%20in%202014

[3] Cfettweis C:CST22(2)8576.DVI. (2025). Mackinder and Angell. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://cfettweis.com/wp-content/uploads/Mackinder-and-Angell.pdf#:\~:text=meant%20the%20beginning%20of%20an,Mackinder

[4] Diva-Portal. (2025). The geopolitics of territorial relativity. Poland seen by Rudolf Kjellén. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1696547/FULLTEXT02#:\~:text=,The%20state%20territory

[5] Geopolitical Monitor. (2025). The Russo-Ukrainian War and Mackinder’s Heartland Thesis. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/the-ukraine-war-and-mackinders-heartland-thesis/#:\~:text=In%201904%2C%20Sir%20Halford%20J,in%20adding%20a%20substantial%20oceanic

[6] Instituto Humanitas Unisinos. (2025). Trump obriga Zelensky a hipotecar a exploração de minerais críticos em troca do seu apoio. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.ihu.unisinos.br/648986-trump-obriga-zelensky-a-hipotecar-a-exploracao-de-minerais-criticos-em-troca-do-seu-apoio#:\~:text=Essa%20troca%20inclui%20os%20cobi%C3%A7ados,s%C3%A3o%20praticamente%20inexploradas%20no%20pa%C3%ADs

[7] Politico. (2025). Trump’s annexation fixation is no joke, Trudeau warns. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/07/canada-trudeau-trump-51-state-00203156#:\~:text=TORONTO%20%E2%80%94%20Prime%20Minister%20Justin,Canada%20becoming%20the%2051st%20state%2C%E2%80%9D%20Trudeau%20said

[8] The Daily Beast. (2025). Top Trump Adviser Moves Goalpost for Ukraine to End War. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.thedailybeast.com/top-trump-adviser-moves-goalpost-for-ukraine-to-end-war/#:\~:text=LAND%20GRAB

[9] The Geostrata. (2025). Alfred Thayer Mahan and Supremacy of Naval Power. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.thegeostrata.com/post/alfred-thayer-mahan-and-supremacy-of-naval-power#:\~:text=Alfred%20Thayer%20Mahan%20and%20Supremacy,control%20over%20maritime%20trade%20routes

[10] U.S. Department of State. (2025). Mahan’s The Influence of Sea Power upon History: Securing International Markets in the 1890s. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/mahan#:\~:text=Mahan%20argued%20that%20British%20control,American%20politicians%20believed%20that%20these

[11] Britannica. (2025a). Friedrich Ratzel | Biogeography, Anthropogeography, Political Geography. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.britannica.com/biography/Friedrich-Ratzel#:\~:text=webster,Swedish%20political%20scientist%20%2076

[12] Britannica. (2025b). Lebensraum. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lebensraum#:\~:text=defined,The

[13] Britannica. (2025c). Rudolf Kjellén. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rudolf-Kjellen

[14] Wikipedia (ZH). (2025). Rudolf Kjellén. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/w:Rudolf_Kjell%C3%A9n#:\~:text=Besides%20legalistic%2C%20states%20have%20organic,preservation.%20%5B%203

[15] Wikipedia. (2025). Lebensraum. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum#:\~:text=The%20German%20geographer%20and%20ethnographer,into%20the%20Greater%20Germanic%20Reich

[16] YouTube. (2025). Trump says Ukraine 'unlikely to get all land back' or join NATO [Vídeo]. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmHzAVLhsXU#:\~:text=Trump%20says%20Ukraine%20%27unlikely%20to,for%20it%20to%20join%20NATO

[17] U.S. Naval Institute. (2025) Operation World Peace. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1955/june/operation-world-peace#:\\~:text=“The Mahan doctrine%2C” according to,the word “airships” is more

[18] Emissary. (2024) Trump’s Greenland and Panama Canal Threats Are a Throwback to an Old, Misguided Foreign Policy. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/01/trump-greenland-panama-canal-monroe-doctrine-policy?lang=en

[19] A Referência. Acordo EUA-Ucrânia está praticamente fechado, mas analistas se dividem sobre quem sairá ganhando. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://areferencia.com/europa/acordo-eua-ucrania-esta-praticamente-fechado-mas-analistas-se-dividem-sobre-quem-saira-ganhando/#:\\~:text=EUA e 17,o acordo a seu favor

[20] Wikipedia. (2025) Geopolitik. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopolitik#:\\~:text=Rudolph Kjellén was Ratzel's Swedish,Kjellén's State

@ 7ef5f1b1:0e0fcd27

A monthly newsletter by The 256 Foundation

May 2025

Introduction:

Welcome to the fifth newsletter produced by The 256 Foundation! April was a jam-packed month for the Foundation with events ranging from launching three grant projects to the first official Ember One release. The 256 Foundation has been laser focused on our mission to dismantle the proprietary mining empire, signing off on a productive month with the one-finger salute to the incumbent mining cartel.

[IMG-001] Hilarious meme from @CincoDoggos

Dive in to catch up on the latest news, mining industry developments, progress updates on grant projects, Actionable Advice on helping test Hydra Pool, and the current state of the Bitcoin network.

Definitions:

DOJ = Department of Justice

SDNY = Southern District of New York

BTC = Bitcoin

SD = Secure Digital

Th/s = Terahash per second

OSMU = Open Source Miners United

tx = transaction

PSBT = Partially Signed Bitcoin Transaction

FIFO = First In First Out

PPLNS = Pay Per Last N Shares

GB = Gigabyte

RAM = Random Access Memory

ASIC = Application Specific Integrated Circuit

Eh/s = Exahash per second

Ph/s = Petahash per second

News:

April 7: the first of a few notable news items that relate to the Samourai Wallet case, the US Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum titled “Ending Regulation By Prosecution”. The memo makes the DOJ’s position on the matter crystal clear, stating; “Specifically, the Department will no longer target virtual currency exchanges, mixing and tumbling services, and offline wallets for the acts of their end users or unwitting violations of regulations…”. However, despite the clarity from the DOJ, the SDNY (sometimes referred to as the “Sovereign District” for it’s history of acting independently of the DOJ) has yet to budge on dropping the charges against the Samourai Wallet developers. Many are baffled at the SDNY’s continued defiance of the Trump Administration’s directives, especially in light of the recent suspensions and resignations that swept through the SDNY office in the wake of several attorneys refusing to comply with the DOJ’s directive to drop the charges against New York City Mayor, Eric Adams. There is speculation that the missing piece was Trump’s pick to take the helm at the SDNY, Jay Clayton, who was yet to receive his Senate confirmation and didn’t officially start in his new role until April 22. In light of the Blanche Memo, on April 29, the prosecution and defense jointly filed a letter requesting additional time for the prosecution to determine it’s position on the matter and decide if they are going to do the right thing, comply with the DOJ, and drop the charges. Catch up on what’s at stake in this case with an appearance by Diverter on the Unbounded Podcast from April 24, the one-year anniversary of the Samourai Wallet developer’s arrest. This is the most important case facing Bitcoiners as the precedence set in this matter will have ripple effects that touch all areas of the ecosystem. The logic used by SDNY prosecutors argues that non-custodial wallet developers transfer money in the same way a frying pan transfers heat but does not “control” the heat. Essentially saying that facilitating the transfer of funds on behalf of the public by any means constitutes money transmission and thus requires a money transmitter license. All non-custodial wallets (software or hardware), node operators, and even miners would fall neatly into these dangerously generalized and vague definitions. If the SDNY wins this case, all Bitcoiners lose. Make a contribution to the defense fund here.

April 11: solo miner with ~230Th/s solves Block #891952 on Solo CK Pool, bagging 3.11 BTC in the process. This will never not be exciting to see a regular person with a modest amount of hashrate risk it all and reap all the mining reward. The more solo miners there are out there, the more often this should occur.

April 15: B10C publishes new article on mining centralization. The article analyzes the hashrate share of the currently five biggest pools and presents a Mining Centralization Index. The results demonstrate that only six pools are mining more than 95% of the blocks on the Bitcoin Network. The article goes on to explain that during the period between 2019 and 2022, the top two pools had ~35% of the network hashrate and the top six pools had ~75%. By December 2023 those numbers grew to the top two pools having 55% of the network hashrate and the top six having ~90%. Currently, the top six pools are mining ~95% of the blocks.

[IMG-002] Mining Centralization Index by @0xB10C

B10C concludes the article with a solution that is worth highlighting: “More individuals home-mining with small miners help too, however, the home-mining hashrate is currently still negligible compared to the industrial hashrate.”

April 15: As if miner centralization and proprietary hardware weren’t reason enough to focus on open-source mining solutions, leave it to Bitmain to release an S21+ firmware update that blocks connections to OCEAN and Braiins pools. This is the latest known sketchy development from Bitmain following years of shady behavior like Antbleed where miners would phone home, Covert ASIC Boost where miners could use a cryptographic trick to increase efficiency, the infamous Fork Wars, mining empty blocks, and removing the SD card slots. For a mining business to build it’s entire operation on a fragile foundation like the closed and proprietary Bitmain hardware is asking for trouble. Bitcoin miners need to remain flexible and agile and they need to be able to adapt to changes instantly – the sort of freedoms that only open-source Bitcoin mining solutions are bringing to the table.

Free & Open Mining Industry Developments:

The development will not stop until Bitcoin mining is free and open… and then it will get even better. Innovators did not disappoint in April, here are nine note-worthy events:

April 5: 256 Foundation officially launches three more grant projects. These will be covered in detail in the Grant Project Updates section but April 5 was a symbolic day to mark the official start because of the 6102 anniversary. A reminder of the asymmetric advantage freedom tech like Bitcoin empowers individuals with to protect their rights and freedoms, with open-source development being central to those ends.

April 5: Low profile ICE Tower+ for the Bitaxe Gamma 601 introduced by @Pleb_Style featuring four heat pipes, 2 copper shims, and a 60mm Noctua fan resulting in up to 2Th/s. European customers can pick up the complete upgrade kit from the Pleb Style online store for $93.00.

IMG-003] Pleb Style ICE Tower+ upgrade kit

April 8: Solo Satoshi spells out issues with Bitaxe knockoffs, like Lucky Miner, in a detailed article titled The Hidden Cost of Bitaxe Clones. This concept can be confusing for some people initially, Bitaxe is open-source, right? So anyone can do whatever they want… right? Based on the specific open-source license of the Bitaxe hardware, CERN-OHL-S, and the firmware, GPLv3, derivative works are supposed to make the source available. Respecting the license creates a feed back loop where those who benefit from the open-source work of those who came before them contribute back their own modifications and source files to the open-source community so that others can benefit from the new developments. Unfortunately, when the license is disrespected what ends up happening is that manufacturers make undocumented changes to the components in the hardware and firmware which yields unexpected results creating a number of issues like the Bitaxe overheating, not connecting to WiFi, or flat out failure. This issue gets further compounded when the people who purchased the knockoffs go to a community support forum, like OSMU, for help. There, a number of people rack their brains and spend their valuable time trying to replicate the issues only to find out that they cannot replicate the issues since the person who purchased the knockoff has something different than the known Bitaxe model and the distributor who sold the knockoff did not document those changes. The open-source licenses are maintaining the end-users’ freedom to do what they want but if the license is disrespected then that freedom vanishes along with details about whatever was changed. There is a list maintained on the Bitaxe website of legitimate distributors who uphold the open-source licenses, if you want to buy a Bitaxe, use this list to ensure the open-source community is being supported instead of leeched off of.

April 8: The Mempool Open Source Project v3.2.0 launches with a number of highlights including a new UTXO bubble chart, address poisoning detection, and a tx/PSBT preview feature. The GitHub repo can be found here if you want to self-host an instance from your own node or you can access the website here. The Mempool Open Source Project is a great blockchain explorer with a rich feature set and helpful visualization tools.

[IMG-004] Address poisoning example

April 8: @k1ix publishes bitaxe-raw, a firmware for the ESP32S3 found on Bitaxes which enables the user to send and receive raw bytes over USB serial to and from the Bitaxe. This is a helpful tool for research and development and a tool that is being leveraged at The 256 Foundation for helping with the Mujina miner firmware development. The bitaxe-raw GitHub repo can be found here.

April 14: Rev.Hodl compiles many of his homestead-meets-mining adaptations including how he cooks meat sous-vide style, heats his tap water to 150°F, runs a hashing space heater, and how he upgraded his clothes dryer to use Bitcoin miners. If you are interested in seeing some creative and resourceful home mining integrations, look no further. The fact that Rev.Hodl was able to do all this with closed-source proprietary Bitcoin mining hardware makes a very bullish case for the innovations coming down the pike once the hardware and firmware are open-source and people can gain full control over their mining appliances.

April 21: Hashpool explained on The Home Mining Podcast, an innovative Bitcoin mining pool development that trades mining shares for ecash tokens. The pool issues an “ehash” token for every submitted share, the pool uses ecash epochs to approximate the age of those shares in a FIFO order as they accrue value, a rotating key set is used to eventually expire them, and finally the pool publishes verification proofs for each epoch and each solved block. The ehash is provably not inflatable and payouts are similar to the PPLNS model. In addition to the maturity window where ehash tokens are accruing value, there is also a redemption window where the ehash tokens can be traded in to the mint for bitcoin. There is also a bitcoin++ presentation from earlier this year where @vnprc explains the architecture.

April 26: Boerst adds a new page on stratum.work for block template details, you can click on any mining pool and see the extended details and visualization of their current block template. Updates happen in real-time. The page displays all available template data including the OP_RETURN field and if the pool is merge mining, like with RSK, then that will be displayed too. Stratum dot work is a great project that offers helpful mining insights, be sure to book mark it if you haven’t already.

[IMG-005] New stratum.work live template page

April 27: Public Pool patches Nerdminer exploit that made it possible to create the impression that a user’s Nerdminer was hashing many times more than it actually was. This exploit was used by scammers trying to convince people that they had a special firmware for the Nerminer that would make it hash much better. In actuality, Public Pool just wasn’t checking to see if submitted shares were duplicates or not. The scammers would just tweak the Nerdminer firmware so that valid shares were getting submitted five times, creating the impression that the miner was hashing at five times the actual hashrate. Thankfully this has been uncovered by the open-source community and Public Pool quickly addressed it on their end.

Grant Project Updates:

Three grant projects were launched on April 5, Mujina Mining Firmware, Hydra Pool, and Libre Board. Ember One was the first fully funded grant and launched in November 2024 for a six month duration.

Ember One:

@skot9000 is the lead engineer on the Ember One and April 30 marked the conclusion of the first grant cycle after six months of development culminating in a standardized hashboard featuring a ~100W power consumption, 12-24v input voltage range, USB-C data communication, on-board temperature sensors, and a 125mm x 125mm formfactor. There are several Ember One versions on the road map, each with a different kind of ASIC chip but staying true to the standardized features listed above. The first Ember One, the 00 version, was built with the Bitmain BM1362 ASIC chips. The first official release of the Ember One, v3, is available here. v4 is already being worked on and will incorporate a few circuit safety mechanisms that are pretty exciting, like protecting the ASIC chips in the event of a power supply failure. The firmware for the USB adaptor is available here. Initial testing firmware for the Ember One 00 can be found here and full firmware support will be coming soon with Mujina. The Ember One does not have an on-board controller so a separate, USB connected, control board is required. Control board support is coming soon with the Libre Board. There is an in-depth schematic review that was recorded with Skot and Ryan, the lead developer for Mujina, you can see that video here. Timing for starting the second Ember One cycle is to be determined but the next version of the Ember One is planned to have the Intel BZM2 ASICs. Learn more at emberone.org

Mujina Mining Firmware:

@ryankuester is the lead developer for the Mujina firmware project and since the project launched on April 5, he has been working diligently to build this firmware from scratch in Rust. By using the bitaxe-raw firmware mentioned above, over the last month Ryan has been able to use a Bitaxe to simulate an Ember One so that he can start building the necessary interfaces to communicate with the range of sensors, ASICs, work handling, and API requests that will be necessary. For example, using a logic analyzer, this is what the first signs of life look like when communicating with an ASIC chip, the orange trace is a message being sent to the ASIC and the red trace below it is the ASIC responding [IMG-006]. The next step is to see if work can be sent to the ASIC and results returned. The GitHub repo for Mujina is currently set to private until a solid foundation has been built. Learn more at mujina.org

[IMG-006] First signs of life from an ASIC

Libre Board:

@Schnitzel is the lead engineer for the Libre Board project and over the last month has been modifying the Raspberry Pi Compute Module I/O Board open-source design to fit the requirements for this project. For example, removing one of the two HDMI ports, adding the 40-pin header, and adapting the voltage regulator circuit so that it can accept the same 12-24vdc range as the Ember One hashboards. The GitHub repo can be found here, although there isn’t much to look at yet as the designs are still in the works. If you have feature requests, creating an issue in the GitHub repo would be a good place to start. Learn more at libreboard.org

Hydra Pool:

@jungly is the lead developer for Hydra Pool and over the last month he has developed a working early version of Hydra Pool specifically for the upcoming Telehash #2. Forked from CK Pool, this early version has been modified so that the payout goes to the 256 Foundation bitcoin address automatically. This way, users who are supporting the funderaiser with their hashrate do not need to copy/paste in the bitcoin address, they can just use any vanity username they want. Jungly was also able to get a great looking statistics dashboard forked from CKstats and modify it so that the data is populated from the Hydra Pool server instead of website crawling. After the Telehash, the next steps will be setting up deployment scripts for running Hydra Pool on a cloud server, support for storing shares in a database, and adding PPLNS support. The 256 Foundation is only running a publicly accessible server for the Telehash and the long term goals for Hydra Pool are that the users host their own instance. The 256 Foundation has no plans on becoming a mining pool operator. The following Actionable Advice column shows you how you can help test Hydra Pool. The GitHub repo for Hydra Pool can be found here. Learn more at hydrapool.org

Actionable Advice:

The 256 Foundation is looking for testers to help try out Hydra Pool. The current instance is on a hosted bare metal server in Florida and features 64 cores and 128 GB of RAM. One tester in Europe shared that they were only experiencing ~70ms of latency which is good. If you want to help test Hydra Pool out and give any feedback, you can follow the directions below and join The 256 Foundation public forum on Telegram here.

The first step is to configure your miner so that it is pointed to the Hydra Pool server. This can look different depending on your specific miner but generally speaking, from the settings page you can add the following URL:

stratum+tcp://stratum.hydrapool.org:3333

On some miners, you don’t need the “stratum+tcp://” part or the port, “:3333”, in the URL dialog box and there may be separate dialog boxes for the port.

Use any vanity username you want, no need to add a BTC address. The test iteration of Hydra Pool is configured to payout to the 256 Foundation BTC address.

If your miner has a password field, you can just put “x” or “1234”, it doesn’t matter and this field is ignored.

Then save your changes and restart your miner. Here are two examples of what this can look like using a Futurebit Apollo and a Bitaxe:

[IMG-007] Apollo configured to Hydra Pool

[IMG-008] Bitaxe Configured to Hydra Pool

Once you get started, be sure to check stats.hydrapool.org to monitor the solo pool statistics.

[IMG-009] Ember One hashing to Hydra Pool

At the last Telehash there were over 350 entities pointing as much as 1.12Eh/s at the fundraiser at the peak. At the time the block was found there was closer to 800 Ph/s of hashrate. At this next Telehash, The 256 Foundation is looking to beat the previous records across the board. You can find all the Telehash details on the Meetup page here.

State of the Network:

Hashrate on the 14-day MA according to mempool.space increased from ~826 Eh/s to a peak of ~907 Eh/s on April 16 before cooling off and finishing the month at ~841 Eh/s, marking ~1.8% growth for the month.

[IMG-010] 2025 hashrate/difficulty chart from mempool.space

Difficulty was 113.76T at it’s lowest in April and 123.23T at it’s highest, which is a 8.3% increase for the month. But difficulty dropped with Epoch #444 just after the end of the month on May 3 bringing a -3.3% downward adjustment. All together for 2025 up to Epoch #444, difficulty has gone up ~8.5%.

According to the Hashrate Index, ASIC prices have flat-lined over the last month. The more efficient miners like the <19 J/Th models are fetching $17.29 per terahash, models between 19J/Th – 25J/Th are selling for $11.05 per terahash, and models >25J/Th are selling for $3.20 per terahash. You can expect to pay roughly $4,000 for a new-gen miner with 230+ Th/s.

[IMG-011] Miner Prices from Luxor’s Hashrate Index

Hashvalue over the month of April dropped from ~56,000 sats/Ph per day to ~52,000 sats/Ph per day, according to the new and improved Braiins Insights dashboard [IMG-012]. Hashprice started out at $46.00/Ph per day at the beginning of April and climbed to $49.00/Ph per day by the end of the month.

[IMG-012] Hashprice/Hashvalue from Braiins Insights

The next halving will occur at block height 1,050,000 which should be in roughly 1,063 days or in other words ~154,650 blocks from time of publishing this newsletter.

Conclusion:

Thank you for reading the fifth 256 Foundation newsletter. Keep an eye out for more newsletters on a monthly basis in your email inbox by subscribing at 256foundation.org. Or you can download .pdf versions of the newsletters from there as well. You can also find these newsletters published in article form on Nostr.

If you haven’t done so already, be sure to RSVP for the Texas Energy & Mining Summit (“TEMS”) in Austin, Texas on May 6 & 7 for two days of the highest Bitcoin mining and energy signal in the industry, set in the intimate Bitcoin Commons, so you can meet and mingle with the best and brightest movers and shakers in the space.

[IMG-013] TEMS 2025 flyer

While you’re at it, extend your stay and spend Cinco De Mayo with The 256 Foundation at our second fundraiser, Telehash #2. Everything is bigger in Texas, so set your expectations high for this one. All of the lead developers from the grant projects will be present to talk first-hand about how to dismantle the proprietary mining empire.

If you are interested in helping The 256 Foundation test Hydra Pool, then hopefully you found all the information you need to configure your miner in this issue.

[IMG-014] FREE SAMOURAI

If you want to continue seeing developers build free and open solutions be sure to support the Samourai Wallet developers by making a tax-deductible contribution to their legal defense fund here. The first step in ensuring a future of free and open Bitcoin development starts with freeing these developers.

Live Free or Die,

-econoalchemist

@ 51faaa77:2c26615b

There has been a lot of debate about a recent discussion on the mailing list and a pull request on the Bitcoin Core repository. The main two points are about whether a mempool policy regarding OP_RETURN outputs should be changed, and whether there should be a configuration option for node operators to set their own limit. There has been some controversy about the background and context of these topics and people are looking for more information. Please ask short (preferably one sentence) questions as top comments in this topic. @Murch, and maybe others, will try to answer them in a couple sentences. @Murch and myself have collected a few questions that we have seen being asked to start us off, but please add more as you see fit.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/971277

@ 52b4a076:e7fad8bd

Introduction

Me and Fishcake have been working on infrastructure for Noswhere and Nostr.build. Part of this involves processing a large amount of Nostr events for features such as search, analytics, and feeds.

I have been recently developing nosdex v3, a newer version of the Noswhere scraper that is designed for maximum performance and fault tolerance using FoundationDB (FDB).

Fishcake has been working on a processing system for Nostr events to use with NB, based off of Cloudflare (CF) Pipelines, which is a relatively new beta product. This evening, we put it all to the test.

First preparations

We set up a new CF Pipelines endpoint, and I implemented a basic importer that took data from the nosdex database. This was quite slow, as it did HTTP requests synchronously, but worked as a good smoke test.

Asynchronous indexing

I implemented a high-contention queue system designed for highly parallel indexing operations, built using FDB, that supports: - Fully customizable batch sizes - Per-index queues - Hundreds of parallel consumers - Automatic retry logic using lease expiration

When the scraper first gets an event, it will process it and eventually write it to the blob store and FDB. Each new event is appended to the event log.

On the indexing side, a Queuer will read the event log, and batch events (usually 2K-5K events) into one work job. This work job contains: - A range in the log to index - Which target this job is intended for - The size of the job and some other metadata

Each job has an associated leasing state, which is used to handle retries and prioritization, and ensure no duplication of work.

Several Workers monitor the index queue (up to 128) and wait for new jobs that are available to lease.

Once a suitable job is found, the worker acquires a lease on the job and reads the relevant events from FDB and the blob store.

Depending on the indexing type, the job will be processed in one of a number of ways, and then marked as completed or returned for retries.

In this case, the event is also forwarded to CF Pipelines.

Trying it out

The first attempt did not go well. I found a bug in the high-contention indexer that led to frequent transaction conflicts. This was easily solved by correcting an incorrectly set parameter.

We also found there were other issues in the indexer, such as an insufficient amount of threads, and a suspicious decrease in the speed of the Queuer during processing of queued jobs.

Along with fixing these issues, I also implemented other optimizations, such as deprioritizing Worker DB accesses, and increasing the batch size.

To fix the degraded Queuer performance, I ran the backfill job by itself, and then started indexing after it had completed.

Bottlenecks, bottlenecks everywhere

After implementing these fixes, there was an interesting problem: The DB couldn't go over 80K reads per second. I had encountered this limit during load testing for the scraper and other FDB benchmarks.

As I suspected, this was a client thread limitation, as one thread seemed to be using high amounts of CPU. To overcome this, I created a new client instance for each Worker.

After investigating, I discovered that the Go FoundationDB client cached the database connection. This meant all attempts to create separate DB connections ended up being useless.

Using OpenWithConnectionString partially resolved this issue. (This also had benefits for service-discovery based connection configuration.)

To be able to fully support multi-threading, I needed to enabled the FDB multi-client feature. Enabling it also allowed easier upgrades across DB versions, as FDB clients are incompatible across versions:

FDB_NETWORK_OPTION_EXTERNAL_CLIENT_LIBRARY="/lib/libfdb_c.so" FDB_NETWORK_OPTION_CLIENT_THREADS_PER_VERSION="16"

Breaking the 100K/s reads barrier

After implementing support for the multi-threaded client, we were able to get over 100K reads per second.

You may notice after the restart (gap) the performance dropped. This was caused by several bugs: 1. When creating the CF Pipelines endpoint, we did not specify a region. The automatically selected region was far away from the server. 2. The amount of shards were not sufficient, so we increased them. 3. The client overloaded a few HTTP/2 connections with too many requests.

I implemented a feature to assign each Worker its own HTTP client, fixing the 3rd issue. We also moved the entire storage region to West Europe to be closer to the servers.

After these changes, we were able to easily push over 200K reads/s, mostly limited by missing optimizations:

It's shards all the way down

While testing, we also noticed another issue: At certain times, a pipeline would get overloaded, stalling requests for seconds at a time. This prevented all forward progress on the Workers.

We solved this by having multiple pipelines: A primary pipeline meant to be for standard load, with moderate batching duration and less shards, and high-throughput pipelines with more shards.

Each Worker is assigned a pipeline on startup, and if one pipeline stalls, other workers can continue making progress and saturate the DB.

The stress test

After making sure everything was ready for the import, we cleared all data, and started the import.

The entire import lasted 20 minutes between 01:44 UTC and 02:04 UTC, reaching a peak of: - 0.25M requests per second - 0.6M keys read per second - 140MB/s reads from DB - 2Gbps of network throughput

FoundationDB ran smoothly during this test, with: - Read times under 2ms - Zero conflicting transactions - No overloaded servers

CF Pipelines held up well, delivering batches to R2 without any issues, while reaching its maximum possible throughput.

Finishing notes

Me and Fishcake have been building infrastructure around scaling Nostr, from media, to relays, to content indexing. We consistently work on improving scalability, resiliency and stability, even outside these posts.

Many things, including what you see here, are already a part of Nostr.build, Noswhere and NFDB, and many other changes are being implemented every day.

If you like what you are seeing, and want to integrate it, get in touch. :)

If you want to support our work, you can zap this post, or register for nostr.land and nostr.build today.

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Abstract

This paper examines a hypothetical scenario in which the United States, under Trump’s leadership, withdraws from NATO and reduces its support for Europe, thereby enabling a Russian conquest of Ukraine and the subsequent expansion of Moscow’s influence over Eurasia, while the US consolidates its dominance over South America. Drawing on classical geopolitical theories—specifically those of Halford Mackinder, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Rudolf Kjellén, and Friedrich Ratzel—the study analyzes how these frameworks can elucidate the evolving power dynamics and territorial ambitions in a reconfigured global order. The discussion highlights Mackinder’s notion of the Eurasian Heartland and its strategic importance, Mahan’s emphasis on maritime power and control of strategic routes, Kjellén’s view of the state as an expanding organism, and Ratzel’s concept of Lebensraum as a justification for territorial expansion. The paper also explores contemporary developments, such as the US–Ukraine economic agreement and Trump’s overt territorial ambitions involving Greenland and Canada, in light of these theories. By juxtaposing traditional geopolitical concepts with current international relations, the study aims to shed light on the potential implications of such shifts for regional stability, global security, and the balance of power, particularly in relation to emerging neocolonial practices in Latin America.

Introduction

In recent years, the geopolitical dynamics involving the United States, Russia, and Ukraine have sparked analyses from different theoretical perspectives. This paper examines recent events – presupposing a scenario in which Donald Trump withdraws the US from NATO and reduces its support for Europe, allowing a Russian conquest of Ukraine and the expansion of Moscow’s influence over Eurasia, while the US consolidates its dominance over South America – in light of classical geopolitical theories. The ideas of Halford Mackinder, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Rudolf Kjellén, and Friedrich Ratzel are used as reference points. The proposal is to impartially evaluate how each theory can elucidate the developments of this hypothetical scenario, relating Russian territorial expansion in Eurasia to the strategic retreat of the US to the Western Hemisphere.

Initially, we will outline Mackinder’s conception of the Heartland (the central Eurasian territory) and the crucial role of Eastern Europe and Ukraine in the quest for global dominance. Next, we will discuss Mahan’s ideas regarding maritime power and the control of strategic routes, considering the impacts on the naval power balance among the US, Russia, and other maritime powers such as the United Kingdom and Japan. Subsequently, we will examine Kjellén’s organic theory of the state, interpreting the Russian expansionist strategy as a reflection of a state organism in search of vital space. In the same vein, Ratzel’s concept of “Lebensraum” will be explored, along with how Russia could justify territorial expansion based on resources and territory. Finally, the paper connects these theories to the current political context, analyzing the direct negotiations between Washington and Moscow (overlooking Ukraine and Europe), the US policy toward authoritarian regimes in Latin America, and the notion of a hemispheric division of power – the “Island of the Americas” under North American hegemony versus an Eurasia dominated by Russia. Lastly, it considers the possibility that such a geopolitical arrangement may foster the strengthening of authoritarian governments globally, rather than containing them, thus altering the paradigms of the liberal world order.

The Heartland of Mackinder: Ukraine, Eurasia, and Global Dominance

Halford J. Mackinder, a British geographer and pioneer of geopolitics, proposed the celebrated Heartland Theory in the early twentieth century. Mackinder divided the world into geostrategic zones and identified the Heartland—the central continental mass of Eurasia—as the “geographical pivot of history” [5]. His most famous maxim encapsulates this vision: “who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; who rules the World Island commands the world” [5]. Eastern Europe and, in particular, the region of present-day Ukraine, play a key role in this formula. This is because, for Mackinder, Eastern Europe functions as a gateway to the Heartland, providing access to resources and a strategic position for the projection of continental power [5].

Applying this theory to our scenario, the conquest of Ukraine and Eastern European countries by Russia would have profound geopolitical implications. From a Mackinderian point of view, such a conquest would enormously strengthen Russia’s position in the Heartland by adding manpower (population) and Ukraine’s industrial and agricultural resources to its power base [5]. In fact, Mackinder argued that controlling the Heartland conferred formidable geostrategic advantages—a vast terrestrial “natural fortress” protected from naval invasions and rich in resources such as wheat, minerals, and fuels [5]. Thus, if Moscow were to incorporate Ukraine (renowned for its fertile soil and grain production, as well as its mineral reserves) and extend its influence over Eastern Europe, Russia would consolidate the Heartland under its direct control. In this context, the absence of the USA (withdrawn from NATO and less engaged in Europe) would remove an important obstacle to Russian predominance in the region.

With central and eastern Eurasia under Russian influence, it would be possible to move toward the realization of the geopolitical nightmare described by Mackinder for Western maritime powers: a hegemonic continental power capable of projecting power to both Europe and Asia. Mackinder himself warned that if a Heartland power gained additional access to an oceanic coastline—in other words, if it combined land power with a significant maritime front—it would constitute a “danger” to global freedom [5]. In the scenario considered, besides advancing into Eastern Europe, Russia would already possess strategic maritime outlets (for example, in the Black Sea, via Crimea, and in the Baltic, via Kaliningrad or the Baltic States if influenced). Thus, the control of Ukraine would reinforce Russia’s position in the Black Sea and facilitate projection into the Eastern Mediterranean, expanding its oceanic front. From a Mackinderian perspective, this could potentially transform Russia into the dominant power of the “World Island” (the combined mass of Europe, Asia, and Africa), thereby unbalancing the global geopolitical order [5].

It is worth noting that, historically, Mackinder’s doctrine influenced containment strategies: both in the interwar period and during the Cold War, efforts were made to prevent a single power from controlling the Heartland and Eastern Europe. NATO, for example, can be seen as an instrument to prevent Soviet/Russian advances in Europe, in line with Mackinder’s imperative to “contain the Heartland.” Thus, if the USA were to abandon that role—by leaving NATO and tacitly accepting the Russian sphere of influence in Eurasia—we would be witnessing an inversion of the principles that have guided Western policy for decades. In short, under Mackinder’s theory, the Russian conquest of Ukraine and beyond would represent the key for Russia to command the Heartland and, potentially, challenge global hegemony, especially in a scenario where the USA self-restricts to the Western Hemisphere.

The Maritime Power of Mahan and the Naval Balance between West and East

While Mackinder emphasized continental land power, Alfred Thayer Mahan, a nineteenth-century American naval strategist, highlighted the crucial role of maritime power in global dominance. In his work The Influence of Sea Power upon History (1890), Mahan studied the example of the British Empire and concluded that control of the seas paved the way for British supremacy as a world power [10]. He argued that a strong navy and the control of strategic maritime routes were decisive factors for projecting military, political, and economic power. His doctrine can be summarized in the following points: (1) the United States should aspire to be a world power; (2) control of the seas is necessary to achieve that status; (3) such control is obtained through a powerful fleet of warships [17]. In other words, for Mahan, whoever dominates the maritime routes and possesses naval superiority will be in a position to influence global destinies, ensuring trade, supplies, and the rapid movement of military forces.

In the proposed scenario, in which the USA withdraws militarily from Europe and possibly from the Eurasian stage, Mahan’s ideas raise questions about the distribution of maritime power and its effects. Traditionally, the US Navy operates globally, ensuring freedom of navigation and deterring challenges in major seas (Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, etc.). A withdrawal of the USA from NATO could also signal a reduction in its naval presence in the Northeast Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea, and other areas close to Eurasia. In such a case, who would fill this naval vacuum? Russia, although primarily a land power, has been attempting to modernize its navy and has specific interests—for example, consolidating its dominance in the Black Sea and maintaining a presence in the Mediterranean (with a naval base in Tartus, Syria). The United Kingdom, a historic European maritime power, would remain aligned with the USA but, without American military support in Europe, might potentially be overwhelmed trying to contain an increasingly assertive Russian navy in European waters on its own. Japan, another significant maritime actor allied with the USA, is concerned with the naval balance in the Pacific; without full American engagement, Tokyo might be compelled to expand its own naval power to contain both Russia in the Far East (which maintains a fleet in the Pacific) and, especially, the growing Chinese navy.

According to Mahan’s thinking, strategic maritime routes and choke points (crucial straits and channels) become contested prizes in this power game. With the USA focusing on the Americas, one could imagine Washington reinforcing control over the Panama Canal and Caribbean routes—reviving an “American Gulf” policy in the Western Atlantic and Eastern Pacific. In fact, indications of this orientation emerge in statements attributed to Trump, who once suggested reclaiming direct control over Panama, transforming Canada into a North American state, and even “annexing” Greenland due to its Arctic geopolitical importance [18]. These aspirations reflect a quest to secure advantageous maritime positions near the American continent.

Conversely, in the absence of American presence in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, Russia would have free rein for regional maritime projection. This could include anything from the unrestricted use of the Black Sea (after dominating Ukraine, thereby ensuring full access to Crimea and Ukrainian ports) to greater influence in the Eastern Mediterranean via Syria and partnerships with countries such as Iran or Egypt. The Baltic Sea would also become an area of expanded Russian interest, pressuring coastal countries and perhaps reducing NATO’s traditional local naval supremacy. However, it is worth noting that even with these regional expansions, Russia lacks a blue-water navy comparable to that of the USA; thus, its initial global maritime impact would be limited without alliances.

An important aspect of Mahan’s theories is that naval power serves as a counterbalance to the land power of the Heartland. Therefore, even if Russia were to dominate the Eurasian continental mass, the continued presence of American naval might on the oceans could prevent complete global domination by Moscow. However, if the USA voluntarily restricts its naval reach to the Americas, it would forgo influencing the power balance in the seas adjacent to Eurasia. Consequently, the balance of maritime power would tend to shift in favor of regional Eurasian actors. The United Kingdom and Japan, traditional allies of the USA, could intensify their naval capabilities to defend regional interests—the United Kingdom safeguarding the North Atlantic and the North Sea, and Japan patrolling the Northwest Pacific—but both would face budgetary and structural limitations in fully compensating for the absence of the American superpower. Consequently, Mahan’s vision suggests that the withdrawal of the USA from the extra-regional scene would weaken the liberal maritime regime, possibly opening space for revisionist powers to contest routes that were previously secured (for example, Russia and China encountering less opposition on the routes of the Arctic and the Indo-Pacific, respectively). In summary, naval hegemony would fragment, and control of strategic seas would become contested, reconfiguring the relative influence of the USA, Russia, and maritime allies such as the United Kingdom and Japan.

Kjellén and the State as a Living Organism: Russian Expansion as an Organic Necessity

Another useful theoretical lens to interpret Russian geopolitical posture is that of Rudolf Kjellén, a Swedish political scientist of the early twentieth century who conceived the State as a living organism. Kjellén, who even coined the term “geopolitics,” was influenced by Friedrich Ratzel’s ideas and by social Darwinism, arguing that States are born, grow, and decline analogously to living beings [13]. In his work Staten som livsform (The State as a Form of Life, 1916), he maintained that States possess an organic dimension in addition to the legal one and that “just as any form of life, States must expand or die” [14]. This expansion would not be motivated merely by aggressive conquest but seen as a necessary growth for the self-preservation of the state organism [14]. In complement, Kjellén echoed Ratzel’s “law of expanding spaces” by asserting that large States expand at the expense of smaller ones, with it being only a matter of time before the great realms fill the available spaces [14]. That is, from the organic perspective, vigorous States tend to incorporate smaller neighboring territories, consolidating territorially much like an organism absorbing nutrients.

Applying this theory to the strategy of contemporary Russia, we can interpret Moscow’s actions—including the invasion of Ukraine and the ambition to restore its sphere of influence in Eurasia—as the expression of an organic drive for expansion. For a strategist influenced by this school, Russia (viewed as a state organism with a long imperial history) needs to expand its territory and influence to ensure its survival and security. The loss of control over spaces that once were part of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union (such as Ukraine itself, the Caucasus, or Central Asia) may be perceived by Russian elites as an atrophy of the state organism, rendering it vulnerable. Thus, the reincorporation of these territories—whether directly (annexation) or indirectly (political vassalage)—would equate to restoring lost members or strengthening vital organs of the state body. In fact, official Russian arguments often portray Ukraine as an intrinsic part of “Russian historicity,” denying it a fully separate identity—a narrative that aligns with the idea that Russian expansion in that region is natural and necessary for the Russian State (seen as encompassing also Russian speakers beyond its current borders).

Kjellén would thus provide a theoretical justification for Russian territorial expansion as an organic phenomenon. As a great power, Russia would inevitably seek to expand at the expense of smaller neighbors (Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic States, etc.), as dictated by the tendency of “great spaces to organize” to the detriment of the small [14]. This view can be identified in contemporary Russian doctrines that value spheres of influence and the notion that neighboring countries must gravitate around Moscow in order for the natural order to be maintained. The very idea of “Eurasia” united under Russian leadership (advocated by modern Russian thinkers) echoes this organic conception of vital space and expansion as a sign of the State’s vitality.

However, Kjellén’s theory also warns of the phenomenon of “imperial overstretch,” should a State exceed its internal cohesion limits by expanding excessively [14]. He recognized that extending borders too far could increase friction and vulnerabilities, making it difficult to maintain cohesion—a very large organism may lack functional integration. In the Russian context, this suggests that although expansion is seen as necessary, there are risks if Russia tries to encompass more than it can govern effectively. Conquering Ukraine and subjugating Eastern Europe, for example, could economically and militarily overburden the Russian State, especially if it faced resistance or had to manage hostile populations. However, in the hypothetical scenario we adopt (isolated USA and a weakened Europe), Russia might calculate that the organic benefits of expansion (territory, resources, strategic depth) would outweigh the costs, since external interference would be limited. Thus, through Kjellén’s lens, expansionist Russia behaves as an organism following its instinct for survival and growth, absorbing weaker neighbors; yet such a process is not devoid of challenges, requiring that the “organism Russia” manages to assimilate these new spaces without collapsing under its own weight.

Ratzel and Lebensraum: Resources, Territory, and the Justification for Expansion

Parallel to Kjellén’s organic view, Friedrich Ratzel’s theory offers another conceptual basis for understanding Russian expansion: the concept of Lebensraum (vital space). Ratzel, a German geographer of the late nineteenth century, proposed that the survival and development of a people or nation depended critically on the available physical space and resources. Influenced by Darwinist ideas, he applied the notion of “survival of the fittest” to nations, arguing that human societies need to conquer territory and resources to prosper, and that the stronger and fittest civilizations will naturally prevail over the weaker ones [12]. In 1901, Ratzel coined the term Lebensraum to describe this need for “vital space” as a geographical factor in national power [15].

Subsequently, this idea would be adopted—and extremely distorted—by Nazi ideology to justify Germany’s aggressions in Europe. However, the core of Ratzel’s concept is that territorial expansion is essential for the survival and growth of a State, especially to secure food, raw materials, and space for its population [12].

When examining Russia’s stance under this perspective, we can see several narratives that evoke the logic of Lebensraum. Russia is the largest country in the world by area; however, much of its territory is characterized by adverse climates (tundra, taiga) and is relatively sparsely populated in Siberia. On the other hand, adjacent regions such as Ukraine possess highly arable lands (chernozem—black soil), significant Slavic population density, and additional natural resources (coal in the Donbass, for example). An implicit justification for Russian expansion could be the search for supplementary resources and fertile lands to secure its self-sufficiency and power—exactly as Ratzel described that vigorous nations do. Historical records show that Ratzel emphasized agrarian primacy: he believed that new territories should be colonized by farmers, providing the food base for the nation [12]. Ukraine, historically called the “breadbasket of Europe,” fits perfectly into this vision of conquest for sustenance and agricultural wealth.

Furthermore, Ratzel viewed geography as a determinant of the destiny of nations—peoples adapted to certain habitats seek to expand them if they aspire to grow. In contemporary Russian discourse, there is often mention of the need to ensure security and territorial depth in the face of NATO, or to unite brotherly peoples (Russians and Russian speakers) within a single political space. Such arguments can be read as a modern translation of Lebensraum: the idea that the Russian nation, in order to be secure and flourish, must control a larger space, encompassing buffer zones and critical resources. This Russian “vital space” would naturally include Ukraine and other former Soviet republics, given the historical and infrastructural interdependence. Ratzel emphasized that peoples migrated and expanded when their original homeland no longer met their needs or aspirations [12]. Although contemporary Russia does not suffer from demographic pressure (on the contrary, it faces population decline), under the logic of a great power there is indeed a sentiment of geopolitical insufficiency for having lost influence over areas considered strategic. Thus, reconquering these areas would mean recovering the “habitat” necessary for the Russian nation to prosper and feel secure.

It is important to mention that, in Ratzel’s and Kjellén’s formulations, the pursuit of Lebensraum or organic expansion is not morally qualified—it is treated as a natural process in the politics of power. Thus, on the discursive level, Russia can avoid overly aggressive rhetoric and resort to “natural” justifications: for example, claiming that it needs to occupy Ukraine for defensive purposes (security space) or to reunify peoples (a common cultural and historical space). Beneath these justifications, however, resonates the geopolitical imperative to acquire more territory and resources as a guarantee of national survival, something consonant with Ratzel’s theory. In fact, Russian Realpolitik frequently prioritizes the control of energy resources (gas, oil) and transportation routes. Expanding its influence over central Eurasia would also mean controlling oil pipelines, gas lines, and logistical corridors—essential elements of modern Lebensraum understood as access to vital resources and infrastructure.

In summary, by conquering Ukraine and extending its reach into Eurasia, Russia could effectively invoke the concept of Lebensraum: presenting its expansion not as mere imperialism, but as a necessity to secure indispensable lands and resources for its people and to correct the “injustice” of a vital space diminished by post-Cold War territorial losses. The theories of Ratzel and Kjellén together paint a picture in which Russian expansion emerges almost as a natural law—the great State reclaiming space to ensure its survival and development at the expense of smaller neighbors.

Trump, NATO, and the Threat of American Withdrawal

One of the most alarming changes with Trump's return to power is the tense relationship with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Trump has long criticized allies for not meeting military spending targets, even threatening during his first term to withdraw the US from the alliance if members did not increase their contributions [2]. This threat, initially viewed with skepticism, became concrete after his re-election, leading European allies to seriously consider the possibility of having to defend themselves without American support [1]. In fact, Trump suggested in post-election interviews that the US would only remain in NATO if the allies “paid their bills” – otherwise, he “would seriously consider” leaving [2]. Such statements reinforced the warning that the US might not honor NATO's mutual defense commitment, precisely at a time of continuous Russian threat due to the war in Ukraine [1].

From a theoretical point of view, this posture of American retrenchment evokes the classic tension between maritime power and land power. Alfred Thayer Mahan emphasized that the global power of the US derived largely from its naval superiority and from alliances that ensured control over strategic maritime routes [9]. NATO, since 1949, has served not only to deter Soviet terrestrial advances in Eurasia, but also to secure the US naval presence in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean – a fundamental element according to Mahan. In turn, Halford Mackinder warned that the balance of global power depended on the control of the Eurasian “Heartland” (the central region of Eurasia). The withdrawal or disengagement of the US (a maritime power) from this region could open the way for a continental power (such as Russia) to expand its influence in Eastern Europe, unbalancing the power balance [3]. In other words, by threatening to leave NATO, Trump jeopardizes the principle of containment that prevented Russian dominance over Eastern Europe – something that Mackinder would see as a dangerous shift in global power in favor of the Heartland power.

Adopting an impartial tone, it is observed that European countries have reacted to this new reality with precautionary measures. Strategic reports already calculate the cost of an autonomous European defense: hundreds of thousands of additional soldiers and investments of hundreds of billions of euros would be required if the US ceased to guarantee the security of the continent [1]. European dependence on American military power is significant and, without it, there would be a need for a major reinforcement of European Armed Forces [1]. This mobilization practically reflects the anticipation of a power vacuum left by the US – a scenario in which Mackinder’s theory (on the primacy of the Heartland and the vulnerability of the “external crescent” where Western Europe is located) regains its relevance.

The US–Ukraine Economic Agreement: Strategic Minerals in Exchange for Support?

Another novelty of Trump's second term is the unprecedented and transactional manner in which Washington has been dealing with the war in Ukraine. Instead of emphasizing security guarantees and alliances, the Trump administration proposed a trade agreement with Ukraine focused on the exploitation of strategic minerals, linking American support to a direct economic benefit. According to sources close to the negotiations, the US and Ukraine are about to sign a pact to share the revenues from the exploitation of critical mineral resources on Ukrainian territory [19]. Materials such as titanium, lithium, rare earths, and uranium – vital for high-tech and defense industries – would be at the core of this agreement [6]. According to the known draft, Ukraine would allocate 50% of the profits from new mineral ventures to a fund controlled by the US, which would reinvest part of the resources in the country’s own reconstruction [6] [19].

It is noteworthy that the pact does not include explicit security guarantees for Kyiv, despite Ukraine remaining under direct military threat from Russia [19]. Essentially, the Trump administration offers financial support and economic investment in exchange for a share in Ukrainian natural resources, but without formally committing to Ukraine's defense in the event of a renewed Russian offensive [19]. American authorities argue that this economic partnership would already be sufficient to “secure Ukrainian interests,” as it would provide the US with its own incentives to desire Ukraine’s stability [19]. “What could be better for Ukraine than being in an economic partnership with the United States?” stated Mike Waltz, a US national security advisor, defending the proposal [19].

Analysts, however, assess the agreement in divided terms. For some, it represents a form of economic exploitation at a time of Ukraine's fragility – comparing the demand to share mineral wealth amid war to a scheme of “mafia protection” [19]. Steven Cook, from the Council on Foreign Relations, classified the offer as “extortion,” and political scientist Virginia P. Fortna observed that charging resources from an invaded country resembles predatory practices [19]. Joseph Nye adds that it is a short-term gain strategy that could be “disastrous in the long run” for American credibility, reflecting the transactional approach that Trump even adopted with close allies in other contexts [19]. On the other hand, some see a future advantage for Kyiv: journalist Pierre Briançon suggests that at least this agreement aligns American commercial interests with Ukraine’s future, which could, in theory, keep the US involved in Ukrainian prosperity in the long term [19]. It is even recalled that President Zelensky himself proposed last year the idea of sharing natural resources with the US to bring the interests of the two countries closer together [19].

From the perspective of geopolitical theories, this agreement illustrates a shift towards economic pragmatism in international relations, approaching concepts proposed by Kjellén. Rudolf Kjellén, who coined the term “geopolitics,” saw the State as a territorial organism that seeks to ensure its survival through self-sufficiency and the control of strategic resources [4]. Trump's demand for a share in Ukrainian resources in order to continue supporting the country reflects a logic of autarky and direct national interest – that is, foreign policy serving primarily to reinforce the economic and material position of the US. This view contrasts with the traditional cooperative approach, but aligns with Kjellén’s idea that powerful States tend to transform international relations into opportunities for their own gain, ensuring access to vital raw materials. Similarly, Friedrich Ratzel argued that States have a “propensity to expand their borders according to their capacities,” seeking vital space (Lebensraum) and resources to sustain their development [11]. The US–Ukraine pact, by conditioning military/economic aid on obtaining tangible advantages (half of the mineral profits), is reminiscent of Ratzel’s perspective: the US, as a rising economic power, expands its economic influence over Ukrainian territory like an organism extending itself to obtain the necessary resources for its well-being. It is, therefore, a form of economic expansionism at the expense of purely ideological commitments or collective security.

Peace Negotiations Excluding Ukraine and the Legitimacy of the Agreement

Another controversial point is the manner in which peace negotiations between Russia and the West have been conducted under Trump's administration. Since taking office, the American president has engaged directly with Moscow in pursuit of a ceasefire, deliberately keeping the Ukrainian government out of the initial discussions [6]. Trump expressed his desire to “leave Zelensky out of the conversation” and also excluded the European Union from any influence in the process [6]. This negotiation strategy—conducted without the presence of the primary interested party, Ukraine—raises serious questions about the legitimacy and sustainability of any resulting agreement.

Historically, peace agreements reached without the direct participation of one of the conflicting parties tend to face problems in implementation and acceptance.

The exclusion of Ukraine in the decision-making phase brings to light the issue of guarantees. As noted, the emerging agreement lacks formal US security guarantees for Ukraine. This implies that, after the agreement is signed, nothing will prevent Russia from launching a new offensive if it deems it convenient, knowing that the US has not committed to defending it militarily. Experts have already warned that a ceasefire without robust protection may only be a pause for Russian rearmament, rendering the conflict “frozen” temporarily and potentially resumed in the near future. The European strategic community has expressed similar concern: without American deterrence, the risk of further Russian aggressions in the region increases considerably [1]. Denmark, for example, has released intelligence reports warning of possible imminent Russian attacks, prompting neighboring countries to accelerate plans for independent defense [1].

The legitimacy of this asymmetric peace agreement (negotiated without Ukraine fully at the table and under economic coercion) is also questionable from a legal and moral point of view. It violates the principle of self-determination by imposing terms decided by great powers on a sovereign country—a practice reminiscent of dark chapters in diplomacy, such as the Munich Agreement of 1938, when powers determined the fate of Czechoslovakia without its consent. In the current case, Ukraine would end up signing the agreement, but from a position of weakness, raising doubts about how durable such a commitment would be.

From Mackinder’s perspective, Ukraine’s removal from the battlefield without guarantees essentially means admitting a greater influence of Russia (the Heartland power) over Eastern Europe. This would alter the balance in Eurasia in a potentially lasting way. Furthermore, the fact that great powers negotiate over the heads of a smaller country evokes the imperial logic of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when empires decided among themselves the divisions of foreign territories—a behavior that Mackinder saw as likely in a world of a “closed system.” With the entire world already occupied by States, Mackinder predicted that powers would begin to compete for influence within this consolidated board, often subjugating smaller states to gain advantage [3]. The US–Russia negotiation regarding Ukraine, without proper Ukrainian representation, exemplifies this type of neo-imperial dynamic in the twenty-first century.

Also noteworthy is the consonance with the ideas of Ratzel and Kjellén: both viewed smaller states as easily relegated to the status of satellites or even “parasitic organisms” in the orbit of larger states. Kjellén spoke of the intrinsic vulnerability of states with little territorial depth or economic dependence, making them susceptible to external pressures [4][20]. Ukraine, weakened by war and dependent on external aid, becomes a concrete example of this theorized vulnerability: it has had to cede strategic resources and accept terms dictated against its will in an attempt to secure its immediate survival. The resulting agreement, therefore, reflects a power imbalance characteristic of the hierarchical international relations described by classical geopolitical theorists.

Implicit Territorial Concessions and Trump’s Public Discourse

A central and controversial point in Trump’s statements regarding the war in Ukraine is the insinuation of territorial concessions to Russia as part of the conflict’s resolution. Publicly, Trump avoided explicitly condemning Russian aggression and even stated that he considered it “unlikely” that Ukraine would be able to retake all the areas occupied by the Russians [16]. In debates and interviews, he suggested that “if I were president, the war would end in 24 hours,” implying that he would force an understanding between Kyiv and Moscow that would likely involve ceding some territory in exchange for peace. This position marks a break with the previous US policy of not recognizing any territorial acquisitions made by force and fuels speculations that a future peace agreement sponsored by Trump would legitimize at least part of Russia’s gains since 2014 (Crimea, Donbass, and areas seized during the 2022 invasion).

The actions of his administration corroborate this interpretation. As discussed, the economic agreement focuses on the exploitation of Ukrainian natural resources, many of which are located precisely in regions currently under Russian military control, such as parts of the Zaporizhzhia Oblast, Donetsk, Lugansk, and the Azov Sea area [6]. A Ukrainian geologist, Hanna Liventseva, highlighted that “most of these elements (strategic minerals) are found in the south of the Ukrainian Shield, mainly in the Azov region, and most of these territories are currently invaded by Russia” [6]. This means that, to make joint exploitation viable, Russia’s de facto control over these areas would have to be recognized—or at least tolerated—in the short term. In other words, the pact indirectly and tacitly accepts Russian territorial gains, as it involves sharing the profits from resources that are not currently accessible to the Kyiv government.

Furthermore, figures close to Trump have made explicit statements regarding the possibility of territorial cession. Mike Waltz, Trump’s national security advisor, publicly stated that Zelensky might need to “cede land to Russia” to end the war [8]. This remark—made public in March 2025—confirms that the Trump White House considers it natural for Ukraine to relinquish parts of its territory in favor of an agreement. Such a stance marks a break from the previous Western consensus, which condemned any territorial gains by force. Under Trump, a pragmatic view (in the eyes of his supporters) or a cynical one (according to his critics) seems to prevail: sacrificing principles of territorial integrity to quickly end hostilities and secure immediate economic benefits.

In theoretical terms, this inclination to validate territorial gains by force recalls the concept of Realpolitik and the geopolitical Darwinism that influenced thinkers such as Ratzel. In Ratzel’s organic conception, expanding states naturally absorb neighboring territories when they are strong enough to do so, while declining states lose territory—a process almost biological in the selection of the fittest [11]. The Trump administration’s acceptance that Ukraine should “give something” to Moscow to seal peace reflects a normalization of this geopolitical selection process: it recognizes the aggressor (Russia) as having the “right” to retain conquered lands, because that is how power realities on the ground dictate. Mackinder, although firmly opposed to allowing Russia to dominate the Heartland, would see this outcome as the logical consequence of the lack of engagement from maritime powers (the USA and the United Kingdom, for example) in sustaining the Ukrainian counterattack. Without the active involvement of maritime power to balance the dispute, land power prevails in Eastern Europe.

From the perspective of international legitimacy, the cession of Ukrainian territories—whether de jure or de facto—creates a dangerous precedent in the post-Cold War era. Rewarding violent aggression with territorial gains may encourage similar strategies in other parts of the world, undermining the architecture of collective security. This is possibly a return to a world of spheres of influence, where great powers define borders and zones of control according to their convenience—something that the rules-based order after 1945 sought to avoid. Here, academic impartiality requires noting that coercion for territorial concessions rarely produces lasting peace, as the aggrieved party—in this case, Ukraine—may accept temporarily but will continue to assert its rights in the long term, as has occurred with other territorial injustices in history.

Territorial Ambitions of Trump: Greenland and Canada

Beyond the Eurasian theater of war, Trump revived geopolitical ambitions involving territories traditionally allied with the US: Greenland (an autonomous territory of Denmark) and Canada. As early as 2019, during his first term, Trump shocked the world by proposing to buy Greenland—rich in minerals and strategically positioned in the Arctic. Upon his return to power, he went further: expressing a “renewed interest” in acquiring Greenland and publicly suggesting the incorporation of Canada as the 51st American state [2].

In January 2025, during a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, he even displayed maps in which the US and Canada appeared merged into a single country, while Greenland was marked as a future American possession [2]. Posts by the president on social media included satirical images with a map of North America where Canada was labeled “51st” and Greenland designated as “Our Land” [2].

Such moves were met with concern and disbelief by allies. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was caught on an open microphone warning that Trump’s fixation on annexation “is real” and not just a joke [7]. Trudeau emphasized that Washington appeared to covet Canada’s vast mineral resources, which would explain the insistence on the idea of absorption [7]. In public, Trump argued that Canadians “would be more prosperous as American citizens,” promising tax cuts and better services should they become part of the US [7]. On the Danish side, the reaction to the revived plan regarding Greenland was firmly negative—as it was in 2019—reaffirming that the territory is not for sale. Trump, however, insinuated that the issue might be one of national security, indicating that American possession of Greenland would prevent adverse influences (a reference to China and Russia in the Arctic) [2]. More worryingly, he refused to rule out the use of military means to obtain the island, although he assured that he had no intention of invading Canada by force (in the Canadian case, he spoke of “economic force” to forge a union) [2].

This series of initiatives reflects an unprecedented expansionist impetus by the US in recent times, at least in discourse. Analyzing this through the lens of classical geopolitics offers interesting insights. Friedrich Ratzel and his notion of Lebensraum suggest that powerful states, upon reaching a certain predominance, seek to expand their territory by influencing or incorporating adjacent areas. Trump, by targeting the immediate neighbor (Canada) and a nearby strategic territory (Greenland), appears to resurrect this logic of territorial expansion for the sake of gaining space and resources. Ratzel saw such expansion almost as a natural process for vigorous states, comparable to the growth of an organism [11]. From this perspective, the US would be exercising its “right” of expansion in North America and the polar region, integrating areas of vital interest.

Additionally, Alfred Mahan’s view on maritime power helps to understand the strategic value of Greenland. Mahan postulated that control of key maritime chokepoints and naval bases ensures global advantage [9]. Greenland, situated between the North Atlantic and the Arctic, has become increasingly relevant as climate change opens new polar maritime routes and reveals vast mineral deposits (including rare earth elements and oil). For the US, having a presence or sovereignty over Greenland would mean dominating the gateway to the Arctic and denying this space to rivals. This aligns with Mahan’s strategy of securing commercial and military routes (in this case, potential Arctic routes) and resources to consolidate naval supremacy. On the other hand, the incorporation of Canada—with its enormous territory, Arctic coastline, and abundant natural resources—would provide the US with formidable geoeconomic and geopolitical reinforcement, practically eliminating vulnerabilities along its northern border. This is an ambitious project that also echoes ideas of Kjellén, for whom an ideal State should seek territorial completeness and economic self-sufficiency within its region. Incorporating Canada would be the pinnacle of American regional autarky, turning North America into a unified bloc under Washington (a scenario reminiscent of the “pan-regions” conceived by twentieth-century geopoliticians influenced by Kjellén).

It is important to note, however, that these ambitions face enormous legal and political obstacles. The sovereignty of Canada and Greenland (Denmark) is guaranteed by international law, and both peoples categorically reject the idea of annexation. Any hostile action by the US against these countries would shake alliances and the world order itself. Even so, the very fact that an American president suggests such possibilities already produces geopolitical effects: traditional partners begin to distrust Washington’s intentions, seek alternative alliances, and strengthen nationalist discourses of resistance. In summary, Trump’s expansionist intentions in Greenland and Canada rekindle old territorial issues and paradoxically place the US in the position of a revisionist power—a role once associated with empires in search of colonies.

Implications for Brazil and South America: A New Neocolonization?

In light of this geopolitical reconfiguration driven by Trump's USA—with a reordering of alliances and a possible partition of spheres of influence among great powers—the question arises: what is the impact on Brazil and the other countries of South America? Traditionally, Latin America has been under the aegis of the Monroe Doctrine (1823), which established non-interference by Europe in the region and, implicitly, the primacy of the USA in the Western Hemisphere. In the post–Cold War period, this influence translated more into political and economic leadership, without formal annexations or direct territorial domination. However, the current context points to a kind of “neocolonization” of the Global South, in which larger powers seek to control resources and peripheral governments in an indirect yet effective manner.

Mackinder’s theories can be used to illuminate this dynamic. As mentioned, Mackinder envisioned the twentieth-century world as a closed system, in which there were no longer any unknown lands to be colonized—hence, the powers would fight among themselves for control over already occupied regions [3]. He predicted that Africa and Latin America (then largely European colonies or semi-colonies) would continue as boards upon which the great powers would project their disputes, a form of neocolonialism. In the current scenario, we see the USA proposing exchanges of protection for resources (as in Ukraine) and even leaders of developing countries seeking similar agreements. A notable example: the President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Felix Tshisekedi, praised the USA–Ukraine initiative and suggested an analogous agreement involving Congolese mineral wealth in exchange for US support against internal rebels (M23) [19]. In other words, African countries and possibly South American ones may enter into this logic of offering privileged access to resources (cobalt, lithium, food, biodiversity) in order to obtain security guarantees or investments. This represents a regression to the times when external powers dictated the directions of the South in exchange for promises of protection, characterizing a strategic neocolonialism.

For Brazil, in particular, this rearrangement generates both opportunities and risks. As a regional power with considerable diplomatic autonomy, Brazil has historically sought to balance relationships with the USA, Europe, China, and other actors, avoiding automatic alignments. However, in a world where Trump’s USA is actively redefining spheres of influence—possibly making deals with Russia that divide priorities (for example, Washington focusing on the Western Hemisphere and Moscow on the Eastern)—South America could once again be seen as an exclusive American sphere of influence. From this perspective, Washington could pressure South American countries to align with its directives, limiting partnerships with rivals (such as China) and seeking privileged access to strategic resources (such as the Amazon, fresh water, minerals, and agricultural commodities). Some indications are already emerging: Trump’s transactional approach mentioned by Nye included pressures on Canada and Mexico regarding border and trade issues, under the threat of commercial sanctions. It would not be unthinkable to adopt a hard line, for example, with regard to Brazilian environmental policies (linked to the Amazon) or Brazil’s relations with China, using tariffs or incentives as leverage—a sort of geopolitics of economic coercion.

On the other hand, Brazil and its neighbors could also attempt to take advantage of the Sino–North American competition. If the USA is distracted consolidating its hemispheric “hard power” hegemony (even with annexation fantasies in the north), powers such as China may advance their economic presence in South America through investments and trade (Belt and Road, infrastructure financing)—which is already happening. This would constitute an indirect neocolonial dispute in the South: Chinese loans and investments versus American demands and agreements, partly reminiscent of the nineteenth-century imperial competition (when the United Kingdom, USA, and others competed for Latin American markets and resources).

From a conceptual standpoint, Mackinder might classify South America as part of the “Outer Crescent” (external insular crescent)—peripheral to the great Eurasian “World-Island,” yet still crucial as a source of resources and a strategic position in the South Atlantic and Pacific. If the USA consolidates an informal empire in the Americas, it would be reinforcing its “insular bastion” far from the Eurasian Heartland, a strategy that Mackinder once suggested for maritime powers: to control islands and peripheral continents to compensate for the disadvantage of not controlling the Heartland. However, an excessive US dominance in the South could lead to local resistance and alternative alignments, unbalancing the region.

Kjellén would add that for Brazil to maintain its decisive sovereignty, it will need to strengthen its autarky and internal cohesion—in other words, reduce vulnerabilities (economic, military, social) that external powers might exploit [4]. Meanwhile, Mahan might point out the importance for Brazil of controlling its maritime routes and coastlines (South Atlantic) to avoid being at the mercy of a naval power like the USA. And Ratzel would remind us that states that do not expand their influence tend to be absorbed by foreign influences—which, in the context of Brazil, does not mean conquering neighboring territories, but rather actively leading South American integration to create a block more resilient to external intrusion.

In summary, South America finds itself in a more competitive and segmented world, where major players are resurrecting practices from past eras. The notion of “neocolonization” here does not imply direct occupation, but rather mechanisms of dependency: whether through unequal economic agreements or through diplomatic or military pressure for alignment. Brazil, as the largest economy and territory on the subcontinent, will have to navigate with heightened caution. A new global power balance, marked by the division of spheres of influence among the USA, China, and Russia, may reduce the sovereign maneuvering space of South American countries unless they act jointly. Thus, theoretical reflection suggests the need for South–South strategies, reinforcement of regional organizations, and diversification of partnerships to avoid falling into modern “neocolonial traps.”

Conclusion

The emerging post–re-election geopolitical conjuncture of Donald Trump signals a return to classical geopolitical principles, after several decades of predominance of institutional liberal views. We witness the revaluation of concepts such as spheres of influence, exchanges of protection for resources, naval power versus land power, and disputes over territory and raw materials—all central themes in the writings of Mackinder, Mahan, Kjellén, and Ratzel at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. An impartial analysis of these events, in light of these theories, shows internal coherence in Trump’s actions: although controversial, they follow a logic of maximizing national interest and the relative power of the USA on the world stage, even at the expense of established principles and alliances.

Halford Mackinder reminds us that, in a closed world with no new lands to conquer, the great powers will seek to redistribute the world among themselves [3]. This seems to manifest in the direct understandings between the USA and Russia over the fate of Ukraine, and in American ambitions in the Arctic and the Western Hemisphere. Alfred Mahan emphasizes that the control of the seas and strategic positions ensures supremacy—we see reflections of this in Trump’s obsession with Greenland (Arctic) and the possible neglect of the importance of maintaining NATO (and therefore the North Atlantic) as a cohesive bloc, something that Mahan’s theory would criticize due to the risk of a naval vacuum. Rudolf Kjellén and Friedrich Ratzel provide the framework to understand the more aggressive facet of expansionist nationalism: the idea of the State as an organism that needs to grow, secure resources, and seek self-sufficiency explains everything from the extortionate agreement imposed on Ukraine to the annexation rhetoric regarding Canada.

The potential consequences are profound. In the short term, we may witness a precarious ceasefire in the Ukraine war, with consolidated Russian territorial gains and Ukraine economically tied to the USA, but without formal military protection—a fragile “armed peace.” Western Europe, alarmed, may accelerate its independent militarization, perhaps marking the beginning of European defense autonomy, as is already openly debated [1]. At the far end of the globe, American activism in the Arctic and the Americas may reshape alliances: countries like Canada, once aligned with Washington, might seek to guarantee their sovereignty by distancing themselves from it; powers like China could take advantage of the openings to increase their presence in Latin America and Africa through economic diplomacy; and emerging countries of the Global South may have to choose between submitting to new “guardianships” or strengthening South–South cooperation.

Ultimately, the current situation reinforces the relevance of studying geopolitics through historical lenses. The actions of the Trump administration indicate that, despite all technological and normative advances, the competition for geographic power has not disappeared—it has merely assumed new formats. Academic impartiality obliges us not to prematurely judge whether these strategies will be successful or beneficial, but history and theory warn that neo-imperial movements tend to generate counter-reactions. As Mackinder insinuated, “every shock or change anywhere reverberates around the world,” and a sudden move by a superpower tends to provoke unforeseen adjustments and chain conflicts. It remains to be seen how the other actors—including Brazil and its neighbors—will adapt to this new chapter in the great struggle for global power, in which centuries-old theories once again have a surprising explanatory power over present events.

Bibliography

[1] A Referência. (2025). Europa calcula o custo de se defender sem os EUA: 300 mil soldados e 250 bilhões de euros a mais. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://areferencia.com/europa/europa-calcula-o-custo-de-se-defender-sem-os-eua-300-mil-soldados-e-250-bilhoes-de-euros-a-mais/#:\~:text=Europa%20calcula%20o%20custo%20de,bilh%C3%B5es%20de%20euros%20a%20mais

[2] Brexit Institute. (2025). What happens if Trump invades Greenland? Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://dcubrexitinstitute.eu/2025/01/what-happens-if-trump-invades-greenland/#:\~:text=Ever%20since%20Donald%20Trump%20announced,agreed%20in%20Wales%20in%202014

[3] Cfettweis C:CST22(2)8576.DVI. (2025). Mackinder and Angell. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://cfettweis.com/wp-content/uploads/Mackinder-and-Angell.pdf#:\~:text=meant%20the%20beginning%20of%20an,Mackinder

[4] Diva-Portal. (2025). The geopolitics of territorial relativity. Poland seen by Rudolf Kjellén. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1696547/FULLTEXT02#:\~:text=,The%20state%20territory

[5] Geopolitical Monitor. (2025). The Russo-Ukrainian War and Mackinder’s Heartland Thesis. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/the-ukraine-war-and-mackinders-heartland-thesis/#:\~:text=In%201904%2C%20Sir%20Halford%20J,in%20adding%20a%20substantial%20oceanic

[6] Instituto Humanitas Unisinos. (2025). Trump obriga Zelensky a hipotecar a exploração de minerais críticos em troca do seu apoio. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.ihu.unisinos.br/648986-trump-obriga-zelensky-a-hipotecar-a-exploracao-de-minerais-criticos-em-troca-do-seu-apoio#:\~:text=Essa%20troca%20inclui%20os%20cobi%C3%A7ados,s%C3%A3o%20praticamente%20inexploradas%20no%20pa%C3%ADs

[7] Politico. (2025). Trump’s annexation fixation is no joke, Trudeau warns. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/07/canada-trudeau-trump-51-state-00203156#:\~:text=TORONTO%20%E2%80%94%20Prime%20Minister%20Justin,Canada%20becoming%20the%2051st%20state%2C%E2%80%9D%20Trudeau%20said

[8] The Daily Beast. (2025). Top Trump Adviser Moves Goalpost for Ukraine to End War. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.thedailybeast.com/top-trump-adviser-moves-goalpost-for-ukraine-to-end-war/#:\~:text=LAND%20GRAB

[9] The Geostrata. (2025). Alfred Thayer Mahan and Supremacy of Naval Power. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.thegeostrata.com/post/alfred-thayer-mahan-and-supremacy-of-naval-power#:\~:text=Alfred%20Thayer%20Mahan%20and%20Supremacy,control%20over%20maritime%20trade%20routes

[10] U.S. Department of State. (2025). Mahan’s The Influence of Sea Power upon History: Securing International Markets in the 1890s. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/mahan#:\~:text=Mahan%20argued%20that%20British%20control,American%20politicians%20believed%20that%20these

[11] Britannica. (2025a). Friedrich Ratzel | Biogeography, Anthropogeography, Political Geography. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.britannica.com/biography/Friedrich-Ratzel#:\~:text=webster,Swedish%20political%20scientist%20%2076

[12] Britannica. (2025b). Lebensraum. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lebensraum#:\~:text=defined,The

[13] Britannica. (2025c). Rudolf Kjellén. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rudolf-Kjellen

[14] Wikipedia (ZH). (2025). Rudolf Kjellén. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/w:Rudolf_Kjell%C3%A9n#:\~:text=Besides%20legalistic%2C%20states%20have%20organic,preservation.%20%5B%203

[15] Wikipedia. (2025). Lebensraum. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum#:\~:text=The%20German%20geographer%20and%20ethnographer,into%20the%20Greater%20Germanic%20Reich

[16] YouTube. (2025). Trump says Ukraine 'unlikely to get all land back' or join NATO [Vídeo]. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmHzAVLhsXU#:\~:text=Trump%20says%20Ukraine%20%27unlikely%20to,for%20it%20to%20join%20NATO

[17] U.S. Naval Institute. (2025) Operation World Peace. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1955/june/operation-world-peace#:\\~:text=“The Mahan doctrine%2C” according to,the word “airships” is more

[18] Emissary. (2024) Trump’s Greenland and Panama Canal Threats Are a Throwback to an Old, Misguided Foreign Policy. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/01/trump-greenland-panama-canal-monroe-doctrine-policy?lang=en

[19] A Referência. Acordo EUA-Ucrânia está praticamente fechado, mas analistas se dividem sobre quem sairá ganhando. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://areferencia.com/europa/acordo-eua-ucrania-esta-praticamente-fechado-mas-analistas-se-dividem-sobre-quem-saira-ganhando/#:\\~:text=EUA e 17,o acordo a seu favor

[20] Wikipedia. (2025) Geopolitik. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopolitik#:\\~:text=Rudolph Kjellén was Ratzel's Swedish,Kjellén's State

@ 6ad3e2a3:c90b7740

You are wearing a helmet, but it's been on your head so long you no longer notice it.

The helmet interfaces with your mind via thought-emotion. It influences what you think about and how you feel.

You could remove the helmet at any time. But the thought-emotions keep you distracted, fearful and attached.

Occasionally you remember you are wearing it. Moments of clarity and detachment. You see the way your experience is colored by it. You know it is biased, untrue to reality. You seriously contemplate removing it.

But the moment passes.

Later, you remember contemplating your helmet’s removal, but you wonder what you will gain from it, whether it’s worth doing.

You are no longer having a moment of clarity, just a memory of the question that arose from it, but colored now by thought-emotions.

You decide even if you wanted to remove it, you would put it back on before long. After all, you have never kept it off before, why would you suddenly live without this interface now? The interface is what you know.

Maybe one day, when you are in a more secure place, when your ducks are more in a row, you will remove it. Not now, not in the midst of all this chaos, so many things to do, so much on your plate. You will leave it on for now. You will deal with this later.

But one day too late it dawns on you it is always ever now, and later means never. You have lived your entire life at the behest of the interface when all you had to do was remove it.

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

Comments: 3395 (Top Territory!!!) Posts: 306 (3rd) Stacking: 198k (2nd)

We're really bouncing back from the post-Super Bowl lull, with lots of contests and discussion threads. I think we've really found our niche with those two things.

The rest of Stacker News is experiencing declining activity, so our steady growth since February really tells me that we're on the right track.

Thanks for being part of our growing sports community!

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/970289

@ 401014b3:59d5476b

Donald Trump’s announcement of a strategic cryptocurrency reserve on March 2, 2025, wasn’t a surprise—he’s been the “crypto president” cheerleader for years. At 10:32 a.m. EST, he took to Truth Social with the details: the U.S. would hold onto seized digital assets, starting with Bitcoin and Ethereum, while also roping in XRP, Solana, and Cardano. He later called Bitcoin and Ethereum the “core” of the plan. By 2:00 p.m. EST, the market was buzzing with price jumps, and while tucking Bitcoin into the reserve looks like a solid play, adding the others raises some serious questions.

Price Surge: The Early Reaction

Before Trump’s post, the market was coasting. Imagine Bitcoin at around $83,000 on March 1, Ethereum at $2,200, XRP at $2.15, Solana at $142, and Cardano at $0.64—standard fare for a slow weekend. By 2 p.m. EST, three-plus hours after the announcement, the reaction was clear. Early chatter had Bitcoin nearing $90,000, up about 8%, Ethereum at $2,400, a 9% bump, XRP hitting $2.80, a 30% surge, Solana climbing to $170, a 20% rise, and Cardano spiking to $1.00, up 56%. The numbers are still firming up, but the market loved the news—though not all of it makes sense.

Bitcoin: The Smart Bet

Trump’s been hyping crypto since 2024, promising to make the U.S. the “crypto capital of the world,” and Bitcoin fits that vision like a glove. The U.S. already holds about 200,000 Bitcoin from seizures—nearly $19 billion pre-spike—and keeping it as a strategic asset is a no-brainer. It’s the gold standard of crypto, with a proven track record and a market cap that dwarfs the rest. Adding it to the reserve could draw in big players like hedge funds or states like Pennsylvania, which is eyeing a 10% Bitcoin allocation. Songping Que of Neo Blockchain says it’s a “catalyst” that could push Bitcoin to $500,000. That’s a stretch, but it’s got legs—Bitcoin’s a hedge against inflation and a signal of economic strength. Plus, Trump’s push to ditch Biden-era regulations pairs perfectly with Bitcoin’s dominance. Fewer rules could spark blockchain growth, and Bitcoin’s the anchor to build around. It’s a strategic asset that could keep the U.S. ahead of rivals like China without overcomplicating things.

The Others: A Risky Overreach

But XRP, Solana, and Cardano? That’s where this plan stumbles. Sure, they popped—XRP’s 30% leap and Cardano’s 56% spike look impressive—but these aren’t Bitcoin. XRP’s tangled in legal baggage with the SEC, and its centralized roots don’t scream “strategic reserve material.” Solana’s fast, but it’s had outages—imagine the feds betting on a network that goes dark mid-crisis. Cardano’s got big ideas, but its adoption’s still lagging; it’s more hype than substance. Ethereum’s a closer call—its smart contracts have real utility—but it’s still second fiddle to Bitcoin and carries more complexity.

Including these feels like Trump’s trying to please the crypto crowd rather than picking winners. The reserve should be lean and focused—Bitcoin alone could do the job without muddying the waters with altcoins that might tank or fizzle. The price jumps are nice, but they’re more speculative frenzy than lasting value.

The Pushback

Critics have a point about volatility—Bitcoin’s dropped from $68,000 to $35,000 in months before, and altcoins are worse. Laith Khalaf of AJ Bell warns tying public funds to crypto’s rollercoaster is dicey. For Bitcoin, that risk feels manageable—its size and staying power offset the swings. For XRP, Solana, and Cardano? Not so much. Expanding beyond seized assets would need Congress anyway, and they’d likely balk at this grab-bag approach.

The Takeaway

By 2 p.m. EST on March 2, Trump’s crypto reserve announcement had the market roaring. Bitcoin in the mix is a masterstroke—it’s a proven asset that aligns with his economic vision and could bolster America’s financial edge. But tossing in XRP, Solana, and Cardano dilutes the plan, betting on shaky ground when Bitcoin alone could carry the day. Risks are part of the game, but Trump’s got a winner with Bitcoin—why clutter it up?

@ 1d7ff02a:d042b5be

ບົດຄວາມນີ້ແປມາຈາ: https://jackkruse.com/what-to-do-with-new-cancer-diagnosis/

ເນື້ອຫາສຳລັບຜູ້ອ່ານ: 1. ຈະເຮັດແນວໃດເມື່ອທ່ານໄດ້ຮັບການວິນິດໄສວ່າເປັນມະເຮັງ? 2. ສະໜາມຮົບກັບມະເຮັງທີ່ສຳຄັນແມ່ນຢູ່ບ່ອນການປິ່ນປົວແບບແພດ ຫຼື ໃນຮ່າງກາຍຂອງທ່ານເອງ? 3. ອາຫານການກິນມີບົດບາດແນວໃດ? 4. ຈະຮັບມືກັບໝໍມະເຮັງຄົນໃໝ່ຂອງທ່ານແນວໃດ? 5. ບໍ່ຕ້ອງຢ້ານທີ່ຈະສຳຫຼວດທຸກຄວາມເປັນໄປໄດ້ເພື່ອຊະນະສົງຄາມນີ້. ຮຽນຮູ້ກ່ຽວກັບອາຫານ ketogenic!!!

ກ່ອນທ່ານຈະອ່ານບົດຄວາມນີ້, ໃຫ້ເບິ່ງວິດີໂອນີ້: HYPERLINK

ບົດຄວາມນີ້ແມ່ນສຳລັບໜຶ່ງໃນໝູ່ທີ່ພິເສດຂອງຂ້ອຍ ຜູ້ທີ່ພົວພັນຂ້ອຍໃນອາທິດນີ້ ແລະ ບອກວ່າເມຍລາວຖືກວິນິດໄສວ່າເປັນມະເຮັງໃນໄວອາຍຸໜຸ່ມ. ຂ້ອຍໄດ້ຍິນຈາກການໂທ ແລະ ໂພສຂອງລາວໃນ Facebook ວ່າມັນກຳລັງທຳລາຍລາວ. ຂ້ອຍບອກລາວທັນທີໃຫ້ໄປຊື້ປື້ມ Anti Cancer: A New Way of Life ໂດຍ David Servan Schreiber ແລະ ມອບໃຫ້ເຈົ້າສາວຂອງລາວ. ຂ່າວດີກໍ່ຄືຫຼາຍລ້ານຄົນໃນຈຳນວນ 6 ລ້ານຄົນທີ່ກຳລັງປິ່ນປົວມະເຮັງໃນປະຈຸບັນຈະມີຊີວິດທີ່ສົມບູນຕໍ່ໄປ. ຈຳນວນຜູ້ລອດຊີວິດຕາມຄວາມຄິດເຫັນຂອງຂ້ອຍຍັງຕ່ຳເກີນໄປ (ປະມານ 45-50%). ນອກຈາກນັ້ນ, ຫຼາຍຄົນໃນຈຳນວນ 2000 ຄົນທີ່ເສຍຊີວິດຈາກມະເຮັງທຸກມື້ແມ່ນເນື່ອງຈາກຄອບຄົວຂອງພວກເຂົາບໍ່ຮູ້ກ່ຽວກັບຊັບພະຍາກອນທີ່ມີໃນປະຈຸບັນສຳລັບການປິ່ນປົວມະເຮັງທັງແບບດັ້ງເດີມ ແລະ ແບບທາງເລືອກ ເຊັ່ນ: ການປິ່ນປົວແບບເສີມ ຫຼື ແບບບູລະນາການ.

ເມື່ອຖືກວິນິດໄສດ້ວຍພະຍາດນີ້, ທ່ານຈະຮູ້ສຶກສັ່ນສະເທືອນຢ່າງຮຸນແຮງ. ສິ່ງສຳຄັນທີ່ທ່ານຕ້ອງຮູ້ແມ່ນພະຍາດນີ້ບໍ່ພຽງແຕ່ສາມາດຕໍ່ສູ້ໄດ້ແຕ່ຍັງສາມາດປ້ອງກັນໄດ້ຖ້າທ່ານຕັດສິນໃຈປ່ຽນແປງບາງສິ່ງທັນທີ ແລະ ປ່ອຍວາງຄວາມເຊື່ອທີ່ບໍ່ຖືກຕ້ອງທີ່ທ່ານໄດ້ສະສົມໃນຊີວິດ. ນີ້ເປັນຄວາມຈິງໂດຍສະເພາະຖ້າທ່ານເຮັດວຽກໃນຂົງເຂດສາທາລະນະສຸກ ແລະ ໄດ້ດຳລົງຊີວິດຕາມຄວາມເຊື່ອຕາຍຕົວຕະຫຼອດຊີວິດ. ປື້ມນີ້ຂຽນໂດຍແພດນັກຄົ້ນຄວ້າທີ່ບໍ່ພຽງແຕ່ຖືກກະທົບຈາກມະເຮັງ ແຕ່ຍັງເປັນມະເຮັງສະໝອງທີ່ອັນຕະລາຍທີ່ສຸດ. ລາວສາມາດຮື້ຖອນຄວາມເຊື່ອຂອງຕົນເອງໃນຖານະແພດດ້ວຍວິທະຍາສາດໃໝ່ທີ່ມີຢູ່ສຳລັບນັກຄົ້ນຄວ້າ ແຕ່ບໍ່ແມ່ນແພດມະເຮັງທົ່ວໄປ. ປື້ມນີ້ຈຳເປັນສຳລັບທຸກຄົນທີ່ເປັນມະເຮັງ ຫຼື ມີປັດໄຈສ່ຽງ ເພື່ອທ່ານຈະໄດ້ຊະນະກ່ອນມັນເລີ່ມ. ນີ້ແມ່ນໜຶ່ງໃນເຫດຜົນທີ່ຂ້ອຍຂຽນ QUILT ຂອງຂ້ອຍ ເພາະຂ້ອຍເຊື່ອວ່າຖ້າທ່ານປົກປ້ອງຈຸລັງຂອງທ່ານ ທ່ານຈະບໍ່ເປັນພະຍາດນີ້. ດຽວນີ້ ໝູ່ຂອງຂ້ອຍເປັນພະຍາດນີ້... ນີ້ແມ່ນບົດຄວາມກ່ຽວກັບສິ່ງທີ່ທ່ານອາດພິຈາລະນາເຮັດທັນທີຫຼັງຈາກປຶກສາກັບແພດມະເຮັງຂອງທ່ານ. ພິຈາລະນາຂໍຄວາມຄິດເຫັນທີສອງຈາກສູນມະເຮັງທີ່ສຳຄັນເຊັ່ນ MD Anderson.

1. ອ່ານປື້ມ Anticancer ທີ່ກ່າວເຖິງຂ້າງເທິງ. ມັນສຳຄັນທີ່ຈະເຫັນພະຍາດນີ້ໃນມຸມມອງໃໝ່.

2. ປ່ຽນອາຫານການກິນຂອງທ່ານທັນທີເປັນ Epi-paleo Rx ແລະ ອອກຫ່າງຈາກອາຫານແບບຕາເວັນຕົກມາດຕະຖານ.

3. ເລີ່ມເຮັດສະມາທິໂດຍໄວເທົ່າທີ່ຈະເປັນໄປໄດ້ເພື່ອຄວບຄຸມ cortisol ແລະ ຄວາມກັງວົນຂອງທ່ານ. (ທາງເລືອກບໍ່ສຳຄັນແຕ່ການເຮັດຈິງຊ່ວຍຊີວິດໄດ້)

4. ຄົນເຈັບຄວນປຶກສາຫາລືກ່ຽວກັບແຜນການປິ່ນປົວມະເຮັງ: ປັດໃຈສຳຄັນໃນມະເຮັງ: ຄວນຄົນເຈັບໃຊ້ອາຫານເສີມສຳລັບປະເພດມະເຮັງທີ່ທ່ານມີບໍ?

5. ພິຈາລະນາເລີ່ມລະບົບອາຫານເສີມ ລວມເຖິງ Curcumin, Reservatrol, Quercetin, ນ້ຳມັນປາ Omega ສາມ (ຄຸນນະພາບ Rx), ວິຕາມິນ D3 ໂດຍມີເປົ້າໝາຍເກີນ 50 ng/dl, ການໃຊ້ CoEnZQ10 ເປັນປະຈຳທຸກວັນ, R-alpha lipoic acid ແລະ ວິຕາມິນ K ທຸກມື້. ພິຈາລະນາການໃຊ້ N Acetyl Cysteine ທຸກວັນເຊັ່ນກັນ. ສັງເກດວ່າຂ້ອຍບໍ່ໄດ້ກຳນົດປະລິມານເພາະປະລິມານທີ່ຕ້ອງການສຳລັບການບຳບັດມະເຮັງແມ່ນສູງກວ່າທີ່ຈະໃຊ້ໃນການປ້ອງກັນ. ສິ່ງນີ້ຄວນເຮັດພາຍໃຕ້ການປຶກສາກັບແພດມະເຮັງຂອງທ່ານ. ຖ້າແພດມະເຮັງຂອງທ່ານບໍ່ເປີດໃຈກວ້າງກ່ຽວກັບບັນຫາເຫຼົ່ານີ້... ຫຼັງຈາກອ່ານປື້ມໃນຂັ້ນຕອນທີໜຶ່ງ ທ່ານອາດຈະຕ້ອງຊອກຫາແພດມະເຮັງຄົນໃໝ່. ເຫຼົ່ານີ້ແມ່ນສິ່ງທີ່ຂ້ອຍພິຈາລະນາວ່າເປັນອາຫານເສີມຫຼັກສຳລັບມະເຮັງສ່ວນໃຫຍ່ທີ່ມະນຸດເປັນ.

6. ໃນອາຫານຂອງທ່ານໃຫ້ເພີ່ມ ຂີ້ໝິ້ນ, ຂິງ, ກະທຽມ, ຣອດສະແມລີ, ແລະ ໃບແບຊິນ (ໃບໂຫລະພາ) ໃສ່ອາຫານຂອງທ່ານໃຫ້ຫຼາຍເທົ່າທີ່ຈະເປັນໄປໄດ້. ທ່ານຄວນດື່ມຊາຂຽວ 1 ລິດຕໍ່ມື້. ຊາຂຽວມີ L-Theanine ທີ່ຊ່ວຍຫຼຸດຄວາມກັງວົນ ແຕ່ຍັງເປັນສ່ວນເສີມຂອງຢາເຄມີບຳບັດໂດຍເຮັດໃຫ້ພວກມັນມີປະສິດທິພາບຍິ່ງຂຶ້ນ. ທ່ານຍັງສາມາດໃຊ້ສານສະກັດຊາຂຽວຖ້າທ່ານບໍ່ຕ້ອງການດື່ມຂອງແຫຼວຫຼາຍ ຫຼື ບໍ່ສາມາດດື່ມໄດ້ເນື່ອງຈາກສະພາບຂອງທ່ານ.

7. ໃນປີ 1955 Otto Warburg ຜູ້ຊະນະລາງວັນໂນເບວພົບວ່າມະເຮັງທັງໝົດໃຊ້ນ້ຳຕານເປັນແຫຼ່ງພະລັງງານ ແລະ ລະດັບອິນຊູລິນສູງເຮັດໃຫ້ຮ່າງກາຍສູນເສຍການຄວບຄຸມລະບົບພູມຄຸ້ມກັນທີ່ຈະປ້ອງກັນມັນ. ນີ້ໝາຍຄວາມວ່າຄົນເຈັບຕ້ອງຈຳກັດທຸກສິ່ງທີ່ກະຕຸ້ນອິນຊູລິນ. ອາຫານແບບ Epi-paleo ທີ່ມີຄາໂບໄຮເດຣດຕ່ຳເຮັດໄດ້ແນວນີ້ພໍດີ. ຂໍ້ມູນອ້າງອີງທີ່ດີສຳລັບອາຫານແມ່ນຢູ່ບ່ອນນີ້.

8. ລະບົບພູມຄຸ້ມກັນຂອງທ່ານແມ່ນການປ້ອງກັນທີ່ດີທີ່ສຸດຕໍ່ມະເຮັງ. ເພີ່ມລະດັບວິຕາມິນ D ແລະ ຮັກສາລະດັບອິນຊູລິນໃຫ້ຕ່ຳກວ່າສອງ. ການຫຼຸດລະດັບ cortisol ຈະປັບປຸງ leptin ແຕ່ສິ່ງສຳຄັນທີ່ສຸດແມ່ນເພີ່ມຈຳນວນຈຸລັງ Natural Killer (WBC) ທີ່ເປັນສ່ວນໜຶ່ງຂອງລະບົບພູມຄຸ້ມກັນໃນຈຸລັງທີ່ຕໍ່ສູ້ກັບມະເຮັງ. ທ່ານຈະໄດ້ອ່ານຫຼາຍກ່ຽວກັບຈຸລັງເຫຼົ່ານີ້ໃນປື້ມທີ່ຂ້ອຍແນະນຳໃນຂັ້ນຕອນທີໜຶ່ງ.

9. ຜັກ. ເຮັດໃຫ້ຜັກຕະກຸນ cruciferous ເປັນອາຫານຫຼັກ. ພືດທັງໝົດໃນຕະກຸນ Brassica ແມ່ນໝູ່ຂອງທ່ານ. Glucosinolates ສາມາດຢັບຢັ້ງ, ຊະລໍ, ແລະ ປີ້ນການເກີດມະເຮັງຫຼາຍຂັ້ນຕອນ. ເຫດຜົນແມ່ນການປ່ອຍ isothiocyanates ເຊັ່ນ sulphoraphanes. Sulphoraphanes ເຮັດສອງສິ່ງຫຼັກ. ພວກມັນສົ່ງເສີມ apoptosis (levee 19) ແລະ ກະຕຸ້ນເອນໄຊມ໌ detoxification ໄລຍະສອງໃນຕັບທີ່ເສີມຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງໃຫ້ກັບຍີນ p53 ເປັນຜູ້ປົກປ້ອງຈີໂນມຂອງພວກເຮົາ. ຈຸລັງມະເຮັງມັກຈະຕາຍ (necrosis) ເມື່ອສຳຜັດກັບ sulphoraphanes ຢ່າງຕໍ່ເນື່ອງເປັນເວລາດົນ. ຜັກບຣອກໂຄລີຍັງມີສານ metabolite ຂັ້ນສອງທີ່ເອີ້ນວ່າ Indole 3 Carbinol ທີ່ແຕກຕົວຕໍ່ໄປເປັນສານຕ້ານມະເຮັງອີກຊະນິດໜຶ່ງຊື່ວ່າ DIM, diindolylmethane. ທ່ານບໍ່ສາມາດກິນຜັກພວກນີ້ຫຼາຍພໍຖ້າທ່ານເປັນມະເຮັງໃນທັດສະນະຂອງຂ້ອຍ. I3C ຍັງຂັດຂວາງ 16-hydroxyestrone ແລະ ມີປະໂຫຍດຫຼາຍໃນການປ້ອງກັນມະເຮັງເຕົ້ານົມ ແລະ ມະເຮັງຮັງໄຂ່ໃນແມ່ຍິງ ແລະ ມະເຮັງຕ່ອມລູກໝາກໃນຜູ້ຊາຍ.

10. ນີ້ແມ່ນສິ່ງທີ່ຂັດກັບຄວາມເຊື່ອຊຶ່ງຢູ່ໃນຫົວຂອງທ່ານ... ກິນ cholesterol ຫຼາຍໆ. ໂດຍສະເພາະນ້ຳມັນໝາກພ້າວ. ຫຼາຍການສຶກສາທາງລະບາດວິທະຍາສະແດງໃຫ້ເຫັນວ່າລະດັບ cholesterol ໃນເລືອດຕ່ຳສຳພັນກັບອັດຕາການເກີດມະເຮັງສູງ. ນີ້ແມ່ນເຫດຜົນທີ່ການກິນອາຫານ ketogenic Epi-paleo ມີຄວາມໝາຍຫຼາຍ. ເປັນຫຍັງອາຫານແບບ ketogenic? ເພາະມະເຮັງທັງໝົດໃຊ້ກລູໂຄສເປັນວັດຖຸດິບ. ທ່ານຈຳເປັນຕ້ອງປ່ຽນເຊື້ອໄຟຂອງຈຸລັງ. ໄປຊອກຫາ Otto Warburg ໃນ Google ສຳລັບລາຍລະອຽດເພີ່ມເຕີມ. ອາຫານແບບ ketogenic ຄວນມີ MCT ຈາກນ້ຳມັນໝາກພ້າວຫຼາຍ ເພາະພວກມັນໃຫ້ຂໍ້ໄດ້ປຽບຫຼາຍແກ່ຈຸລັງປົກກະຕິກວ່າຈຸລັງມະເຮັງ. ຂໍ້ໄດ້ປຽບນີ້ເຮັດໃຫ້ລະບົບພູມຄຸ້ມກັນຂອງທ່ານສາມາດຕາມທັນຈຸລັງມະເຮັງ ແລະ ທຳລາຍພວກມັນໂດຍໃຊ້ກົນໄກຊີວະວິທະຍາຂອງທ່ານເອງ. ມີຫຼາຍບົດຄວາມໃນວາລະສານມະເຮັງທີ່ພິມເຜີຍແຜ່ສະແດງໃຫ້ເຫັນການເຊື່ອມໂຍງແບບດຽວກັນ.

@ 6389be64:ef439d32

GA, plebs. The latest episode of Bitcoin And is out, and, as always, the chicanery is running rampant. Let’s break down the biggest topics I covered, and if you want the full, unfiltered rant, make sure to listen to the episode linked below.

House Democrats’ MEME Act: A Bad Joke?

House Democrats are proposing a bill to ban presidential meme coins, clearly aimed at Trump’s and Melania’s ill-advised token launches. While grifters launching meme coins is bad, this bill is just as ridiculous. If this legislation moves forward, expect a retaliatory strike exposing how politicians like Pelosi and Warren mysteriously amassed their fortunes. Will it pass? Doubtful. But it’s another sign of the government’s obsession with regulating everything except itself.

Senate Banking’s First Digital Asset Hearing: The Real Target Is You

Cynthia Lummis chaired the first digital asset hearing, and—surprise!—it was all about control. The discussion centered on stablecoins, AML, and KYC regulations, with witnesses suggesting Orwellian measures like freezing stablecoin transactions unless pre-approved by authorities. What was barely mentioned? Bitcoin. They want full oversight of stablecoins, which is really about controlling financial freedom. Expect more nonsense targeting self-custody wallets under the guise of stopping “bad actors.”

Bank of America and PayPal Want In on Stablecoins

Bank of America’s CEO openly stated they’ll launch a stablecoin as soon as regulation allows. Meanwhile, PayPal’s CEO paid for a hat using Bitcoin—not their own stablecoin, Pi USD. Why wouldn’t he use his own product? Maybe he knows stablecoins aren’t what they’re hyped up to be. Either way, the legacy financial system is gearing up to flood the market with stablecoins, not because they love crypto, but because it’s a tool to extend U.S. dollar dominance.

MetaPlanet Buys the Dip

Japan’s MetaPlanet issued $13.4M in bonds to buy more Bitcoin, proving once again that institutions see the writing on the wall. Unlike U.S. regulators who obsess over stablecoins, some companies are actually stacking sats.

UK Expands Crypto Seizure Powers

Across the pond, the UK government is pushing legislation to make it easier to seize and destroy crypto linked to criminal activity. While they frame it as going after the bad guys, it’s another move toward centralized control and financial surveillance.

Bitcoin Tools & Tech: Arc, SatoChip, and Nunchuk

Some bullish Bitcoin developments: ARC v0.5 is making Bitcoin’s second layer more efficient, SatoChip now supports Taproot and Nostr, and Nunchuk launched a group wallet with chat, making multisig collaboration easier.

The Bottom Line

The state is coming for financial privacy and control, and stablecoins are their weapon of choice. Bitcoiners need to stay focused, keep their coins in self-custody, and build out parallel systems. Expect more regulatory attacks, but don’t let them distract you—just keep stacking and transacting in ways they can’t control.

🎧 Listen to the full episode here: https://fountain.fm/episode/PYITCo18AJnsEkKLz2Ks

💰 Support the show by boosting sats on Podcasting 2.0! and I will see you on the other side.

@ 6389be64:ef439d32

In Jewish folklore, the golem—shaped from clay—is brought to life through sacred knowledge. Clay’s negative charge allows it to bind nutrients and water, echoing its mythic function as a vessel of potential.

Biochar in Amazonian terra preta shares this trait: it holds life-sustaining ions and harbors living intention. Both materials, inert alone, become generative through human action. The golem and black earths exist in parallel—one cultural, one ecological—shaping the lifeless into something that serves, protects, and endures.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/970089

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

My month long endeavor to be less of a lazibones has concluded.

For the whole month, I fairly consistently did whatever little chores needed to be done, as soon as I noticed they needed to be done. That was mostly laundry, making the bed, and (un)loading the dishwasher, plus lots of random cleaning up after the dog and kid.

Even with focusing less on getting steps, my steps were up about 15% from the previous month (which had nicer weather, btw). These were less empty steps, too. I was actually being productive.

I'm not sure any of the JBP-esque room cleaning type benefits materialized, but it was good for me, so I'll try to carry some new habits forward.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/969995

@ b2d670de:907f9d4a

This is a list of nostr clients exposed as onion services. The list is currently actively maintained on GitHub. Contributions are always appreciated!

| Client name | Onion URL | Source code URL | Admin | Description | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Snort | http://agzj5a4be3kgp6yurijk4q7pm2yh4a5nphdg4zozk365yirf7ahuctyd.onion | https://git.v0l.io/Kieran/snort | operator | N/A | | moStard | http://sifbugd5nwdq77plmidkug4y57zuqwqio3zlyreizrhejhp6bohfwkad.onion/ | https://github.com/rafael-xmr/nostrudel/tree/mostard | operator | minimalist monero friendly nostrudel fork | | Nostrudel | http://oxtrnmb4wsb77rmk64q3jfr55fo33luwmsyaoovicyhzgrulleiojsad.onion/ | https://github.com/hzrd149/nostrudel | operator | Runs latest tagged docker image | | Nostrudel Next | http://oxtrnnumsflm7hmvb3xqphed2eqpbrt4seflgmdsjnpgc3ejd6iycuyd.onion/ | https://github.com/hzrd149/nostrudel | operator | Runs latest "next" tagged docker image | | Nsite | http://q457mvdt5smqj726m4lsqxxdyx7r3v7gufzt46zbkop6mkghpnr7z3qd.onion/ | https://github.com/hzrd149/nsite-ts | operator | Runs nsite. You can read more about nsite here. | | Shopstr | http://6fkdn756yryd5wurkq7ifnexupnfwj6sotbtby2xhj5baythl4cyf2id.onion/ | https://github.com/shopstr-eng/shopstr-hidden-service | operator | Runs the latest serverless branch build of Shopstr. |

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Election Authority (EA) Platform

1.1 EA Administration Interface (Web-Based)

• Purpose: Gives authorized personnel (e.g., election officials) a user-friendly way to administer the election.
• Key Tasks:
• Voter Registration Oversight: Mark which voters have proven their identity (via in-person KYC or some legal process).
• Blind Signature Issuance: Approve or deny blind signature requests from registered voters (each corresponding to one ephemeral key).
• Tracking Voter Slots: Keep a minimal registry of who is allowed one ephemeral key signature, and mark it “used” once a signature is issued.
• Election Configuration: Set start/end times, provide encryption parameters (public keys), manage threshold cryptography setup.
• Monitor Tallying: After the election, collaborate with trustees to decrypt final results and release them.

1.2 EA Backend Services

• Blind Signature Service:
• An API endpoint or internal module that receives a blinded ephemeral key from a voter, checks if they are authorized (one signature per voter), and returns the blind-signed result.

• Typically requires secure storage of the EA’s blind signing private key.

• Voter Roll Database:

• Stores minimal info: “Voter #12345 is authorized to request one ephemeral key signature,” plus status flags.

• Does not store ephemeral keys themselves (to preserve anonymity).

• (Optional) Mix-Net or Homomorphic Tally Service:

• Coordinates with trustees for threshold decryption or re-encryption.
• Alternatively, a separate “Tally Authority” service can handle this.

---

2. Auditor Interface

2.1 Auditor Web-Based Portal

• Purpose: Allows independent auditors (or the public) to:
• Fetch All Ballots from the relays (or from an aggregator).
• Verify Proofs: Check each ballot’s signature, blind signature from the EA, OTS proof, zero-knowledge proofs, etc.
• Check Double-Usage: Confirm that each ephemeral key is used only once (or final re-vote is the only valid instance).

• Observe Tally Process: Possibly see partial decryptions or shuffle steps, verify the final result matches the posted ballots.

• Key Tasks:

• Provide a dashboard showing the election’s real-time status or final results, after cryptographic verification.
• Offer open data downloads so third parties can run independent checks.

2.2 (Optional) Trustee Dashboard

• If the election uses threshold cryptography (multiple parties must decrypt), each trustee (candidate rep, official, etc.) might have an interface for:
• Uploading partial decryption shares or re-encryption proofs.
• Checking that other trustees did their steps correctly (zero-knowledge proofs for correct shuffling, etc.).

---

3. Voter Application

3.1 Voter Client (Mobile App or Web Interface)

• Purpose: The main tool voters use to participate—before, during, and after the election.

• Functionalities:

• Registration Linking:
  • Voter goes in-person to an election office or uses an online KYC process.
  • Voter obtains or confirms their long-term (“KYC-bound”) key. The client can store it securely (or the voter just logs in to a “voter account”).
• Ephemeral Key Generation:
  • Create an ephemeral key pair ((nsec_e, npub_e)) locally.
  • Blind (\npub_e) and send it to the EA for signing.
  • Unblind the returned signature.
  • Store (\npub_e) + EA’s signature for use during voting.
• Ballot Composition:
  • Display candidates/offices to the voter.
  • Let them select choices.
  • Possibly generate zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) behind the scenes to confirm “exactly one choice per race.”
• Encryption & OTS Timestamp:
  • Encrypt the ballot under the election’s public (threshold) key or produce a format suitable for a mix-net.
  • Obtain an OpenTimestamps proof for the ballot’s hash.
• Publish Ballot:
  • Sign the entire “timestamped ballot” with the ephemeral key.
  • Include the EA’s blind signature on (\npub_e).
  • Post to the Nostr relays (or any chosen decentralized channel).
• Re-Voting:
  • If the user needs to change their vote, the client repeats the encryption + OTS step, publishes a new ballot with a strictly later OTS anchor.
• Verification:
  • After the election, the voter can check that their final ballot is present in the tally set.

3.2 Local Storage / Security

• The app must securely store:
• Ephemeral private key ((nsec_e)) until voting is complete.
• Potential backup/recovery mechanism if the phone is lost.
• Blind signature from the EA on (\npub_e).
• Potentially uses hardware security modules (HSM) or secure enclaves on the device.

---

4. Nostr Relays (or Equivalent Decentralized Layer)

• Purpose: Store and replicate voter-submitted ballots (events).
• Key Properties:
• Redundancy: Voters can post to multiple relays to mitigate censorship or downtime.
• Public Accessibility: Auditors, the EA, and the public can fetch all events to verify or tally.
• Event Filtering: By design, watchers can filter events with certain tags, e.g. “election: 2025 County Race,” ensuring they gather all ballots.

---

5. Threshold Cryptography Setup

5.1 Multi-Seg (Multi-Party) Key Generation

• Participants: Possibly the EA + major candidates + accredited observers.
• Process: A Distributed Key Generation (DKG) protocol that yields a single public encryption key.
• Private Key Shares: Each trustee holds a piece of the decryption key; no single party can decrypt alone.

5.2 Decryption / Tally Mechanism

• Homomorphic Approach:
• Ballots are additively encrypted.
• Summation of ciphertexts is done publicly.
• Trustees provide partial decryptions for the final sum.
• Mix-Net Approach:
• Ballots are collected.
• Multiple servers shuffle and re-encrypt them (each trustee verifies correctness).
• Final set is decrypted, but the link to each ephemeral key is lost.

5.3 Trustee Interfaces

• Separate or integrated into the auditor interface—each trustee logs in and provides their partial key share for decrypting the final result.
• Possibly combined with ZK proofs to confirm correct partial decryption or shuffling.

---

6. OpenTimestamps (OTS) or External Time Anchor

6.1 Aggregator Service

• Purpose: Receives a hash from the voter’s app, anchors it into a blockchain or alternative time-stamping system.
• Result: Returns a proof object that can later be used by any auditor to confirm the time/block height at which the hash was included.

6.2 Verifier Interface

• Could be part of the auditor tool or the voter client.
• Checks that each ballot’s OTS proof is valid and references a block/time prior to the election’s closing.

---

7. Registration Process (In-Person or Hybrid)

1. Voter presents ID physically at a polling station or a designated office (or an online KYC approach, if legally allowed).
2. EA official:
3. Confirms identity.
4. Links the voter to a “voter record” (Voter #12345).
5. Authorizes them for “1 ephemeral key blind-sign.”
6. Voter obtains or logs into the voter client:
7. The app or website might show “You are now cleared to request a blind signature from the EA.”
8. Voter later (or immediately) generates the ephemeral key and requests the blind signature.

---

8. Putting It All Together (High-Level Flow)

1. Key Setup
2. The EA + trustees run a DKG to produce the election public key.
3. Voter Registration
4. Voter is validated (ID check).
5. Marked as eligible in the EA database.
6. Blind-Signed Ephemeral Key
7. Voter’s client generates a key, blinds (\npub_e), obtains EA’s signature, unblinds.
8. Voting
9. Voter composes ballot, encrypts with the election public key.
10. Gets OTS proof for the ballot hash.
11. Voter’s ephemeral key signs the entire package (including EA’s signature on (\npub_e)).
12. Publishes to Nostr.
13. Re-Voting (Optional)
14. Same ephemeral key, new OTS timestamp.
15. Final ballot is whichever has the latest valid timestamp before closing.
16. Close of Election & Tally
17. EA announces closing.
18. Tally software (admin + auditors) collects ballots from Nostr, discards invalid duplicates.
19. Threshold decryption or mix-net to reveal final counts.
20. Publish final results and let auditors verify everything.

---

9. Summary of Major Components

Below is a succinct list:

1. EA Admin Platform
2. Web UI for officials (registration, blind signature issuing, final tally management).
3. Backend DB for voter records & authorized ephemeral keys.
4. Auditor/Trustee Platforms
5. Web interface for verifying ballots, partial decryption, and final results.
6. Voter Application (Mobile / Web)
7. Generating ephemeral keys, getting blind-signed, casting encrypted ballots, re-voting, verifying included ballots.
8. Nostr Relays (Decentralized Storage)
9. Where ballots (events) are published, replicated, and fetched for final tally.
10. Threshold Cryptography System
11. Multi-party DKG for the election key.
12. Protocols or services for partial decryption, mix-net, or homomorphic summation.
13. OpenTimestamps Aggregator
14. Service that returns a blockchain-anchored timestamp proof for each ballot’s hash.

Additional Implementation Considerations

• Security Hardening:
• Using hardware security modules (HSM) for the EA’s blind-signing key, for trustee shares, etc.
• Scalability:
• Handling large numbers of concurrent voters, large data flows to relays.
• User Experience:
• Minimizing cryptographic complexity for non-technical voters.
• Legal and Procedural:
• Compliance with local laws for in-person ID checks, mandatory paper backups (if any), etc.

---

Final Note

While each functional block can be designed and deployed independently (e.g., multiple aggregator services, multiple relays, separate tally servers), the key to a successful system is interoperability and careful orchestration of these components—ensuring strong security, a straightforward voter experience, and transparent auditing.

nostr:naddr1qqxnzde5xq6nzv348yunvv35qy28wue69uhnzv3h9cczuvpwxyargwpk8yhsygxpax4n544z4dk2f04lgn4xfvha5s9vvvg73p46s66x2gtfedttgvpsgqqqw4rs0rcnsu

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

The top three ~econ posts, by zaprank, in April were

Pleb Economist #6: Analysis of Trump's Reciprocal Tariff Calculations by @SimpleStacker

Remember those goofy tariff and non-tariff barrier numbers? SimpleStacker walks us through the assumptions and formulas that they were derived from. There's a good discussion around how much sense those assumptions make and where they came from.

Twenty One Capital: You Can Just Do Things (Bloomberg, Matt Levine) by @denlillaapan

A commentary on a commentary on the 21 Capital bitcoin strategy. Why are investors willing to pay several multiples of bitcoin's current purchase price to get exposure to it in this form? Let @denlillaapan know in the comments.

The WSJ (kinda) covers the Mar-a-Lago Accords plus Miran's Incredible Speech by @028559d218

Analysis of Steve Miran's speech about "Global Public Goods". Will the rest of the world tell America to "go F itself", as the author repeatedly suggests? Eventually, no doubt they/we will.

---

Thanks to our great authors and generous zappers!

The top post will be entered into the quarterly top post contest, which we'll hold in July.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/969806

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

The first round is not quite over, with Warriors vs Rockets and Nuggets vs Clippers, still going in the West, But we do know most of who will be playing in the second round, so it's not too early to start thinking about our picks.

This contest is open entry throughout. Just submit a pick for who will win their series and who will be the leading scorer of the entire playoff round. You can select a team or player, up until tipoff of their series.

Matchups (seed)

• Pacers (4) @ Cavs (1)
• Knicks (3) @ Celtics (2)
• Nuggets (4) or Clippers (5) @ Thunder (1)
• T-Wolves (6) @ Rockets (2) or Warriors (7) @ T-Wolves (6)

Scoring

2 Points + seed for picking a winner + 2 points for picking the leading scorer (total points) of the round

Standings

These will change if the Clippers or Warriors advance. Also, if Jokic scores 37 or more, he will catch Brunson (who no one selected) and net a few stackers another point. | Stacker | Points | |---------|--------| | @grayruby | 24| | @Coinsreporter | 19 | | @Carresan | 18 | | @gnilma | 18 | | @Undisciplined | 17 | | @WeAreAllSatoshi | 12 | | @fishious | 11 | | @BlokchainB | 11 | | @Car | 1 |

Prize

10k sats (or total zaps on these posts, whichever is larger)

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/969492

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

1. Introduction

Modern election systems must balance privacy (no one sees how individuals vote) with public verifiability (everyone can confirm the correctness of the tally). Achieving this in a decentralized, tamper-resistant manner remains a challenge. Nostr (a lightweight protocol for censorship-resistant communication) offers a promising platform for distributing and archiving election data (ballots) without relying on a single central server.

This paper presents a design where:

1. Each voter generates a new ephemeral Nostr keypair for an election.
2. The election authority (EA) blind-signs this ephemeral public key (npub) to prove the voter is authorized, without revealing which voter owns which ephemeral key.
3. Voters cast encrypted ballots to Nostr relays, each carrying an OpenTimestamps proof to confirm the ballot’s time anchor.
4. Re-voting is allowed: a voter can replace a previously cast ballot by publishing a new ballot with a newer timestamp.
5. Only the latest valid ballot (per ephemeral key) is counted.

We combine well-known cryptographic primitives—blind signatures, homomorphic or mix-net encryption, threshold key management, and time anchoring—into an end-to-end system that preserves anonymity, assures correctness, and prevents double-voting.

---

2. Roles and Components

2.1 Voters

• Long-Term (“KYC-bound”) Key: Each voter has some identity-verified Nostr public key used only for official communication with the EA (not for voting).
• Ephemeral Voting Key: For each election, the voter locally generates a new Nostr keypair ((nsec_e, npub_e)).
• This is the “one-time” identity used to sign ballots.
• The EA never learns the real identity behind (\npub_e) because of blinding.

2.2 Election Authority (EA)

• Maintains the official voter registry: who is entitled to vote.
• Blind-Signs each valid voter’s ephemeral public key to authorize exactly one ephemeral key per voter.
• Publishes a minimal voter roll: e.g., “Voter #12345 has been issued a valid ephemeral key,” without revealing which ephemeral key.

2.3 Nostr Relays

• Decentralized servers that store and forward events.
• Voters post their ballots to relays, which replicate them.
• No single relay is critical; the same ballot can be posted to multiple relays for redundancy.

2.4 Cryptographic Framework

1. Blind Signatures: The EA signs a blinded version of (\npub_e).
2. Homomorphic or Mix-Net Encryption: Ensures the content of each ballot remains private; only aggregate results or a shuffled set are ever decrypted.
3. Threshold / General Access Structure: Multiple trustees (EA plus candidate representatives, for example) must collaborate to produce a final decryption.
4. OpenTimestamps (OTS): Attaches a verifiable timestamp proof to each ballot, anchoring it to a blockchain or other tamper-resistant time reference.

---

3. Protocol Lifecycle

This section walks through voter registration, ephemeral key authorization, casting (and re-casting) ballots, and finally the tally.

3.1 Registration & Minimal Voter Roll

1. Legal/KYC Verification
2. Each real-world voter proves their identity to the EA (per legal procedures).

3. The EA records that the voter is eligible to cast one ballot, referencing their long-term identity key ((\npub_{\mathrm{KYC}})).

4. Issue Authorization “Slot”

5. The EA’s voter roll notes “this person can receive exactly one blind signature for an ephemeral key.”
6. The roll does not store an ephemeral key—just notes that it can be requested.

3.2 Generating and Blinding the Ephemeral Key

1. Voter Creates Ephemeral Key
2. Locally, the voter’s client generates a fresh ((nsec_e, npub_e)).
3. Blinding

4. The client blinds (\npub_e) to produce (\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}). This ensures the EA cannot learn the real (\npub_e).

5. Blind Signature Request

6. The voter, using their KYC-bound key ((\npub_{\mathrm{KYC}})), sends (\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}) to the EA (perhaps via a secure direct message or a “giftwrapped DM”).
7. The EA checks that this voter has not already been issued a blind signature.

8. If authorized, the EA signs (\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}) with its private key and returns the blinded signature.

9. Unblinding

10. The voter’s client unblinds the signature, obtaining a valid signature on (\npub_e).

11. Now (\npub_e) is a blinded ephemeral public key that the EA has effectively “authorized,” without knowing which voter it belongs to.

12. Roll Update

13. The EA updates its minimal roll to note that “Voter #12345 received a signature,” but does not publish (\npub_e).

3.3 Casting an Encrypted Ballot with OpenTimestamps

When the voter is ready to vote:

1. Compose Encrypted Ballot
2. The ballot can be homomorphically encrypted (e.g., with Paillier or ElGamal) or structured for a mix-net.

3. Optionally include Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) showing the ballot is valid (one candidate per race, etc.).

4. Obtain OTS Timestamp

5. The voter’s client computes a hash (H) of the ballot data (ciphertext + ZKPs).
6. The client sends (H) to an OpenTimestamps aggregator.

7. The aggregator returns a timestamp proof verifying that “this hash was seen at or before block/time (T).”

8. Create a “Timestamped Ballot” Payload

9. Combine:

   1. Encrypted ballot data.
   2. OTS proof for the hash of the ballot.
   3. EA’s signature on (\npub_e) (the blind-signed ephemeral key).
   4. A final signature by the voter’s ephemeral key ((nsec_e)) over the entire package.

10. Publish to Nostr

11. The voter posts the complete “timestamped ballot” event to one or more relays.
12. Observers see “an event from ephemeral key (\npub_e), with an OTS proof and the EA’s blind signature,” but cannot identify the real voter or see the vote’s contents.

3.4 Re-Voting (Updating the Ballot)

If the voter wishes to revise their vote (due to coercion, a mistake, or simply a change of mind):

1. Generate a New Encrypted Ballot
2. Possibly with different candidate choices.
3. Obtain a New OTS Proof
4. The new ballot has a fresh hash (H').
5. The OTS aggregator provides a new proof anchored at a later block/time than the old one.
6. Publish the Updated Ballot
7. Again, sign with (\npub_e).
8. Relays store both ballots, but the newer OTS timestamp shows which ballot is “final.”

Rule: The final vote for ephemeral key (\npub_e) is determined by the ballot with the highest valid OTS proof prior to the election’s closing.

3.5 Election Closing & Tally

1. Close Signal
2. At a specified time or block height, the EA publishes a “closing token.”

3. Any ballot with an OTS anchor referencing a time/block after the closing is invalid.

4. Collect Final Ballots

5. Observers (or official tally software) gather the latest valid ballot from each ephemeral key.

6. They confirm the OTS proofs are valid and that no ephemeral key posted two different ballots with the same timestamp.

7. Decryption / Summation

8. If homomorphic, the system sums the encrypted votes and uses a threshold of trustees to decrypt the aggregate.
9. If a mix-net, the ballots are shuffled and partially decrypted, also requiring multiple trustees.

10. In either case, individual votes remain hidden, but the final counts are revealed.

11. Public Audit

12. Anyone can fetch all ballots from the Nostr relays, verify OTS proofs, check the EA’s blind signature, and confirm no ephemeral key was used twice.
13. The final totals can be recomputed from the publicly available data.

---

4. Ensuring One Vote Per Voter & No Invalid Voters

1. One Blind Signature per Registered Voter
2. The EA’s internal list ensures each real voter only obtains one ephemeral key signature.
3. Blind Signature
4. Ensures an unauthorized ephemeral key cannot pass validation (forging the EA’s signature is cryptographically infeasible).
5. Public Ledger of Ballots
6. Because each ballot references an EA-signed key, any ballot with a fake or duplicate signature is easily spotted.

---

5. Security and Privacy Analysis

1. Voter Anonymity
2. The EA never sees the unblinded ephemeral key. It cannot link (\npub_e) to a specific person.

3. Observers only see “some ephemeral key posted a ballot,” not the real identity of the voter.

4. Ballot Secrecy

5. Homomorphic Encryption or Mix-Net: no one can decrypt an individual ballot; only aggregated or shuffled results are revealed.

6. The ephemeral key used for signing does not decrypt the ballot—the election’s threshold key does, after the election.

7. Verifiable Timestamping

8. OpenTimestamps ensures each ballot’s time anchor cannot be forged or backdated.

9. Re-voting is transparent: a later OTS proof overrides earlier ones from the same ephemeral key.

10. Preventing Double Voting

11. Each ephemeral key is unique and authorized once.

12. Re-voting by the same key overwrites the old ballot but does not increase the total count.

13. Protection Against Coercion

14. Because the voter can re-cast until the deadline, a coerced vote can be replaced privately.

15. No receipts (individual decryption) are possible—only the final aggregated tally is revealed.

16. Threshold / Multi-Party Control

17. Multiple trustees must collaborate to decrypt final results, preventing a single entity from tampering or prematurely viewing partial tallies.

---

6. Implementation Considerations

1. Blind Signature Techniques
2. Commonly implemented with RSA-based Chaumian blind signatures or BLS-based schemes.

3. Must ensure no link between (\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}) and (\npub_e).

4. OpenTimestamps Scalability

5. If millions of voters are posting ballots simultaneously, multiple timestamp aggregators or batch anchoring might be needed.

6. Verification logic on the client side or by public auditors must confirm each OTS proof’s integrity.

7. Relay Coordination

8. The system must ensure no single relay can censor ballots. Voters may publish to multiple relays.

9. Tally fetchers cross-verify events from different relays.

10. Ease of Use

11. The user interface must hide the complexity of ephemeral key generation, blind signing, and OTS proof retrieval—making it as simple as possible for non-technical voters.

12. Legal Framework

13. If law requires publicly listing which voters have cast a ballot, you might track “Voter #12345 used their ephemeral key” without revealing the ephemeral key. Or you omit that if secrecy about who voted is desired.

14. Closing Time Edge Cases

15. The system uses a block/time anchor from OTS. Slight unpredictability in block generation might require a small buffer around the official close. This is a policy choice.

---

7. Conclusion

We propose an election system that leverages Nostr for decentralizing ballot publication, blinded ephemeral keys for robust voter anonymity, homomorphic/mix-net encryption for ballot secrecy, threshold cryptography for collaborative final decryption, OpenTimestamps for tamper-proof time anchoring, and re-voting to combat coercion.

Key Advantages:

1. Anonymity: The EA cannot link ballots to specific voters.
2. One Voter, One Credential: Strict enforcement through blind signatures.
3. Verifiable Ordering: OTS ensures each ballot has a unique, provable time anchor.
4. Updatability: Voters can correct or override coerced ballots by posting a newer one before closing.
5. Decentralized Audit: Anyone can fetch ballots from Nostr, verify the EA’s signatures and OTS proofs, and confirm the threshold-decrypted results match the posted ballots.

Such a design shows promise for secure, privacy-preserving digital elections, though real-world deployment will require careful policy, legal, and usability considerations. By combining cryptography with decentralized relays and an external timestamp anchor, the system can uphold both individual privacy and publicly auditable correctness.

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

After exclusively talking about NFL draft and NBA playoffs last week, we have a lot of ground to make up.

The race for second place in the T20k cricket contest is heating up, but @Coinsreporter has a very commanding hold on 1st. I similarly have a stranglehold on last place in the CricZap contest and, not to brag, I just broke @grayruby's impressive mark for worst single month performance.

We're down to the final two survivors in the UEFA Survivor Pool. C'mon @TNStacker, we're all pulling for you.

The US continues to dominate the rest of the world... in our US vs the world contest.

Our MLB fantasy league (courtesy of @NEEDcreations) is a lot of fun, with tons of daily roster moves and movement in the standings. We should also finally have time for @grayruby to rant about how the American League is the suckiest bunch of sucks who ever sucked (where's that from?).

We do have more playoff basketball to cover. The games this week have been spectacular and we have second round series to start talking about. Shoutout to @WeAreAllSatoshi for hosting discussion threads. I'll get some posts up later summarizing how the bracket challenge is going and taking second round picks in the playoff points challenge.

NHL playoffs are also underway and we've barely talked about them, yet. What are the interesting storylines of round 1? How's the bracket challenge going?

And, of course, we'll talk about our favorite Predyx sports markets.

What else do stackers want to talk about?

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/969413

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Here’s a revised timeline of macro-level events from The Mandibles: A Family, 2029–2047 by Lionel Shriver, reimagined in a world where Bitcoin is adopted as a widely accepted form of money, altering the original narrative’s assumptions about currency collapse and economic control. In Shriver’s original story, the failure of Bitcoin is assumed amid the dominance of the bancor and the dollar’s collapse. Here, Bitcoin’s success reshapes the economic and societal trajectory, decentralizing power and challenging state-driven outcomes.

Part One: 2029–2032

• 2029 (Early Year)\ The United States faces economic strain as the dollar weakens against global shifts. However, Bitcoin, having gained traction emerges as a viable alternative. Unlike the original timeline, the bancor—a supranational currency backed by a coalition of nations—struggles to gain footing as Bitcoin’s decentralized adoption grows among individuals and businesses worldwide, undermining both the dollar and the bancor.

• 2029 (Mid-Year: The Great Renunciation)\ Treasury bonds lose value, and the government bans Bitcoin, labeling it a threat to sovereignty (mirroring the original bancor ban). However, a Bitcoin ban proves unenforceable—its decentralized nature thwarts confiscation efforts, unlike gold in the original story. Hyperinflation hits the dollar as the U.S. prints money, but Bitcoin’s fixed supply shields adopters from currency devaluation, creating a dual-economy split: dollar users suffer, while Bitcoin users thrive.

• 2029 (Late Year)\ Dollar-based inflation soars, emptying stores of goods priced in fiat currency. Meanwhile, Bitcoin transactions flourish in underground and online markets, stabilizing trade for those plugged into the bitcoin ecosystem. Traditional supply chains falter, but peer-to-peer Bitcoin networks enable local and international exchange, reducing scarcity for early adopters. The government’s gold confiscation fails to bolster the dollar, as Bitcoin’s rise renders gold less relevant.

• 2030–2031\ Crime spikes in dollar-dependent urban areas, but Bitcoin-friendly regions see less chaos, as digital wallets and smart contracts facilitate secure trade. The U.S. government doubles down on surveillance to crack down on bitcoin use. A cultural divide deepens: centralized authority weakens in Bitcoin-adopting communities, while dollar zones descend into lawlessness.

• 2032\ By this point, Bitcoin is de facto legal tender in parts of the U.S. and globally, especially in tech-savvy or libertarian-leaning regions. The federal government’s grip slips as tax collection in dollars plummets—Bitcoin’s traceability is low, and citizens evade fiat-based levies. Rural and urban Bitcoin hubs emerge, while the dollar economy remains fractured.

Time Jump: 2032–2047

• Over 15 years, Bitcoin solidifies as a global reserve currency, eroding centralized control. The U.S. government adapts, grudgingly integrating bitcoin into policy, though regional autonomy grows as Bitcoin empowers local economies.

Part Two: 2047

• 2047 (Early Year)\ The U.S. is a hybrid state: Bitcoin is legal tender alongside a diminished dollar. Taxes are lower, collected in BTC, reducing federal overreach. Bitcoin’s adoption has decentralized power nationwide. The bancor has faded, unable to compete with Bitcoin’s grassroots momentum.

• 2047 (Mid-Year)\ Travel and trade flow freely in Bitcoin zones, with no restrictive checkpoints. The dollar economy lingers in poorer areas, marked by decay, but Bitcoin’s dominance lifts overall prosperity, as its deflationary nature incentivizes saving and investment over consumption. Global supply chains rebound, powered by bitcoin enabled efficiency.

• 2047 (Late Year)\ The U.S. is a patchwork of semi-autonomous zones, united by Bitcoin’s universal acceptance rather than federal control. Resource scarcity persists due to past disruptions, but economic stability is higher than in Shriver’s original dystopia—Bitcoin’s success prevents the authoritarian slide, fostering a freer, if imperfect, society.

Key Differences

• Currency Dynamics: Bitcoin’s triumph prevents the bancor’s dominance and mitigates hyperinflation’s worst effects, offering a lifeline outside state control.
• Government Power: Centralized authority weakens as Bitcoin evades bans and taxation, shifting power to individuals and communities.
• Societal Outcome: Instead of a surveillance state, 2047 sees a decentralized, bitcoin driven world—less oppressive, though still stratified between Bitcoin haves and have-nots.

This reimagining assumes Bitcoin overcomes Shriver’s implied skepticism to become a robust, adopted currency by 2029, fundamentally altering the novel’s bleak trajectory.

@ 3ffac3a6:2d656657

Renoters: Proposal for Anonymous Event Relaying in Nostr

This document is a proposal and not an official NIP.

This Document proposes "Renoters," a mechanism for anonymous event relaying in Nostr, inspired by the Mixminion remailer design. Renoters aim to enhance privacy by obscuring the origin of events, making it difficult to trace the author of a message.

Motivation

While Nostr offers a decentralized platform, current relay mechanisms can potentially reveal the source of events. Renoters address this by introducing an onion-routing-like system where events are encrypted and relayed through a series of nodes, making it harder to link the event to its originator. This enhances privacy for users who wish to communicate anonymously or protect their identity.

In some totalitarian regimes, the use of Tor and VPNs is criminalized, making online anonymity dangerous. Even in some democratic countries, merely downloading Tor can mark individuals as suspects. This underscores the need for a decentralized and anonymous communication system that operates independently of commonly surveilled privacy tools.

Proposed Solution

Renoters operate on the principle of "gift-wrapping" events, using asymmetric encryption. A user wishing to send an event anonymously performs the following steps:

1. Event Creation: The user creates the Nostr event they wish to publish.
2. Renoter Path Selection: The user selects a path of Renoters through which the event will be relayed. This path can be pre-configured or dynamically chosen.
3. Gift Wrapping (Encryption and Signing): The user encrypts and signs the event for each Renoter in the path, working in reverse order:
4. A new random Nostr private key (sk_wrapper) is generated.
5. The event (or the previously wrapped event) is encrypted using the next Renoter's Npub (npub_next) using Nostr's standard encryption mechanism (e.g., using shared secrets derived from the private key and the recipient's public key).
6. A new Nostr event is created. This "wrapper" event's content contains the ciphertext. The wrapper event is signed using the newly generated private key sk_wrapper. The wrapper event also includes the next hop's npub_next (or the final destination if it's the last renoter) in cleartext, to allow for routing.
7. Publication: The user publishes the first gift-wrapped event (the one encrypted for the last Renoter in the path). This event is sent to a regular Nostr relay, which then forwards it to the first Renoter in the path.
8. Renoter Relaying: Each Renoter in the path receives the gift-wrapped event, verifies the signature using the sk_wrapper's corresponding public key, decrypts it using its own private key, and forwards the decrypted event (now wrapped for the next Renoter) to the next Renoter in the path. This process continues until the event reaches the final Renoter.
9. Final Delivery: The final Renoter decrypts the event and publishes it to the Nostr network.

Example

Let's say Alice wants to send an event anonymously through Renoters R1, R2, and R3.

1. Alice creates her event.
2. She generates a random private key sk3 and encrypts the event with R3's public key npub_r3.
3. She creates a wrapper event containing the ciphertext and npub_r3, signed with sk3.
4. She generates a random private key sk2 and encrypts the previous wrapper event with R2's public key npub_r2.
5. She creates a wrapper event containing this ciphertext and npub_r2, signed with sk2.
6. She generates a random private key sk1 and encrypts the previous wrapper event with R1's public key npub_r1.
7. She creates a final wrapper event containing this ciphertext and npub_r1, signed with sk1.
8. Alice publishes this final wrapper event.

R1 decrypts with its private key, verifies the signature with the public key corresponding to sk1, and forwards to R2. R2 decrypts, verifies the signature with the public key corresponding to sk2, and forwards to R3. R3 decrypts, verifies the signature with the public key corresponding to sk3, and publishes the original event.

Renoter Incentives (using Cashu)

To incentivize Renoters to participate in the network, this NIP proposes integrating Cashu tokens as a payment mechanism.

• Token Inclusion: When a user creates the initial gift-wrapped event (the one sent to the first Renoter), they include a Cashu token within the event content. This token is itself encrypted and wrapped along with the original message, so only the receiving Renoter can access it.
• Renoter Redemption: Upon receiving a gift-wrapped event, the Renoter decrypts it. If the event contains a Cashu token, the Renoter can decrypt the token and redeem it.
• Renoter Behavior: Paid Renoters would be configured not to relay events that do not contain a valid Cashu token. This ensures that Renoters are compensated for their service. Free Renoters could still exist, but paid Renoters would likely offer faster or more reliable service.
• Token Value and Tiers: Different Cashu token denominations could represent different levels of service (e.g., faster relaying, higher priority). This could create a tiered system where users can pay for better anonymity or speed.
• Token Generation: Users would need a way to acquire Cashu tokens. This could involve purchasing them from a Cashu mint or earning them through other means.

Security Threats and Mitigations

• Anonymity Against Correlation Attacks: Even when using Tor, traffic patterns can still be analyzed to infer the origin of events. To mitigate this risk, Renoters can introduce:

• Random delays in event relaying.

• Dummy packets to complicate statistical analysis by malicious observers.

• Replay Attacks: To mitigate replay attacks, each Renoter must store, for a reasonable period, the IDs of received events and the decrypted events that were forwarded. This ensures that duplicate messages are not processed again.

• Sybil Attacks: Sybil attacks can be mitigated by requiring payments via Cashu tokens for relaying events, increasing the cost of launching such attacks. By ensuring that each relay operation has a monetary cost, attackers are discouraged from creating large numbers of fake identities to manipulate the network.

• Traffic Analysis: Traffic analysis can be mitigated by using Tor for Renoters. Routing events through the Tor network adds an additional layer of anonymity, making it more difficult to track message origins or infer sender-recipient relationships. While Renoters enhance privacy, sophisticated traffic analysis might still be a threat.

Operational Considerations

• Renoter Reliability: The reliability of the Renoter network is crucial.
• Latency: Relaying through multiple Renoters will introduce latency.
• Key Management: While each layer uses a new key, the initial key generation and path selection process need to be secure.

This NIP provides a robust framework for anonymous event relaying in Nostr, leveraging encryption and Cashu-based incentives to enhance privacy and usability.

References

• Untraceable Electronic Mail, Return Addresses, and Digital Pseudonyms: David L. Chaum (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/358549.358563)

• Mixminion Design: Mixminion: Design of a Type III Anonymous Remailer (https://www.mixminion.net/minion-design.pdf)

• Nostr Protocol: Official Nostr Documentation (https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nostr)
• Cashu Token System: Cashu: Ecash for Bitcoin Lightning (https://cashu.space/)
• Tor Project: The Tor Project - Anonymity Online (https://www.torproject.org/)
• Onion Routing: The Second-Generation Onion Router (https://svn.torproject.org/svn/projects/design-paper/tor-design.pdf)

Privacy #Nostr #Anonymity #Crypto #CensorshipResistance #OnlinePrivacy #Decentralization #Encryption #Security #ThreatMitigation #Micropayments #CryptoEconomy #NextSteps #Development

@ 1d7ff02a:d042b5be

ผมได้ติดตามการแบนการซื้อขายแบบ P2P ของ Binance ในประเทศไทยมาระยะหนึ่งแล้ว จากสถานการณ์ดังกล่าว เห็นได้อย่างชัดเจนว่ารัฐบาลกำลังเริ่มโจมตี Bitcoin ก่อนที่เราจะบรรลุถึง Bitcoin Standard เราจำเป็นต้องมีความเป็นส่วนตัวและอิสระทางการเงิน ซึ่งการซื้อขายแบบ P2P มีความสำคัญมากในการบรรลุเป้าหมายนี้

ความสำคัญของ No-KYC P2P

No-KYC P2P คือหัวใจสำคัญ - เราจำเป็นต้องมีแพลตฟอร์มที่เป็นทางรอด เราไม่สามารถเชื่อใจแพลตฟอร์มแบบรวมศูนย์ได้เนื่องจากสาเหตุสองประการ: 1. ความเสี่ยงจากการถูกโกงโดยแพลตฟอร์มเอง (rug pull) 2. การถูกควบคุมจากภาครัฐ

แพลตฟอร์ม No-KYC P2P ที่แนะนำ

ผมอยากเสนอให้นักพัฒนาและชุมชน Bitcoin ไทย พิจารณาการศึกษาและพัฒนาแพลตฟอร์ม No-KYC P2P ปัจจุบันมีหลายทางเลือกที่มีอยู่แล้ว เช่น:

• Bisq
• RoboSats
• Mostro
• HodlHodl
• Lnp2pbot

เหตุผลที่แนะนำ Lnp2pbot

ผมขอแนะนำให้นำใช้หรือพัฒนาต่อจาก Lnp2pbot เนื่องจากข้อดีหลายประการ:

1. ประสบการณ์ผู้ใช้ (UX) ที่ดีกว่า - เมื่อเทียบกับแพลตฟอร์มอื่นๆ
2. ใช้ Telegram เป็นพื้นฐาน - มีระบบ Escrow (บุคคลที่สามที่ถือเงินระหว่างการทำธุรกรรม) ซึ่งเพิ่มความมั่นใจและลดโอกาสการถูกโกง
3. ลดการรวมศูนย์ - ไม่จำเป็นต้องพัฒนาแอปและส่งขึ้นสโตร์ ซึ่งจะทำให้นักพัฒนาต้องเปิดเผยตัวตนและกลายเป็นจุดอ่อนให้รัฐบาลควบคุม
4. สร้างชุมชนได้ง่าย - ทุกคนสามารถสร้างกลุ่มหรือชุมชนเพื่อการซื้อขายได้ ทำให้ตลาดพัฒนากลุ่มที่น่าเชื่อถือตามกลไกตลาดเสรี
5. ใช้งานจริงในหลายประเทศแล้ว - ปัจจุบันมีหลายประเทศที่นำ Lnp2pbot ไปใช้งานจริงแล้ว แสดงให้เห็นถึงความเสถียรและความเชื่อถือได้ของระบบ

บทบาทของนักพัฒนาไทย

Lnp2pbot อาจยังมีข้อจำกัดด้าน UX โดยเฉพาะสำหรับผู้ใช้ท้องถิ่น นักพัฒนาไทยสามารถนำเอาซอฟต์แวร์มาพัฒนาต่อและดำเนินการเองได้ เนื่องจากเป็นโอเพนซอร์สอยู่แล้ว

สิ่งสำคัญที่สุดคือการรักษาให้ซอฟต์แวร์เป็นโอเพนซอร์สและให้ทุกคนสามารถนำไปใช้หรือทำให้มันทำงานได้ด้วยตนเอง วิธีการนี้จะหลีกเลี่ยงการมีจุดรวมศูนย์ที่รัฐบาลสามารถโจมตีได้

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

"Malcolm Forbes recounts that a lady, wearing a faded cotton dress, and her husband, dressed in an old handmade suit, stepped off a train in Boston, USA, and timidly made their way to the office of the president of Harvard University. They had come from Palo Alto, California, and had not scheduled an appointment. The secretary, at a glance, thought that those two, looking like country bumpkins, had no business at Harvard.
— We want to speak with the president — the man said in a low voice.
— He will be busy all day — the secretary replied curtly.
— We will wait.
The secretary ignored them for hours, hoping the couple would finally give up and leave. But they stayed there, and the secretary, somewhat frustrated, decided to bother the president, although she hated doing that.
— If you speak with them for just a few minutes, maybe they will decide to go away — she said.
The president sighed in irritation but agreed. Someone of his importance did not have time to meet people like that, but he hated faded dresses and tattered suits in his office. With a stern face, he went to the couple.
— We had a son who studied at Harvard for a year — the woman said. — He loved Harvard and was very happy here, but a year ago he died in an accident, and we would like to erect a monument in his honor somewhere on campus.

— My lady — said the president rudely —, we cannot erect a statue for every person who studied at Harvard and died; if we did, this place would look like a cemetery.

— Oh, no — the lady quickly replied. — We do not want to erect a statue. We would like to donate a building to Harvard.

The president looked at the woman's faded dress and her husband's old suit and exclaimed:

— A building! Do you have even the faintest idea of how much a building costs? We have more than seven and a half million dollars' worth of buildings here at Harvard.

The lady was silent for a moment, then said to her husband:

— If that’s all it costs to found a university, why don’t we have our own?

The husband agreed.

The couple, Leland Stanford, stood up and left, leaving the president confused. Traveling back to Palo Alto, California, they established there Stanford University, the second-largest in the world, in honor of their son, a former Harvard student."

Text extracted from: "Mileumlivros - Stories that Teach Values."

Thank you for reading, my friend! If this message helped you in any way, consider leaving your glass “🥃” as a token of appreciation.

A toast to our family!

@ 20986fb8:cdac21b3

传统黑客松：闪耀火花中的局限

过去几十年里，黑客松一直是技术文化的培养皿——24小时或48小时的狂热编程马拉松，在披萨、咖啡因和几近不可能的乐观情绪中推进。

自1999年Sun Microsystems首次举办黑客松，要求Java开发者在Palm V掌上电脑上完成一日编程，到创业公司和大学里通宵达旦的“黑客日”[1]，这些活动始终在庆祝黑客精神。它们为我们带来了Facebook的“点赞”按钮和聊天功能——这些标志性的创新[1]，皆诞生于一夜之间的即兴狂想。

它们也催生了如GroupMe这样的公司——这个应用仅用了几个深夜时段就完成开发，一年后就被Skype以8000万美元收购[2]。

黑客松逐渐成为技术界的传说，成为“无拘束创造力”的代名词。然而，尽管充满激情和炒作，传统黑客松却存在着严重的局限：它们是偶发、线下的活动——更像是“蓝月亮”才出现一次的肾上腺素爆发，而不是一种可持续的创新流程。

一次黑客松也许能在周末召集100名程序员共聚一室，但活动结束后便销声匿迹，直到下一年。

频率低、规模小、触达有限。只有能亲临现场的人（往往是硅谷或精英高校）才有机会参与。哪怕你是来自拉各斯或圣保罗的天才黑客，只要身处远方，你的绝妙创意也注定被忽视。

这类冲刺式活动的成果也极为受限。

当然，团队可能构建出炫酷的演示项目，并赢得一时风头。但大多数情况下，这些项目只是一次性原型——“玩具”应用，最终并未发展为真正的产品或公司。有研究表明，只有约5%的黑客松项目在活动结束几个月后还有任何生命迹象[3]。

其余95%则如烟云般消散——在“黑客松宿醉”中夭折：人们回到“正职”，而演示代码也蒙尘。

批评者甚至给黑客松取了个贬义的别名：“周末虚耗松”（weekend wastedathons），抨击其成果如同短命的“蒸汽软件”（vaporware）[3]。

想想看：一阵创造力的爆发，数十个点子竞相绽放……然后呢？

你能说出几个真正从黑客松走出的成功企业名字？对于每一个如Carousell或EasyTaxi那样从黑客松中诞生、后来成功融资数千万美元的项目，就有几百个聪明的创意组合永远不见天日[2]。

传统黑客松模式，尽管令人兴奋，却极少能转化为持续的创新。

它更像是被时间、地域和后续缺失所束缚的孤岛式创新。黑客松是事件，不是流程；它是烟花，不是日出。

此外，黑客松在历史上一直颇为封闭。

直到近年，它们主要由技术圈内人士自办自娱。大型科技公司会举办内部黑客松，以激发员工创造力（Facebook每几周举办一次通宵活动，最终诞生了时间线和标记功能，影响了十亿用户 [1]）；NASA和世界银行也曾尝试用黑客松推进公民科技。但这些都是例外，印证了一个普遍规律：黑客松从来不是常规工作流程，而是特例事件。

在科技巨头之外，鲜有组织具备资源或经验能频繁举办黑客松。

除非你是Google、Microsoft，或资金雄厚的创业孵化器，否则黑客松只是一场偶尔奢侈的尝试。事实上，当今世界上最大的黑客松是微软的内部全球黑客松——有多达70,000名员工跨越75个国家同时参与，这是壮观的成就，但唯有企业巨头才能负担得起[4]。

而中小型玩家只能仰望、惊叹。

限制显而易见：黑客松太少见、太封闭，无法真正激活全球人才库；周期太短，难以构建成熟产品；过于孤立，无法真正撼动行业。

没错，它们确实产生过惊艳的灵感时刻——创新的闪光灯。

但若视其为持续进步的机制，传统黑客松则显得捉襟见肘。作为投资者或科技领袖，你或许会为创造力鼓掌，但仍会追问：真正的长期影响在哪里？有谁搭建了把这些火花转化为持续光束的基础设施？

正如克莱顿·克里斯滕森的《创新者的窘境》所言，传统巨头往往将黑客松项目视作“玩具”——有趣但不切实际。

而事实上，“每一个未来的大事物，起初总是被当作玩具”。黑客松的确催生了不少“玩具”，却极少能拥有支持系统去把它们变为下一个伟大的事物。

这个模式，是时候被重新发明了。

为何到了2020年代，我们还在用1990年代的创新方式？为何将突破性的想法限制在一个周末或一个地点？为何允许95%的早期创新无声凋谢？

这些问题，悬而未解，等待着回答。

Hackathons 2.0 ——DoraHacks与黑客松的第一次进化（2020–2024）

DoraHacks登场。

在2020年代初，DoraHacks如同一台“心脏除颤器”，令黑客松这种形式重获新生。DoraHacks 1.0（大致始于2020年、延续至2024年）并非对黑客松的微调，而是对其彻底的重塑：将传统黑客松从1.0升级到2.0。它汲取原有理念，加速、扩展并升级至全维度，全方位放大其影响力。结果是一场全球黑客运动的兴起，一个将黑客松从“一锤子买卖”变为持续技术创新引擎的平台。

DoraHacks如何革命性地重构黑客松？请看以下几个维度：

从24小时到24天（甚至24周）——时间轴的重构

DoraHacks拉长了黑客松的时间框架，解锁了远超以往的创新潜能。

相比于传统那种紧张焦躁的24小时冲刺，DoraHacks支持的黑客松往往持续数周甚至数月——这是一场范式转变。

团队终于有了足够时间去打磨原型、迭代优化、反复精炼。更长的周期意味着项目能从粗糙演示走向成熟MVP。黑客们终于可以“偶尔睡觉”，引入用户反馈，将灵感的火花铸造成实用的成果。

时间的延展模糊了黑客松与加速器之间的界限，但保留了黑客松自由、开放的精神。例如，DoraHacks为区块链初创团队组织的黑客松通常持续6到8周，最终成果往往能吸引真实用户与投资人。

延长的时间，把“玩具”变成了产品。就像黑客松终于“长大成人”：Less Hack, More BUIDL（少些临时拼凑，多些踏实构建）。打破24小时范式之后，黑客松真正变得更高效、更深远、更具生产力。

从街角咖啡馆到全球虚拟竞技场——地理限制的打破

DoraHacks将黑客松从线下搬到云端，释放出全球参与的可能性。

2020年之前，黑客松意味着必须到现场——可能是旧金山某仓库，或是大学实验室，与本地队友并肩作战。而DoraHacks颠覆了这一格局：任何人、任何地方，只要连上网络，就可以参与。

一位尼日利亚的开发者、乌克兰的设计师、巴西的产品经理，如今可以在同一场线上黑客松中协作创新。地理边界不复存在。

当DoraHacks举办面向非洲区块链开发者的Naija HackAtom时，吸引了来自尼日利亚科技社群的500多名参与者（包括160多位开发者，odaily.news）。在另一场活动中，来自数十个国家的黑客同时在线参与、构思、竞争 [6]。

这种全球性拓展不仅增加了参与人数，更引入了多样的视角和本地问题。一个金融科技黑客松中，可能有拉美开发者解决汇款问题；一个AI黑客松中，亚洲或非洲开发者将机器学习应用于本地医疗。

线上化，让黑客松变得真正普惠。DoraHacks有效地民主化了创新的入场门槛——你只需要一根网线和一颗创作的心。

结果是：创意的数量与质量实现量子飞跃。 黑客松不再是精英小圈子的游戏，而是一场面向全人类的全球创新嘉年华。

从几十人到数万人——规模的跃迁

DoraHacks推动的另一项革命，就是规模的扩展。传统黑客松人少而亲密（几十人，顶多几百）。DoraHacks则催生了成千上万人参与、数百万美元奖金池的大型活动。

例如，在2021年的一场线上黑客松中，近7000名参与者提交了550个项目，争夺500万美元奖金。这是2010年代初期根本无法想象的规模[7]。

DoraHacks本身也成为这些“超级黑客松”的中枢。平台在Web3领域所举办的黑客松常常吸引数百支队伍参赛，奖金高达数百万美元。

这不只是好看的数据，而是更广泛的全球人才投入，也带来了更高概率的真正突破性成果。

以BNB Chain支持的黑客松系列为例，在DoraHacks推动下，有216支开发团队获得了超过1000万美元的资金支持[8]——是的，真金白银的种子投资。这哪是黑客松？简直就是一个小型经济体。

奖池也从“披萨钱”膨胀成“起步资本”，吸引那些有抱负、懂商业的创业者参与。越来越多的项目不再只是周末练习，而是具备融资能力的初创企业。黑客松，也由“科技科学展”升格为“全球创业发射台”。

从玩具项目到真公司（甚至独角兽）——成果的飞跃

最令人振奋的一点是：DoraHacks所孵化的项目，不只是应用，更是真正的公司。其中一些甚至成长为独角兽（估值超过10亿美元的公司）。

我们之前提到过2020年之前为数不多的成功案例，比如Carousell（一个在2012年黑客松上诞生的小点子，如今已成为估值11亿美元的二手市场[2]），或EasyTaxi（始于黑客松，后融资7500万美元、覆盖30个国家[2]）。

DoraHacks让这种奇迹频繁上演。通过更长的周期、更多的支持、更好的资金接力，黑客松逐渐成为真正的“创新孵化器”。

以1inch Network为例——它是一家去中心化金融聚合平台，起初就是在2019年一个黑客松中诞生的。创始人Sergej Kunz和Anton Bukov在社区支持下完成了最初的原型，随后持续迭代。

如今，1inch的累计交易额已超4000亿美元，成为DeFi领域的头部平台之一 [9]。

再看DoraHacks Web3黑客松中的优胜者，许多项目已经完成了数百万美元的融资，获得顶级VC支持。

黑客松成为了“创业世界的前门”，创始人往往在此首次亮相。比如Solana Season Hackathons中的热门项目STEPN —— 一个“边走边赚”应用，于2021年赢得黑客松奖项，不久后就成长为拥有数十亿美元代币经济的现象级产品[10]。

这不是孤立事件，而是DoraHacks设定的系统性趋势。它的黑客松正在源源不断地产出可投、可用、可落地的创业项目。

某种意义上，DoraHacks模糊了黑客松与早期孵化器的界限。玩乐的黑客精神依然在，但结果已不只是炫耀——而是真实存在的公司，有用户，有营收，有估值。

借用投资人Chris Dixon的话说：DoraHacks把那些“玩具”，扶育成了下一个伟大的事物[5]。

DoraHacks不仅优化了旧模式，它创造了一个全新的创新生态

DoraHacks主导的第一次黑客松进化，不只是“修补优化”，而是打造了一个全新的创新系统。

黑客松变得高频、全球化、具决定性影响。

它不再是短暂的周末狂欢，而是持续的创新供给链。

DoraHacks平台每年孵化出上百个可行项目，其中很多都获得后续融资。它不仅提供活动本身，更提供“术后护理”：社区支持、导师指导、连接投资人与资助渠道（如DoraHacks的资助计划和二次方资助机制）。 到2024年，成果不言自明。DoraHacks已成长为全球最重要的黑客松平台——一个贯通区块链、AI乃至更多前沿科技的黑客运动中枢。

数据不会说谎。

9年间，DoraHacks帮助4000多个项目获得超过3000万美元资金（coindesk.com）[11]；到2025年，这一数字飙升，DoraHacks支持的黑客松和资助总计为超过21000个初创团队提供了逾8000万美元资金（linkedin.com）[12]。

这不是夸张宣传——而是写入技术史的事实。CoinDesk评价道：“DoraHacks已成为全球最活跃的多链Web3开发平台与黑客松组织者之一。”（coindesk.com）[13]

主流技术生态纷纷注意到这一趋势。

超过40个公链（包括L1与L2）——从Solana到Polygon再到Avalanche——皆与DoraHacks合作，组织黑客松与开放创新计划（blockworks.co）[13]。

Blockworks 报道称，DoraHacks已成为数十个Web3生态系统的“核心合作伙伴”，帮助他们连接全球开发者资源（blockworks.co）[11]。

在投资人眼中，DoraHacks本身就是关键基础设施：“DoraHacks对Web3基础设施建设至关重要。”一位支持平台的VC如此指出（blockworks.co）[13]。

简而言之：到2024年，DoraHacks已将黑客松从一个小众事件变为全球创新引擎。

它证明：只要规模足够、流程健全，黑客松可以持续地产出真实、可投、可商业化的创新。

它连接开发者与资源，把“孤岛式创新”变成一场全球开发者的常青运动。

这就是Hackathons 2.0：更大、更久、更无界，也远比以往更具颠覆性。

也许你会问：还能比这更好吗？

DoraHacks似乎已经破解了“如何让黑客创造力产生持久影响”的密码。

但这并不是终点。事实上，DoraHacks团队即将揭示的，是一场更加激进的革命。

如果说DoraHacks 1.0是“进化”，那接下来将是一次范式转移的“革命”。

Agentic Hackathon：BUIDL AI与第二次黑客松革命

2024年，DoraHacks推出了BUIDL AI，并由此提出了“Agentic Hackathon（自主智能黑客松）”的概念。

如果说最初的黑客松像是模拟电话，DoraHacks 1.0则使其进化为智能手机，那么BUIDL AI的出现，就像为黑客松安装上了AI副驾驶——进入自动驾驶模式。

这不仅是渐进式的提升，而是一场彻底的第二次革命。

BUIDL AI为黑客松注入了人工智能、自动化与“智能代理”能力（Agentic），根本性地改变了黑客松的组织方式与体验路径。

我们正迈入“自主智能创新时代（Age of Agentic Innovation）”，在这个时代中，借助AI代理运行的黑客松可以以前所未有的频率、高效与智慧展开。

那么，究竟什么是Agentic Hackathon？

它是一种由AI代理全面增强的黑客松，从策划、评审到参与者支持都涵盖在内，使得创新的速度与规模达到前所未有的高度。

在Agentic Hackathon中，AI是那位永不疲倦的共同组织者，与人类并肩工作。 过去那些压垮组织者的繁琐流程，如今交由智能算法完成。你可以想象——黑客松几乎在自动运行，如同一场永不停歇的“点子锦标赛”。

借助BUIDL AI，DoraHacks实现了“自驾黑客松”：自主、高效、全天候运行，且可在多个领域同时并行。 这并非科幻小说，而是正在发生的现实。我们来看BUIDL AI是如何运作的，以及它如何将黑客松效率提升十倍以上：

AI驱动的评审与项目筛选：效率提升10倍以上

大型黑客松中最耗时的环节之一就是评审数百个项目提交。传统做法常常需要组织者耗费数周精力，才能从中筛选出有潜力的项目。

BUIDL AI彻底改变了这一切。

它配备了BUIDL Review模块——一个AI驱动的评审系统，能够从多个维度（项目完整性、创意性、主题契合度等）智能分析项目，并自动剔除质量较低的提交[14]。

就像配备了一支随叫随到的专家评审军团。

效果如何？原本需要几百人小时完成的工作，如今几分钟即可完成。

DoraHacks报告称，AI辅助评审已将组织效率提高超过10倍[14]。

想象一下：一项原本需要一个月枯燥工作完成的任务，如今在几天之内搞定，而且评分更一致、公正、透明。 组织者不再淹没在文书工作中，参与者也能更快获得反馈。

当然，AI并不完全取代人工评委——最终决策仍需专家参与，但AI承担了繁重的初审环节。这也意味着：黑客松可放心接纳更多项目提交，因为AI会帮你完成筛选。

不再因为“人手不足”而限制报名人数。

在Agentic Hackathon中，再也没有优秀项目被埋没的遗憾，因为AI确保它们都能被看到。

自动化市场营销与内容讲述：让每场黑客松都自带扩散力

赢得一场黑客松固然令人激动，但如果无人知晓，影响力也就大打折扣。

过去，黑客松结束后，组织者通常需要手动撰写总结、撰文致谢、更新结果——虽然重要，却常常被推迟。

BUIDL AI改变了这一点。

它配备了自动化营销模块，可一键生成黑客松的总结报告与传播内容[14]。

想象这样一个AI，它完整“观察”了整场黑客松（包括提交项目、获奖名单、技术趋势），然后自动撰写出一份专业报道：突出最佳创意、介绍获胜团队、提炼洞察（比如“本次黑客松中60%的项目应用AI于医疗场景”）。

BUIDL AI正是这么做的：自动生成“高光集锦”与总结报告[14]。

这不仅节省了组织者的写作工作，还极大提升了黑客松的传播力。

活动结束数小时内，一份内容丰富的总结即可全球发布，展示创新成果，吸引关注。

赞助方与合作伙伴对此尤为青睐，因为他们的投资能被迅速宣传；参与者也很喜欢，因为自己的项目立刻获得庆祝与曝光。

本质上，每一场黑客松都在讲述一个故事，而BUIDL AI确保这个故事被迅速、广泛地传播。

这种自动化叙事机制，使得黑客松不再是孤立事件，而是持续内容的源泉，为下一场活动积蓄动能。

这是一个良性循环：黑客松产出创新，AI包装传播，传播吸引更多创新者。

一键发起，多黑客松并行：组织者的自由释放

BUIDL AI最具解放性的功能之一，是一键启动黑客松、支持多场并行管理。

过去，发起一场黑客松本身就是一项大型项目：报名系统、评委协调、奖金设计、沟通流程……一切都需人工配置。

DoraHacks的BUIDL AI引入了“一键发起黑客松”工具 [14] 。

组织者只需输入基本信息（主题、奖池、时间、评审规则），平台即自动生成活动页面、提交入口、评审流程等，就像发一篇博客一样简单。

这极大降低了社区与公司举办黑客松的门槛。

如今，即使是一个初创公司或大学社团，也可以轻松举办全球级黑客松，无需专职活动团队。

此外，BUIDL AI还支持多场黑客松的并行管理[14]。

过去，即使是科技巨头也难以同步组织多场黑客松——资源消耗太大。如今，一个生态系统可以同时运行DeFi、AI、 IoT等主题黑客松，背后由AI自动调度。

自BUIDL AI发布以来，组织12场/年，甚至同时运行数场黑客松，从“不可能”变成常规操作[14]。

平台还自动管理参与者接入、发送提醒、通过聊天机器人回答常见问题，确保流程顺畅。

简而言之，BUIDL AI让黑客松主办方像使用云服务器一样“按需发起”创新活动。

这是一场结构性转变：黑客松不再是“偶尔有空才办”的事件，而是“需要时就能发”的常态流程。 我们正在见证永续黑客松文化的诞生——不再是偶尔的火花，而是持续的火焰，始终燃烧，永不熄灭。

实时AI导师与智能助手：人人皆可成为“Agentic Hacker”

Agentic Hackathon的“智能代理”不仅体现在后台，也贯穿了参与者的体验。

借助AI集成，开发者得到了更智能的工具与支持。

例如，BUIDL AI可以配备AI助手，在活动中实时回答开发者问题（如“这个API怎么用？”、“有没有这个算法的代码示 例？”），就像随叫随到的技术导师。

它还可以推荐协作伙伴、推送参考资料。

本质上，每位参与者都像身边多了一个AI队友——全能、勤奋、永不疲倦。

一些本需数小时调试的bug，借助AI助手几分钟即可解决。

这意味着：项目质量提升，参与者学习效率大幅提高。

正如followin.io所言，这种“agentic协助”体现了“人人皆可成为黑客”的愿景[14]。

AI自动化了大量重复性工作，放大了小团队的能力边界[14]。

在Agentic Hackathon中，两个人加AI助手，就能完成过去五人团队数周才能达成的任务[14]。

这既降低了门槛，也拉高了上限——创新的天花板不再遥不可及。

总结：从黑客松2.0跃迁至3.0，进入智能化持续创新的新时代

所有这些变革，指向同一个事实：黑客松已从偶发的灵感爆发，演化为持续、高频、AI优化的创新流程。

我们正从黑客松2.0走向黑客松3.0——一个自主、常驻、智能的新时代。

这是一场范式转移。

黑客松不再是你参加的一场活动，而是你生活的一个创新环境。

借助BUIDL AI，DoraHacks描绘出这样的世界：“黑客松将进入一个前所未有的自动化与智能化时代，使全球更多黑客、开发者与开源社区能够轻松发起与参与。”

创新将随时随地发生，因为支持它的基础设施正由AI驱动、全天候运转于云端。

黑客松已成为一个智能平台，随时准备将创意转化为现实。

更关键的是，这一切并不局限于区块链。

BUIDL AI是通用平台——无论是AI、气候科技、医疗、教育等领域，都可接入Agentic Hackathon平台，享受更高频、更高效的创新节奏。

这预示着一个未来：黑客松将成为默认的解决问题方式。

公司与社区不再靠封闭的委员会与研发部门推进创新，而是将问题投入黑客松竞技场——一个始终活跃的解决问题引擎。

形象地说：

**DoraHacks 1.0 让黑客松拥有了高速引擎；

DoraHacks 2.0 加上 BUIDL AI，则让它变成一辆自动驾驶的赛车——油门踩到底。**

成本、复杂度、时间的阻碍——都不复存在。

如今，任何组织都能毫无阻力地驶入创新高速公路，从0加速到60。

黑客松频率如博客更新，融入日常运营，如同敏捷开发的冲刺演示。

按需创新，规模扩张——这就是Agentic Hackathon的力量。

随需创新：Agentic Hackathon 如何惠及所有人

Agentic Hackathon（自主智能黑客松）的诞生，并非只是技术社区的一款“新奇玩具”，而是一种变革性的工具，可服务于企业、开发者，乃至整个行业。

我们正步入一个全新时代：任何拥有愿景的人都能将“黑客松即服务”转化为推动创新的引擎。以下是不同参与者如何从这场革命中受益：

AI公司 —— 加速生态成长的发动机

对于专注于人工智能的公司（如 OpenAI、Google、Microsoft、Stability AI 等），黑客松是一座座发掘其技术创意用途的金矿。

如今借助 Agentic Hackathon，这些公司几乎可以为自己的平台持续举办一场“永不落幕”的开发者大会。

比如，OpenAI 可以为 GPT-4 或 DALL·E 启动全年在线的黑客松，鼓励全球开发者持续实验、展示这些AI的应用场景——本质上，以众包方式为AI平台孵化创新与杀手级应用。

收益何在？生态系统和用户基数的指数级扩展。

新的用例往往来自公司内部未曾设想的角落。 （最早展示 GPT-3 能撰写法律合同、生成游戏关卡的，不是大公司，而是独立黑客——他们在黑客松和社区挑战中发现了这些潜力。）

有了 BUIDL AI，AI 公司可以一键启动月度黑客松，每月聚焦不同方向（比如本月自然语言处理，下月机器人控制）。 这是市场营销与产品研发的倍增器。

无需再组织昂贵的开发者布道之旅，AI 将成为全球开发者互动的主力军。产品在推广的同时也在优化。 本质上，每家AI公司都可以开启自己的“黑客松联赛”，推动API或模型的普及与应用。

Coinbase最近首次举办AI主题黑客松，尝试连接加密与AI领域——他们很清楚，要播下新范式的种子，黑客松是最佳路径[15] 。

未来，我们将看到所有AI平台效仿：持续通过黑客松教育开发者、生成内容（演示、教程），并发掘可投资/可招聘的杰出人才。这将是社区建设的超级助推器。

L1/L2与技术平台 —— 发现下一只独角兽

对于区块链的一层/二层网络（Layer1/Layer2），以及任何技术平台（如云服务、VR平台等）来说，黑客松已成为新的“Deal Flow”（项目源）。

在 Web3 世界里，许多顶级项目与协议都诞生于黑客松，这一点早已被广泛认同。

我们看到，1inch 就是始于黑客松，后来成长为 DeFi 独角兽（cointelegraph.com）[9]。

Polygon 积极举办黑客松以寻找其生态的新型dApps；Filecoin 借助黑客松发掘分布式存储应用。

借助 DoraHacks 和 BUIDL AI，这些平台现在可以高频率地组织黑客松，持续输出创新成果。

不再是一年一两次大型活动，而是一个滚动进行的计划——比如每季度一场，甚至同时多地开展全球挑战，保持开发者“常态建设”。

回报率巨大：即使设有可观奖金，黑客松的举办成本也远低于收购一个蓬勃发展的初创公司或协议所需投入。 黑客松本质上是将早期研发外包给充满热情的社区成员，最好的创意自然浮现。

Solana 的黑客松就促成了 Phantom、Solend 等明星项目的落地。Facebook 的内部黑客松也曾带来推动平台主导地位的功能创新[1]。

现在，任何平台都可以将黑客松“外部化”：作为发现人才与创新的“雷达”。借助 BUIDL AI，哪怕一个 L2 区块链的核心团队人手有限，也能并行运行多场黑客松与赏金任务——一场关注 DeFi，一场关注 NFT，一场关注游戏等等。

AI 负责初审项目与管理社区问答，让平台的 DevRel 团队不至于“过劳”。结果是，一条源源不断的创新供给链，不断喂养平台增长。下一个独角兽、下一个杀手级应用，将被提前识别并扶持成长。

黑客松已成为 VC 和技术生态的新型创业漏斗（Startup Funnel）。

未来，投资人将活跃于 Agentic Hackathon 中——因为那里正是“未来车库”的所在：黑客们聚集在云端黑客室中重塑世界。

正如 Paul Graham 所言：“黑客与画家，皆为创造者”，他们将在黑客松平台的画布上，描绘未来科技的蓝图。

所有公司与社区 —— 创新成为一种持续流程

或许 BUIDL AI 最深远的影响是：让所有组织都能举办黑客松，不再局限于科技公司。

任何希望推动创新的机构——银行探索金融科技、医院网络寻找医疗科技方案、政府寻找公民科技创意——都可以利用 Agentic Hackathon。

创新不再是巨头的特权，它成为一项“云服务”，人人可用。

比如，一个城市政府可以举办全年黑客松，征集“智慧城市”解决方案，让本地开发者持续提出、建设项目以改善城市生活。

BUIDL AI 平台可以设置不同“赛道”：交通、能源、安全，每月评选最佳创意并给予奖励。

这比传统招标流程更加灵活，能更高效地激发社区活力与项目孵化。

同样地，任何担心被颠覆的财富500强公司（其实谁不担心？）都可以主动“自我颠覆”——通过黑客松邀请员工和外部创新者挑战企业自身难题。

在 agentic 模式下，即使是非技术型公司也能轻松参与；AI 会引导流程，保障运行顺畅。试想：黑客松成为每一家企业战略部门的“标配工具”，不断原型化未来。

正如 Marc Andreessen 所说，“软件正在吞噬整个世界”——而现在，每家公司都可以通过举办黑客松，参与“软件化”自身问题的过程。

这将推动跨行业的创新民主化。

尝试大胆创意的门槛大幅降低（周末黑客松 vs. 数月企业流程），更多潜在颠覆性创意将在企业内部浮现。

有了 DoraHacks 的全球影响力，企业也能轻松吸引外部创新者参与。

零售公司为何不能从全球黑客那里众包 AR 购物创意？

制药公司为何不办场生物信息学黑客松以探索数据分析新方法？

答案只有一个：没有理由不做。Agentic Hackathon 让一切变得可行、值得。

黑客松即服务（Hackathon-as-a-Service）将成为下一代的创新部门——要么使用它，要么被使用它的人超越。

结语：从偶发事件到创新基础设施的演进

所有上述变革，归结为一个深刻转变：黑客松正从一次性的活动，演变为创新生态系统中的常驻组成部分。

它们正成为像云计算、宽带网络一样的基础资源：随时可用，规模无限。

想获得新点子或原型？办场黑客松，让全球开发者接招。

想激活开发者社群？发布主题黑客松，提供舞台。

想试验10种解决方案？来一场比赛，看看谁跑出来。

我们正在见证所谓“创新公地（Innovation Commons）”的诞生：一个持续匹配问题与创意、迅速迭代解决方案的协 作空间。

AI是这片公地的维护者，保证运行高效、协作持久，不再需要消耗人为组织者的精力。

这也正好回应了人们对黑客松的批评：缺乏可持续性与后续跟进。

而在Agentic模型中，黑客松不再是孤岛——它们可以彼此衔接：上届的优胜团队可以直接晋级加速器，或参与下月的 新主题挑战。

BUIDL AI 甚至可以追踪团队进展，推荐资助机会、合作方、甚至下一步要申请的Grant，彻底解决过去“项目周末之后无人接手”的痛点。

好项目不会在周日夜晚“死掉”，而是被自动引导进入下一阶段的旅程。

我们还应认识到一种更深层的哲学意义：

创新文化，变得更具实验性、更重才智、更具节奏感。

在Agentic Hackathon的世界中，座右铭是：“为啥不原型一下？为啥不现在就试？”

因为启动一场实验的门槛如此之低，创新思维将像空气般流入每一个组织、每一个社区。

失败的成本极低（只需几周），成功的可能却极高（也许就是下一个突破）。

这是一块供“颠覆性想法”安全试验的沙盒，也正是解决《创新者的窘境》的现实路径：

结构性地为那些被视为“玩具”的想法，保留生长空间[5]。

企业无需在“核心业务”与“实验创新”之间二选一——他们可以为后者开设一条常驻黑客松轨道。

本质上，DoraHacks 与 BUIDL AI 打造了一座“创新工厂”——任何有远见的组织都可以“租用”一周末，甚至一年。

从 Like 按钮到点火升空：黑客松是创新的摇篮

要真正理解这个新时代的分量，我们不妨回顾一下——多少改变世界的创新，其实起源于黑客松项目或类似黑客松的实验，即使当时还受限于旧有模式。而现在，随着这些限制被移除，我们能期待的，将远远不止于此。 历史本身，就是黑客松创新模式的最佳佐证：

Facebook 的基因，由黑客松塑造

马克·扎克伯格本人曾表示，Facebook 的许多关键功能都来自公司内部的黑客松：“点赞”按钮、Facebook Chat、时间线功能，无一不是工程师们在通宵达旦的黑客松中迸发出的创意[1]。

一位实习生在黑客松中构建的“评论区标记好友”原型，在短短两周后就上线，触达了十亿用户[1]。Facebook 的核心理念“Move fast and break things（快速行动，大胆试错）”，几乎就是黑客松精神的官方化表达。

可以毫不夸张地说，Facebook 能在2000年代超越 MySpace，正是得益于其由黑客松推动的快速创新文化[1]。

如果黑客松能在一家公司的内部产生如此颠覆性作用，想象一下——当它成为全球网络时，创新的速度将怎样改变整个世界？

Google 的“20% 时间”项目：制度化的黑客精神

Google 长期鼓励员工将20%的时间投入到自由探索的副项目中，这本质上是黑客松理念的延伸：结构外的探索实验。 Gmail 和 Google News 就是这样诞生的。

此外，Google 也曾围绕其 API 举办公开黑客松（如 Android 黑客松），催生了无数应用。

换句话说，Google 将黑客式实验制度化，获得了巨大的创新红利。

如今借助 Agentic Hackathon，即便没有 Google 资源的公司，也能制度化实验文化。

世界各地的开发者，都可以把每个周末当作自己的“20%时间”，借由这些平台启动属于自己的探索。

开源运动的推进器：Hackathons + Open Source = 强生态

开源软件世界也从“代码冲刺”（黑客松形式）中受益匪浅。

例如整个 OpenBSD 操作系统的开发就离不开其定期举办的黑客松[3]。

近年来，Node.js 与 TensorFlow 等项目也都通过黑客松来构建工具与生态组件。

其结果是：更强壮的技术生态，更活跃的贡献者社群。

DoraHacks 也在延续这种传统，并将自己定位为“全球领先的黑客松社区与开源开发者激励平台”[17]。

开源与黑客松的结合——都去中心化、社群驱动、基于 meritocracy（才智主义）——本身就是创新引擎。

我们可以预见，未来开源项目将借助 BUIDL AI 启动“永不停歇的黑客松”：持续修复 bug、加入新功能、奖励优秀贡献者。

这将为开源世界注入新生命——不仅通过奖金提供激励，还能以系统化的方式提供认可与传播。

初创世界：黑客松造就新公司

众多初创企业的起点，都是黑客松。 我们已提到的 Carousell（起于Startup Weekend，估值超10亿美元[2]）、EasyTaxi（同样出自Startup Weekend，融资7500万美元[2]）。 再加上：

• Zapier（集成工具平台，灵感来自黑客松）
• GroupMe（如前所述，被Skype收购）
• Instacart（传说在Y Combinator Demo Day 黑客松中以早期版本夺得优胜）
• 以及无数加密初创项目（包括 Ethereum 创始人们的相识与合作也源于早期黑客松与比特币线下聚会）

如今，当 Coinbase 想寻找链上 AI 的下一个机会时，他们办一场黑客松[15]。

Stripe 想推动支付平台上的应用数量，也选择了办黑客松并发放 Bounty。

这种模式行之有效：找到充满热情的构建者，为他们提供跳板。

有了 Agentic Hackathon，这个跳板不再只是弹射一次，而是始终在线，能接住更多人。

这个“创业漏斗”变宽了，我们将看到更多初创企业诞生于黑客松。

完全可以想象：

2030年代最伟大的公司，不会诞生于车库，而是源自一场在线黑客松，由几个在 Discord 上认识的开发者，在 AI 导师协助下完成原型，并在 DoraHacks 平台数周内获得融资。

换句话说，“车库神话”已进化为全球、云端、AI驱动的创业现实。

黑客与画家：创造者的共鸣

Paul Graham 在《Hackers & Painters》中曾将“黑客”比作“画家”——两者皆为纯粹的创作者[16]。

而黑客松，正是这种创造能量最集中、最爆发的场域。

许多伟大程序员都会告诉你，他们最具灵感的作品，正是在黑客松或秘密小项目中完成的——在没有官僚主义的束缚 下，沉浸于“心流”中完成的创作。

扩大黑客松的规模与频率，本质上就是扩大人类的创造力边界。

我们或许会想起文艺复兴时期——艺术家与发明家聚集在赞助人举办的工坊中自由创作；而如今，黑客松就是现代文艺复兴的“创客工坊”。

它融合了艺术、科学与企业家精神。

若达·芬奇活在今天，他一定会如鱼得水地出现在黑客松中——他以疯狂原型迭代著称。

更重要的是：黑客松完美解决了《创新者的窘境》中的核心问题：鼓励人们去做那些 incumbent（巨头）不屑一顾、看似“小而无用”的项目——而那恰恰往往是颠覆性创新的藏身之处 [5]。

DoraHacks 正是通过制度化黑客松，制度化了颠覆本身——确保下一个 Netflix、Airbnb，不会因为“听起来像个玩具”而被错过。

黑客松已成为全球创新基础设施的一部分

我们已从“黑客松罕见且本地化”的时代，走到了“黑客松持续且全球化”的今天。

这不仅是节奏上的转变，更是全球创新基础设施的关键转折点。

19世纪，我们修建了铁路与电报，催化了工业革命，连接了市场与思想；

20世纪，我们构建了互联网与万维网，引爆了信息革命；

而今，21世纪，DoraHacks 与 BUIDL AI 正在搭建“创新高速公路”：一个持续运行、AI驱动的网络，

在全球范围内，实时连接解决者与问题、人才与机会、资本与创意。

这是为 创新本身修建的基础设施。

伟大的愿景：全球创新的新基础设施

我们正站在一个历史拐点上。

有了 DoraHacks 和 Agentic Hackathon（自主智能黑客松）的出现，创新不再局限于象牙塔、硅谷办公室，或一年一度的大会。

它正成为一项持续的全球性活动——一个随时随地聚集最聪明头脑与最大胆创意的竞技场。

这是一个未来：创新将像 Wi-Fi 一样无处不在，像摩尔定律一样不断加速。

这是 DoraHacks 正在主动构建的未来，而它所带来的影响将是深远的。

想象几年之后的世界：DoraHacks + BUIDL AI 成为跨行业创新项目的默认基础设施。

这个平台7×24不间断运转，承载着从 AI 医疗、气候变化应对，到艺术娱乐前沿的各类黑客松。

而且它不仅仅属于程序员——设计师、创业者、科学家，任何有创造力冲动的人，都能接入这张全球创新网络。

一个伦敦的创业者凌晨2点冒出商业点子；2点15分，她就在 DoraHacks 上发起一场48小时黑客松，AI 自动为她召集来自四大洲的协作者。

听起来疯狂？但未来这将成为常态。

亚洲某国突发环境危机，政府通过 BUIDL AI 紧急发起黑客松，数日内即收到来自全球的数十个可执行科技方案。 纽约某家风投基金希望发现新项目，不再只是等着 PPT 投递——他们直接赞助一场开放黑客松，要求提交原型，而非空谈构想。

这就是 Agentic 创新正在发生的方式：快速、无边界、智能协作。 在这个即将到来的时代，DoraHacks 将如同 GitHub 之于代码、AWS 之于初创企业一般，成为全球创新的基础平台。

你甚至可以称它为创新的 GitHub——不是一个存储代码的工具，而是项目诞生的土壤[17]。 DoraHacks 自称是“全球黑客运动的引擎”；而有了 BUIDL AI，它更成为这场运动的自动驾驶系统。

我们应将其视为全球公共创新基础设施的一部分：

正如高速公路运输货物、互联网传递信息，DoraHacks 传递的是创新本身——

从创意萌芽到落地实施，以惊人的速度。

当历史回顾2020年代，持续性、AI驱动的黑客松的诞生，将被视为人类创新模式变革的重要篇章。

这是一幅宏大但真实可触的愿景：

创新，将变成一场永恒的黑客松。

设想一下：

黑客精神深入社会每个角落，成为对现状的持续挑战，时刻发出这样的提问：

“我们如何改进这件事？”、“我们如何重新发明那件事？”

然后立刻号召人才，迅速投入行动。

这不是混乱，而是一种全新的、有组织、去中心化的研发模式。

一个大胆问题——“我们能治愈这种疾病吗？”、“我们能否让儿童教育更高效？”、“我们能不能让城市真正可持续？”—— 不再需要靠闭门造车的委员会来思考十年，而是一场全球黑客松，就可能在几天或几周内产生答案。 这将是一个创新不再稀缺、不再由少数人垄断，而是成为一项公共物品的世界。

一场开放的、胜者为王的比赛，不管解决方案来自斯坦福博士，还是拉各斯的自学黑客，只要够好，就能脱颖而出。 如果你觉得这听起来太理想，请看看我们已经走了多远：

黑客松从一个名不见经传的程序员聚会，变成了支撑十亿美元企业和全球关键技术的创新机制。 （别忘了，比特币本身就是黑客文化的产物！）

随着 DoraHacks 的壮大和 BUIDL AI 的腾飞，黑客松正朝着持续化与无处不在的方向稳步推进。 技术已经准备就绪，模式已经跑通，现在的关键是执行与普及。

而趋势已然明朗：

• 越来越多公司拥抱开放创新；
• 越来越多开发者远程工作、参与在线社区；
• AI 正快速成为每个创造过程的副驾驶。

DoraHacks 正站在这场转型的核心。

它拥有先发优势、全球社区、明确愿景。

他们的理念非常清晰：“为黑客运动提供永恒燃料”是他们的口号之一[18]。

在他们眼中，黑客松不仅是活动，更是一场必须永续进行的思维革命。 而 BUIDL AI，正是支撑这场永续革命的引擎。

这预示着一个未来：

DoraHacks + BUIDL AI，将成为全球创新关键基础设施的一部分，就像公共事业一样。

这是一张“创新电网”；一旦接入它，奇迹发生。

Marc Andreessen 常在文章中以“建造更好的未来”为信条，热情洋溢地谈论人类的进步。

如果秉持这一精神，我们可以大胆断言：

Agentic Hackathon 将重塑我们的未来——更快、更好。

它们将加速人类解决最难问题的速度，

动员更广泛的人才库，

以史无前例的节奏不断迭代方案。

它们将赋能每一个人——让地球上任何拥有创造力的人，立即就能获得工具、社群和机会，产生真正的影响，而不是“未来某天”。

这是一种深层次的民主化。

它呼应了早期互联网的精神：不需许可的创新（Permissionless Innovation）。

而 DoraHacks 正在将这一精神引入结构化的创新事件中，并将其延展为一种持久的创新模式。

总结：我们正目睹一场范式的彻底转变：黑客松被重塑，创新被解放。

旧模型的限制已被打破，

新范式的核心是：

高频黑客松、AI增强、结果导向。

DoraHacks 在 2020–2024 年引领了这场变革，

而随着 BUIDL AI 的登场，它即将开启下一个篇章——Agentic Innovation 的时代。

对投资者与有远见的领袖而言，这是一场集结号。

我们常说要“投资基础设施”，

那么现在，就是投资“创新本身的基础设施”。

支持 DoraHacks 和它的使命，

就像支持跨洲铁路或洲际高速的建造者，

只不过这次运载的是创意与突破。

网络效应巨大：每一场新增的黑客松、每一位新增的参与者，

都以复利效应提升整个生态系统的价值。

这是一场正和博弈（Positive-Sum Game），

DoraHacks 将是那个创造并捕捉全球价值的平台与社区。

DoraHacks 重新定义了黑客松：

它将黑客松从偶发行为变成了持续创新的系统方法。

在这个过程中，它敞开了创新之门，

引领我们进入一个全新的时代：

一个创新可以自主驱动、自组织、永不停歇的时代。

我们正站在这个新时代的黎明。

这是一个真正意义上：

拥有开发者，拥有世界的时代[14] 。

DoraHacks 正在确保：

无论你身在何处，只要你是开发者、黑客、梦想家，

你都能为这个世界的未来贡献力量。

前方的远景令人震撼——一个由全球黑客思维构成的智能蜂巢，

不断发明、持续发现，

由 AI 指引航向，

由 DoraHacks 与 BUIDL AI 领航。

这不仅仅是一个平台，

它是一项革命性的基础设施——创新的铁路，创意的高速。

请系好安全带：

DoraHacks 已经启程，

Agentic Innovation 的时代已经到来，

未来正以黑客松的速度，向我们疾驰而来。

这场黑客松，永不停歇。

而这，正是我们构建更美好世界的方式。

参考文献：

[1] Vocoli. (2015). Facebook’s Secret Sauce: The Hackathon . https://www.vocoli.com/blog/june-2015/facebook-s-secret-sauce-the-hackathon/

[2] Analytics India Magazine. (2023). Borne Out Of Hackathons . https://analyticsindiamag.com/ai-trends/borne-out-of-hackathons/

[3] Wikipedia. (n.d.). Hackathon: Origin and History . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackathon#Origin_and_history

[4] LinkedIn. (2024). This year marked my third annual participation in Microsoft’s Global… . https://www.linkedin.com/posts/clare-ashforth_this-year-marked-my-third-annual-participation-activity-7247636808119775233-yev-

[5] Glasp. (n.d.). Chris Dixon’s Quotes . https://glasp.co/quotes/chris-dixon

[6] ODaily. (2024). Naija HackAtom Hackathon Recap . https://www.odaily.news/en/post/5203212

[7] Solana. (2021). Meet the winners of the Riptide hackathon - Solana . https://solana.com/news/riptide-hackathon-winners-solana

[8] DoraHacks. (n.d.). BNB Grant DAO - DoraHacks . https://dorahacks.io/bnb

[9] Cointelegraph. (2021). From Hackathon Project to DeFi Powerhouse: AMA with 1inch Network . https://cointelegraph.com/news/from-hackathon-project-to-defi-powerhouse-ama-with-1inch-network

[10] Gemini. (2022). How Does STEPN Work? GST and GMT Token Rewards . https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/stepn-nft-sneakers-gmt-token-gst-crypto-move-to-earn-m2e

[11] CoinDesk. (2022). Inside DoraHacks: The Open Source Bazaar Empowering Web3 Innovations . https://www.coindesk.com/sponsored-content/inside-dorahacks-the-open-source-bazaar-empowering-web3-innovations

[12] LinkedIn. (n.d.). DoraHacks . https://www.linkedin.com/company/dorahacks

[13] Blockworks. (2022). Web3 Hackathon Incubator DoraHacks Nabs $20M From FTX, Liberty City . https://blockworks.co/news/web3-hackathon-incubator-dorahacks-nabs-20m-from-ftx-liberty-city

[14] Followin. (2024). BUIDL AI: The future of Hackathon, a new engine for global open source technology . https://followin.io/en/feed/16892627

[15] Coinbase. (2024). Coinbase Hosts Its First AI Hackathon: Bringing the San Francisco Developer Community Onchain . https://www.coinbase.com/developer-platform/discover/launches/Coinbase-AI-hackathon

[16] Graham, P. (2004). Hackers & Painters . https://ics.uci.edu/~pattis/common/handouts/hackerspainters.pdf

[17] Himalayas. (n.d.). DoraHacks hiring Research Engineer – BUIDL AI . https://himalayas.app/companies/dorahacks/jobs/research-engineer-buidl-ai

[18] X. (n.d.). DoraHacks . https://x.com/dorahacks?lang=en

@ bf95e1a4:ebdcc848

This is a part of the Bitcoin Infinity Academy course on Knut Svanholm's book Bitcoin: Sovereignty Through Mathematics. For more information, check out our Geyser page!

Holding On

In the old days, we Scandinavians had to save in order to prepare for the long winter. We chopped wood and salted meat in order to survive. In our current age of consumerism, however, we’ve forgotten all that and we pilgrim to the shopping malls as much as everyone else. No one seems to even have a savings account anymore. Interest rates are low, and we’re told to borrow and spend as much as we can. We’re bombarded with advertising for loans, mortgages, and financial services on a daily basis. Why? Because of our inability to understand the nature of money and its mechanics. Inflation is the underlying force that makes us squander rather than save. Inflation hinders us from reaping the fruits of our labor whenever we see fit, and it makes that very fruit rot. Bitcoin reverses the rotting process and provides us with a means of transporting the value of our labor not only through space but also through time.

The Stanford Marshmallow Experiments was a series of studies on delayed gratification conducted in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In these experiments, children were given a marshmallow or a cookie and were told that they would receive an additional one if they could control their urges and not touch the first one for fifteen minutes. Follow-up studies found that the kids who were able to resist the temptation of the first cookie tended to score better on SAT tests, have lower BMIs, and higher incomes than their less disciplined counterparts. Investing in your future self — in other words, resisting present temptation by delaying gratification — is the most effective skill you can cultivate for a brighter future. You reap what you sow. This can be described as having a low time preference. Having a low time preference is a fundamental factor in the economic success of any human endeavor. Not trying to catch fish with your hands for a couple of days in order to construct a rod or net when on a deserted island might make you hungry during those sacrificed days, but it will provide a better chance of catching fish in the future. Likewise, learning new skills now might lead to a higher salary in the future. Unfortunately, our current monetary system distorts our perceptions and incentives and favors those with a higher time preference — those who spend rather than save. We’re at a different point in history than the above-mentioned marooned fisherman. "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime," the saying goes. The ultimate goal should be to teach mankind to teach itself how to fish. What our current paradigm endorses is “give a man enough distractions, and he will stop thinking about finding better ways to support his loved ones and will succumb to whatever narrative you fill his head with, to make him work for you through taxes and inflation instead of for himself.”

In Bitcoin, people with a low time preference win. If you can resist the urge to sell, you will be rewarded in the future. The Bitcoin community refers to not selling as HODLing, which originated when a bitcointalk.org forumer named GameKyuubi misspelled the word holding in a now-famous post titled "I AM HODLING." The post became one of the Bitcoin community’s most prominent memes and a battle cry to resist the urge to sell during bear markets. Bitcoiners who have decided never to sell most or all of their holdings are referred to as HODLers of last resort. This term is not to be confused with the central banking term lender of last resort. The yearly highs in the price of Bitcoin are arguably less interesting than the yearly lows, which are practically decided by these HODLers of last resort. Considering its limited supply, all that Bitcoin needs to keep rising in price over the medium and long term are these people. Adoption and other metrics of measuring the success of Bitcoin are all dwarfed by the currency’s remarkable rise in value since its inception. The price has increased by a factor of ten approximately every three years. The best guarantee we have that it will keep doing so is Bitcoin’s limited supply combined with the HODLers of last resort.

In the Bitcoin space, and even more so in the cryptocurrency space on the whole, there’s a lot of talk about usage and adoption. We’re shown metrics of trading volumes and merchant acceptance, and we’re led to believe that these correlate with the short and long-term value in one way or another. While there may be truth in some of these theories, the most basic function of a deflationary asset is overlooked and rarely mentioned — the elephant in the room, so to speak. The best use for a commodity as scarce as Bitcoin is not to spend it or even to trade it but to save it and hold it for as long as you can. By doing so, you limit the number of coins in circulation. The more people that do this, the harder it will be to come by and the higher its price will be. Nothing on Earth is as scarce as Bitcoin. Nothing is as irreplicable, as immutable, and at the same time as portable as Bitcoin — its unique history and resistance to change have already proven this over and over. Its absolute scarcity is what gives Bitcoin its value, and ironically enough, this seems to be the hardest thing for people to understand about it. What if everyone in the network became a HODLer and decided to never sell, wouldn’t the network just slowly come to a halt? Not at all. Everyone has a price. Few would resist selling some of their Bitcoin if it could buy them a small city. There are price levels for each HODLer where reallocating financially may be a wise thing to do. A Bitcoin is also very divisible: The smallest unit, the satoshi, sometimes referred to as a sat, is one-hundred millionth of a Bitcoin. Even smaller units are made possible with the introduction of the Lightning Network, albeit not in the actual Bitcoin blockchain. Together, this enables Bitcoin to be highly saleable even at astronomical price levels.

What not having sound money has done to us is simply unfathomable. Imagine every person on Earth knowing that every transaction they’ll ever make will have a real impact on their future prosperity. We’re so used to inflationary currencies that most people don’t even realize why sound money is important. We’re so used to having a large cut of our income silently taken away from us that we don’t even realize how much of our day we spend working for someone else. Wars are funded by inflation. Imagine how many man-hours were put in by people who didn’t realize they were actually working for a war machine funded by a corrupt currency during World War II. Every time you use a fiat currency, you legitimize counterfeiting. Every time you use Bitcoin, you promote sound money. In fact, every time you don’t use your Bitcoin but save it instead, you promote sound money because sound money increases in value when the total number of coins in circulation is limited. It all sounds a bit magic and far-fetched, doesn’t it? Increased value over time, no matter what happens? Well, that is why many of us so-called Bitcoin Maximalists are so excited that we put our careers at risk for this technology. Once you realize what Bitcoin is and what it will do for the world, there is no way of un-realizing it. It really is mind-blowing.

At the beginning of time-that-actually-is-money — in other words, around 2009 — Bitcoin was mostly considered a toy for the cypherpunk movement. As its price started to grow rapidly, a small group of early investors became very wealthy, which in turn spawned a media hype around the phenomenon. Mainstream media remained largely skeptical, portraying Bitcoin as a pyramid scheme, a tulip craze, or a bubble at best. Most journalists simply couldn’t understand how an asset seemingly created out of thin air could have any long-term relevance. Some were frustrated because they thought that they’d missed the train. Many still do. In a world where companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon can rise from zero to world dominance in a decade, people tried to find the Next Big Thing — the next Bitcoin. This attracted charlatans and scammers to the field who launched hundreds of altcoins, claiming to someday be technically superior, faster, or more privacy-focused. What the snake-oil salespeople omitted were the crucial facts: their new coins and tokens were not decentralized (and therefore neither immutable nor censorship-resistant), did not have a fair distribution, and so on. What most people still don’t get is that if Bitcoin doesn’t work, nothing will. This is humanity’s best shot at sound money. It is also, very likely, our only shot at it.

Many venture capital firms, hedge funds, and retail investors were bamboozled by the buzzword frenzy and invested great sums in these quack tokens. This generated confusion in the market as many altcoins increased dramatically in price at an even higher rate than Bitcoin. Due to human nature and a lack of understanding of basic monetary economics, the bubble grew bigger and bigger until it inevitably popped and wiped out most of the useless alternative cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin experienced ups and downs as well, but they were less volatile. Bitcoin bottomed at levels well above the beginning of the previous bull run and then resumed rising just as it had done several times before. The victims of the altcoin craze will take note of this. They will learn the hard way what separates the original from the copycat. They will see the undisputable superiority of sound money. It’s just a matter of time. Time, which is money.

Every time the people of Venezuela, Turkey, Argentina, or Zimbabwe are screwed over by their respective central banking authorities and turn to Bitcoin to preserve their savings or income from rampant inflation, the world becomes more aware of Bitcoin as a store of value. In comparison to the Venezuelan Bolivar, there was no crash in Bitcoin at all. There’s also a good chance the really big players will accumulate aggressively during the next bull market, given that Bitcoin, for the moment, still represents a very small allocation of institutional and hedge fund investment. Consider what will happen when institutional investors and a growing number of larger nations start to see Bitcoin’s potentially limitless upside. At this point, central banks will start to accumulate Bitcoin in an attempt to keep up with reality. This will legitimize the technology even further.

It is still unclear when this will all play out. When it does, however, it will be the largest transfer of wealth from one medium to another in human history. Early investors, many of which are technically competent, will become financially independent and, therefore, able to contribute to the ecosystem full-time. More and more people will demand payment in Bitcoin for its ability to store value. Remember that the next block reward halving is just around the corner and that Bitcoin will have an even greater stock-to-flow ratio than gold in just a few years. After the halving in 2020, Bitcoin will have a supply inflation rate of approximately 1.8%, which is lower than the US Federal Reserve’s target 2% price inflation rate. It is important to remember that Bitcoin is still an experiment. Should the experiment work, however, hyperbitcoinization is just a matter of time.

The implications of giving everyone on Earth the ability to rot-proof the fruit of their labor and transport its value through time are hard to overstate. The closest thing we’ve had to it historically is gold, but gold is not very divisible and not very easy for the general public to get their hands on. More importantly, gold is not absolutely scarce. No one knows how much of it there is left buried in the Earth's crust. Investing in real estate has also been seen as a good store of value throughout the ages, but real estate needs a lot of maintenance and is not cheap to hold on to. Real estate is also relatively easy to confiscate in the event of political collapse. Bitcoin provides us with the potential ability to store any amount in our heads and pass it down through generations without anyone ever knowing we had it in the first place. It effectively endows each individual with the power possessed by the feudal kings to turn people into knights. Any bitcoiner can now dub any no-coiner into a fully-fledged time-proof bitcoiner.

About the Bitcoin Infinity Academy

The Bitcoin Infinity Academy is an educational project built around Knut Svanholm’s books about Bitcoin and Austrian Economics. Each week, a whole chapter from one of the books is released for free on Highlighter, accompanied by a video in which Knut and Luke de Wolf discuss that chapter’s ideas. You can join the discussions by signing up for one of the courses on our Geyser page. Signed books, monthly calls, and lots of other benefits are also available.

@ d34e832d:383f78d0

[npub16d8gxt2z4k9e8sdpc0yyqzf5gp0np09ls4lnn630qzxzvwpl0rgq5h4rzv]

Data Storage via Blobs in a Decentralized Manner
Blobs (Binary Large Objects) offer a flexible method of storing large chunks of data, and in the context of decentralized systems, they allow for secure, distributed storage solutions. In a decentralized world, where privacy and autonomy are key, managing data in a distributed manner ensures data isn't controlled or censored by a single entity. Here are three key systems enabling decentralized blob storage:

1. Blossom Server
   Blossom Server provides a decentralized platform for storing and sharing large blobs of data. Blossom Server allows users to host their own data and retrieve it from a decentralized network, ensuring that data is not stored in centralized servers. This platform is open-source, offering flexibility and security through peer-to-peer data storage.

2. Perkeep
   Perkeep (formerly known as Camlistore) is a decentralized data storage system that allows for storing blobs of data in a distributed manner. It focuses on the long-term storage of large data sets, such as personal collections of photos, videos, and documents. By using Perkeep, users can ensure that their data remains private and is not controlled by any central authority. The system uses a unique identifier to access data, promoting both privacy and integrity.

3. IPFS (InterPlanetary File System)
   IPFS is another popular decentralized file storage system that uses the concept of blobs to store and share data. IPFS allows users to store and access data in a decentralized manner by using a peer-to-peer network. Each piece of data is given a unique hash, ensuring that it is verifiable and tamper-proof. By leveraging IPFS, users can store everything from simple files to large applications, all without relying on centralized servers.

By using these decentralized data storage solutions, individuals and organizations can safeguard their information, increase privacy, and contribute to a more resilient and distributed internet infrastructure.

Higher-Level Goals for Blob Storage Blob storage via Blossom ,Perkeep and IPFS has goals to become a decentralized, self-sufficient protocol for data storage, management, and sharing. While some of these features are already being implemented, they represent a broader vision for the future of decentralized personal data management.

1. Filesystem Backups
   Allows for easy, incremental backups. Using the pk-put tool, users can back up files and directories quickly and efficiently. Incremental backups, which save only the changes made since the last backup, are essentially free, making Perkeep an efficient choice for backup solutions. This initial use case has already been implemented, providing seamless and secure backups for personal data.

2. Efficient Remote Filesystem
   The goal is to create a highly efficient, aggressively caching remote filesystem using Perkeep. A read-only version of this filesystem is already trivial to implement, while read-write functionality remains an area of active development. Every modification in the filesystem would be snapshotted implicitly, providing version control as a default. This would enable users to interact with their data in a remote environment while ensuring that every change is tracked and recoverable.

3. Decentralized Sharing System
   Perkeep is working towards enabling users to share data in a decentralized manner. The system will allow individuals to share anything with anyone or everyone, with privacy being the default setting. This decentralized sharing is already starting to work, and users can now share data with others while retaining control over who sees their information.

4. Blog / Photo Hosting / Document Management CMS
   Perkeep aims to replace traditional blog platforms, photo hosting services, and document management software. By running a personal blog, photo gallery, and document management system (CMS) on Perkeep, users will have full control over their content. Permissions will be configurable, allowing for personal or public sharing. The author intends to use Perkeep for his own blog, gallery, and document management needs, further demonstrating its versatility.

5. Decentralized Social Networking
   While still a lofty goal, decentralized social networking is a persistent aim for Perkeep. By implementing features like comments and tagging, users could attach metadata to images and content. Through claims, users could sign data and verify identities, promoting trust in social interactions. This would allow for decentralized social networking where users control their own data and interactions.

6. Import/Export Adapters for Hosted Web Services
   Perkeep intends to bridge the gap between decentralized storage and traditional hosted web services. This feature would allow users to mirror data between hosted services and their private Perkeep storage. Whether content is created in Perkeep or hosted services, the goal is to ensure that data is always backed up privately, ensuring users' data is theirs forever.

Combined Goals for Blossom and IPFS

Both Blossom and IPFS share common goals of decentralizing data storage, enhancing privacy, and providing users with greater control over their data. Together, these technologies enable:

• Self-Sovereign Data Management: Empowering users to store and manage their data without relying on centralized platforms.
• Resilient and Redundant Storage: Offering decentralized and redundant data storage that ensures availability and security.
• Private and Permissioned Sharing: Enabling secure, private data sharing where the user controls who has access to their content.

By focusing on these goals, both Blossom and IPFS are contributing to a future where individuals control their own data, collaborate more efficiently in decentralized networks and P4P protocols, and ensure the privacy and security of their digital assets.

These technologies in conjunction with nostr lead one to discover user agency and autonomy, where you can actually own and interface with your own data allowing for value creation and content creation strategies.

Donations via
- lightninglayerhash@getalby.com

@ 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.

@ d34e832d:383f78d0

Decentralized Publishing: ChainScribe: How to Approach Studying NIPs (Nostr Improvement Proposals)

[npub16d8gxt2z4k9e8sdpc0yyqzf5gp0np09ls4lnn630qzxzvwpl0rgq5h4rzv]

How to Approach Studying NIPs (Nostr Improvement Proposals)

NIPs (Nostr Improvement Proposals) provide a framework for suggesting and discussing improvements to the Nostr protocol, a decentralized network for open communication. Studying NIPs is crucial for understanding the evolution of Nostr and its underlying principles. To effectively approach this, it's essential to follow a systematic, structured process.

1. Familiarize with the Nostr Protocol: Before diving into the specifics of each NIP, gain a solid understanding of the core Nostr protocol. This includes its goals, architecture, and key components like pubkeys, events, and relays.
2. Explore the NIP Catalog: Visit nostr-nips.com to browse through the available NIPs. Focus on the most recent proposals and those that align with your interests or areas of expertise.
3. Review the Proposal Structure: Each NIP follows a standard structure, typically including a description of the problem, proposed solution, and rationale. Learn to read and evaluate these elements critically, paying attention to how each proposal aligns with Nostr’s decentralized ethos.
4. Follow Active Discussions: Many NIPs are actively discussed within the community. Follow relevant channels, such as GitHub issues or dedicated discussion forums, to understand community feedback and potential revisions.
5. Understand Dependencies: Some NIPs are designed to work in tandem with others or require other technological advancements. Recognize these relationships to better understand the broader implications of any proposal.
6. Hands-On Testing: If possible, test NIPs in a development environment to see how they function in practice. Experimenting with proposals will help deepen your understanding and expose potential challenges or flaws.
7. Contribute to Proposals: If you have insights or suggestions, contribute to the discussion or propose your own improvements. NIPs thrive on community participation, and your input can help shape the future of Nostr.

Donations via
- lightninglayerhash@getalby.com

@ 266815e0:6cd408a5

noStrudel

Released another major version of noStrudel v0.42.0 Which included a few new features and a lot of cleanup

nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzqfngzhsvjggdlgeycm96x4emzjlwf8dyyzdfg4hefp89zpkdgz99qyghwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tcpzfmhxue69uhkummnw3e82efwvdhk6tcqp3hx7um5wf6kgetv956ry6rmhwr

Blossom

On the blossom front there where a few more PRs - Expanded the documentation around CORS headers in BUD-01 thanks to nostr:npub1a6we08n7zsv2na689whc9hykpq4q6sj3kaauk9c2dm8vj0adlajq7w0tyc - Made auth optional on the /upload endpoint PR - Added a HEAD /media endpoint for BUD-05 PR - Added range request recommendations to BUD-01 PR

With blossom uploads starting to be supported in more nostr clients users where starting to ask where to find a list of blossom servers. so I created a simple nostr client that allows users to post servers and leave reviews blossomservers.com Its still very much a work in progress (needs login and server and review editing) The source is on github

I also started another project to create a simple account based paid blossom server blossom-account-server Unfortunately I got sidetracked and I didn't have the time to give it the attention it needs to get it over the finish line

Smaller projects

• cherry-tree A small app for uploading chunked blobs to blossom servers (with cashu payment support)
• vite-plugin-funding A vite plugin to collect and expose package "funding" to the app
• node-red-contrib-rx-nostr The start of a node-red package for rx-nostr. if your interested please help
• node-red-contrib-applesauce The start of a node-red package for applesauce. I probably wont finish it so any help it welcome

Plans for 2025

I have a few vague ideas of what I want to work on Q1 of 2025. but there are a few things i know for certain.

I'm going to keep refactoring noStrudel by moving core logic out into applesauce and making it more modular. This should make noStrudel more reliable and hopefully allow me to create and maintain more apps with less code

And I'm going to write tests. tests for everything. hopefully tests for all the libraries and apps I've created in 2024. A lot of the code I wrote in 2024 was hacky code to see if things could work. and while its been working pretty well I'm starting to forget the details of of the code I wrote so I cant be sure if it still works or how well it works.

So my solution is to write tests, lots of tests :)

@ 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.

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

President Trump has intensified immigration enforcement, likening it to a wartime effort. Despite pouring resources into the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), arrest numbers are declining and falling short of goals. ICE fell from about 800 daily arrests in late January to fewer than 600 in early February.

Critics argue the administration is merely showcasing efforts with ineffectiveness, while Trump seeks billions more in funding to support his deportation agenda. Increased involvement from various federal agencies is intended to assist ICE, but many lack specific immigration training.

Challenges persist, as fewer immigrants are available for quick deportation due to a decline in illegal crossings. Local sheriffs are also pressured by rising demands to accommodate immigrants, which may strain resources further.

@ 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

@ c4b5369a:b812dbd6

As promised in my last article:

nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzp394x6dfmvn69cduj7e9l2jgvtvle7n5w5rtrunjlr6tx6up9k7kqq2k6ernff9hw3tyd3y453rdtph5uvm6942kzuw08y0

In this one we will dive into how exactly an unidirectional payments channel powered ecash mint system would be implemented, using the tech available today! So if you haven't read that article yet, give it a read!

I first intended to write a longwinded article, explaining each part of the system. But then I realized that I would need some visualization to get the message across in a more digestable way. This lead me to create a slide deck, and as I started to design the slides it became more and more clear that the information is easier shown with visualizations, than written down. I will try to give a summary as best as I can in this article, but I urge you, to please go visit the slide deck too, for the best experience:

---

TAKE ME TO THE SLIDE DECK!

---

Intro

In this article we will go over how we can build unidirectional payment channels on Bitcoin. Then we will take a look into how Cashu ecash mints work, and how we can use unidirectional payment channels to change the dynamics between ecash users and the mint.

Before we start, let me also give credits to nostr:npub1htnhsay5dmq3r72tukdw72pduzfdcja0yylcajuvnc2uklkhxp8qnz3qac for comming up with the idea, to nostr:npub148jz5r9xujcjpqygk69yl4jqwjqmzgrqly26plktfjy8g4t7xaysj9xhgp for providing an idea for non-expiring unidirectional channels, and nostr:npub1yrnuj56rnen08zp2h9h7p74ghgjx6ma39spmpj6w9hzxywutevsst7k5cx unconference for hosting an event where these ideas could be discussed and flourish.

Building unidirectional payment channels

If you've read the previous article, you already know what unidirectional payment channels are. There are actually a coupple different ways to implement them, but they all do have a few things in common:

1. The sender can only send
2. The Receiver can only receive
3. They are VERY simple

Way simpler than the duplex channels like we are using in the lightning network today, at least. Of course, duplex channels are being deployed on LN for a reason. They are very versatile and don't have these annoying limitations that the unidirectional payment channels have. They do however have a few drawbacks:

1. Peers have liveness requirements (or they might forfeit their funds)
2. Peers must backup their state after each transaction (if they don't they might forfeit their funds)
3. It is a pretty complex system

This article is not meant to discredit duplex channels. I think they are great. I just also think that in some use-cases, their requirements are too high and the system too complex.

But anyway, let's see what kind of channels we can build!

Spillman/CLTV-Channel

The Spillman channel idea has been around for a long time. It's even explained in Tadge Dryjas Presentation on Payment channels and the lightning network from back in the day. I compiled a list of some of the most important propperties of them in the slide below:

Great!

Now that we know their properties, let's take a look at how we can create such a channel (Slides):

We start out by the sender creating a funding TX. The sender doesn't broadcast the transaction though. If he does, he might get locked into a multisig with the receiver without an unilateral exit path.

Instead the sender also creates a refund TX spending the outputs of the yet unsigned funding TX. The refund TX is timelocked, and can only be broadcast after 1 month. Both sender and receiver can sign this refund TX without any risks. Once sender receives the signed refund TX, he can broadcast the funding TX and open the channel. The sender can now update the channel state, by pre-signing update transactions and sending them over to the receiver. Being a one-way channel, this can be done in a single message. It is very simple. There is no need for invalidating old states, since the sender does not hold any signed update TXs it is impossible for the sender to broadcast an old state. The receiver only cares about the latest state anyways, since that is the state where he gets the most money. He can basically delete any old states. The only thing the receiver needs to make sure of, is broadcasting the latest update TX before the refund TX's timelock expires. Otherwise, the sender might take the whole channel balance back to himself.

This seems to be already a pretty useful construct, due to its simplicity. But we can make it even more simple!

This setup works basically the same way as the previous one, but instead of having a refund transaction, we build the timelock spend path directly into the funding TX This allows the sender to have an unilateral exit right from the start, and he can broadcast the funding TX without communicating with the receiver. In the worst case, the receiver rejects the channel, and the sender can get his money back after the timelock on the output has expired. Everything else basically works in the same way as in the example above.

The beauty about this channel construct is in its simplicity. The drawbacks are obvious, but they do offer some nice properties that might be useful in certain cases.

One of the major drawbacks of the Spillman-style channels (apart from being unidirectional) is that they expire. This expiry comes with the neat property that neither of the party has to watch the chain for channel closures, and the sender can operate the channel with zero additional state, apart from his private keys. But they do expire. And this can make them quite inflexible. It might work in some contexts, but not so much in others, where time needs to be more flexible.

This is where Roose-Childs triggered channels come into play.

Roose-Childs triggered channel

(I gave it that name, named after nostr:npub148jz5r9xujcjpqygk69yl4jqwjqmzgrqly26plktfjy8g4t7xaysj9xhgp and nostr:npub1htnhsay5dmq3r72tukdw72pduzfdcja0yylcajuvnc2uklkhxp8qnz3qac . If someone knows if this idea has been around before under a different name, please let us know!)

Roose-Childs triggered channels were an idea developed by Steven and Luke at the nostr:npub1yrnuj56rnen08zp2h9h7p74ghgjx6ma39spmpj6w9hzxywutevsst7k5cx unconference. They essentially remove the channel expiry limitation in return for introducing the need for the sender to create a channel backup at the time of channel creation, and for the receiver the need to watch the chain for trigger transactions closing the channel.

They also allow for splicing funds, which can be important for a channel without expiry, allowing the sender to top-up liquidity once it runs out, or for the receiver taking out liquidity from the channel to deploy the funds elsewhere.

Now, let's see how we can build them!

The funding TX actually looks the same as in the first example, and similarly it gets created, but not signed by the sender. Then, sender and receiver both sign the trigger TX. The trigger TX is at the heart of this scheme. It allows both sender and receiver to unilaterally exit the channel by broadcasting it (more on that in a bit).

Once the trigger TX is signed and returned to the sender, the sender can confidently sign and boradcast the funding TX and open the channel. The trigger TX remains off-chain though. Now, to update the channel, the sender can pre-sign transactions in similar fashion to the examples above, but this time, spending the outputs of the unbroadcasted trigger TX. This way, both parties can exit the channel at any time. If the receiver wants to exit, he simply boradcasts the trigger TX and immediately spends its outputs using the latest update TX. If the sender wants to exit he will broadcast the trigger TX and basically force the receivers hand. Either, the receiver will broadcast the latest update TX, or the sender will be able to claim the entire channel balance after the timelock expired.

We can also simplify the receiver's exit path, by the sender pre-signing an additional transaction R exit TX for each update. this way, the receiver only needs to broadcast one transaction instead of two.

As we've mentioned before, there are some different trade-offs for Roose-Childs triggered channels. We introduce some minimal state and liveness requirements, but gain more flexibility.

Ecash to fill in the gaps

(I will assume that the reader knows how ecash mints work. If not, please go check the slides where I go through an explanation)

Essentially, we are trying to get a lightning like experience, without all the lightning complexities and requirements. One big issue with ecash, is that it is fully custodial. If we can offset that risk by holding most of the funds in a self custodial channel, we can have a reasonable trade-off between usability and self custody.

In a system like that, we would essentially turn the banking model onto its head. Where in a traditional bank, the majority of the funds are held in the banks custody, and the user only withdraws into his custody what he needs to transact, in our model the user would hold most funds in his own custody.

If you ask me, this approach makes way more sense. Instead of a custodian, we have turned the "bank" into a service provider.

Let's take a look at how it would work in a more practical sense:

The ecash user would open an unidirectional payment channel to the mint, using one of his on-chain UTXOs. This allows him then to commit incrementally funds into the mints custody, only the amounts for his transactional needs. The mint offers connectivity to the lightning network an handles state and liveness as a service provider.

The ecash user, can remain offline at all times, and his channel funds will always be safe. The mint can only ever claim the balance in the channel via the update TXs. The mint can of course still decide to no longer redeem any ecash, at which point they would have basically stolen the ecash user's transactional balance. At that point, it would probably be best for the ecash user to close his channel, and no longer interact or trust this mint.

Here are some of the most important points of this system summarized:

And that is basically it! I hope you enjoyed this breakdown of Unidirectional payment channel enabled Ecash mints!

If you did, consider leaving me a zap. Also do let me know if this type of breakdown helps you understand a new topic well. I am considering doing similar breakdowns on other systems, such as ARK, Lightning or Statechains, if there is a lot of interest, and it helps people, I'll do it!

Pleas also let me know what you think about the unidirectional channel - ecash mint idea in the comments. It's kind of a new idea, an it probably has flaws, or things that we haven't thought about yet. I'd love to discuss it with you!

I'll leave you with this final slide:

Cheers,

Gandlaf